CAR_Public/190314.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 14, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 53

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Mathis Says Combat Arms Earplugs Defective
ALINA SERVICES: Langston Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ALPHASTAFF INC: Rice Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ANTHEM: Has Yet to Respond to Pathway Insurance Class Action
BANK INDEPENDENT: Gamez Files Civil Rights Suit in Calif.

BP EXPLORATION: Court Stays E. Avila's Physical Injury Suit
CANADA: Settles Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits Case
CASSENA CARE: Olsen Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
COMHAR GROUP: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Calif.
COOPERSURGICAL, INC: Sawyer Seeks Class Certification
CORAL TINT AND ACCESSORIES: Devivo Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
CORNING CORP: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Knapper Suit

CRUS-Z FAMILY CORP: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
CVR REFINING: Common Units Being Sold Too Cheaply, Bonnell Says
CVR REFINING: Graulich Alleges Breach of Call Right
DELAWARE, PA: Beamer Granted Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California

EPIC GAMES: Krohm Sues over Theft of Fortnite Gamers' Data
EVERQUOTE INC: Townsend Files IPO-related Class Action
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Converts Dismissal Bid to Summary Judgment Bid
FRONTIER ACCESS: Green Claims Compensation for Missed Breaks
GANNETT CO: Dispute Over Pella Class Action Settlement Ongoing

GC SERVICES: Bonoan Sues for TCPA Breach Over Autodialed Calls
GEICO CASUALTY: Butta Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
GENERAL MILLS: Settlement in Weninger FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
GET FRESH: Collects Biometric Info Without Consent, Ralph Claims
GRAIN PROCESSING: Settles Class Action Over Nuisance Emissions

HIGH MAY: Accused by Gao of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
HOT CHICKS: Raham Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
INLAND PRODUCTS: Court Enlarges Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
J.C. PENNEY: Court Dismiss Class Action Claims in Garrido
JACKSON, TN: Sued Over Failure to Properly Sworn in Warrants

JAY'S LANDSCAPING: Fitchborn Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
JL AUDIO: Bishop Files ADA Suit in New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Allowed to Block Mandatory Arbitration
JONATHAN NEIL: Court Vacates Hearing Schedule in Brown
KHODAL MAA INC: Mayo Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Seeks OT Pay for Skilled Clinicians
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Jury Trial in J. Underwood Suit
L PLUS L: Zamora Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
LIGHTHOUSE MARINA: Faces Bishop Suit Alleging ADA Breach
LOUIS MARINE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MARTIN-BROWER CO: Court OKs Cy Pres Beneficiary in J. Titus Suit
MAUI JIM: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Leggett Files Suit Over Sale to Tesla
MDL 2875: Valsartan Products Liability Litigation to D.N.J.
MIDLAND BOAT: Faces Bishop Suit Asserting ADA Violation

MIDLAND CREDIT: Moore Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MOLSON COORS: Mathes Sues over Misleading Finacial Report
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues for Injury Over Roundup Exposure
MONTAUK YACHT: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
MRS BPO: Violates TCPA, Giles Suit Alleges

MY ROULA INC: Perros Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime Pay
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McCormick Files Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Dash Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Demartino Suit Moved to E.D. New York
NCAA: Keith Williams Sues over Safety of Concord Student-Athletes

NCAA: Kerns Sues over Safety of IUB Student-Athletes
NCAA: Milburn Sues over Safety of Toledo Student-Athletes
NCAA: Murray Sues over Safety of OSU Student-Athletes
NCAA: Pinkney Sues over Safety of WSU Student-Athletes
NCAA: Stewart Sues over Safety of Cincinnati Student-Athletes

NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: Class Action Improperly Decertified, Court Says
NORTHROP: Allen Sues for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation
ONE FIFTY: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Summary Judgment Denial in Maor
OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Toliver et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
PARED INC: Feldman Files Suit Under TCPA Over Spam Ads

PF STOCKTON: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Lockett Seeks to Recover Minimum/OT Wages
POPSUGAR: Must Face Fashion Blogger's Class Action

PREFERRED HOME: Hyppolite Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Thompson Files Class Action in Wisconsin
PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jucha Says
REGIONAL ONE: Aleman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
REIMER LAW: N.D. Ohio Strikes Class Claims in Glazer FDCA Suit

RELIANT WIRING: Campos Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Dismisses Usury Claim in P. Blair's Suit
SAIGON CAFE: Cortez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
SAKS INCORPORATED: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Amendment Leave Denial
SALOMON SMITH: Alston Attorneys Discuss New Class Action Theory

SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Premium
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tompkins FDCPA Suit
SHOEDAZZLE.COM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
SIDESHOW INC.: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
SILDAN CORPORATION: Olsen Files ADA Class Action in NY

SITEL OPERATING: Foster Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
SMITH COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Action Over Voter Registration List
SOGOU INC: Bishop Sues over Misleading Securities Statements
SOGOU: Investors Sue Over Failure to Disclose Regulatory Issues
SPIN THE PLANET: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Wage & Hour Suit

SUNRISE INFINITI: Martello Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
THAI TASTE: Barajas Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
TRACFONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Ad Texts
TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Franchi Challenges Sale to Siris Capital
TRIBECA AUTOMOTIVE: J. Roberts' Suit Remanded to NJ State Court

U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Amaral Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
UNITED FEDERAL: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Gunter Settlement
UNITED STATES: Court Issues Injunctive Relief in K. Tiwari Suit
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Video Teleconferencing

US ZHIMINGDE: Ruixue Fan Files Securities Class Action in NY
UXIN LIMITED: Faces Chiu Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price
VALE SA: Minas Gerais to Sue Over Brumadinho Dam Disaster
WE SUPERLATIVE: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
WEST 171: Court Certifies Rent Fraud Suit as Class Action

[*] BakerHostetler Issues Q4 2018 Insurance Class Action Update
[*] Competition Bureau, DPP Revise Immunity and Leniency Programs
[*] Dechert Attorneys Examine Life Sciences Securities Suits

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Mathis Says Combat Arms Earplugs Defective
------------------------------------------------------
A case, NATHANIEL MATHIS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-20606-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2019), seeks to:

     (1) establish a Court-supervised fund to provide medical
monitoring to active-duty and veteran service members of the armed
forces of the United States of America due to their increased risk
from using 3M's defective products, and

     (2) on behalf of himself and all other similarly- situated
individuals, for personal injuries incurred while in training
and/or on active military duty, resulting from Defendant's
defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended Combat
Arms (TM) earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2).

The case is a civil action arising out of serious and permanent
personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, a veteran of the
United States military, while in training and/or on active military
duty domestically and abroad. The Plaintiff used Defendant's
dangerously defective Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs while
deployed in Iraq and during other training and combat exercises.
The Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs to the
U.S. military for more than a decade without the military and/or
the Plaintiff having any knowledge of the defect(s) and failed to
adequately warn the military and/or the Plaintiff of the
defect(s).

According to the complaint, Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM)
earplugs were standard issue in certain branches of the military
(including the Plaintiff's) between at least 2003 to at least 2015.
Thus, Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs have likely
caused thousands, if not millions, of soldiers to suffer
significant hearing loss, and additional injuries related to
hearing loss, including but not limited to pain and suffering and
loss of the pleasures of life.

The Defendant is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
selling worker safety products, including hearing protectors and
respirators. Defendant has a dominant market share in virtually
every safety product market, including hearing protection.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class

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

               - and -

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

ALINA SERVICES: Langston Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA LANGSTON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals v. ALINA SERVICES CORP, IRIDIUM SERVICES CORP., and
IGOR KOMSKY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01043 (E.D.N.Y., February 21, 2019),
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate and
other damages.

Alina Services Corp. and Iridium Services Corp. are domestic
business corporations, organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York, with a place of business located in Douglaston,
New York.  Igor Komsky is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants provide transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374-0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374-9931
          E-mail: ls@jfslaw.net


ALPHASTAFF INC: Rice Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Rice and Randy Banfi, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AlphaStaff, Inc. and
David Jefferson, Sr., personally and individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01387 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2019) is a Class and
Collective Action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated call center employees who were employed at
the Defendants' call center locations in Northern Illinois, to
recover for the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours
per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all
their overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA and the
Illinois wage and hour laws.

This improper calculation of the overtime pay rate was a result of
Defendants' willful failure to include commissions earned in
calculating Plaintiffs' proper overtime premium pay rate, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Defendants as an hourly CCA
from on, or around, April 2, 2018, until on, or around October 11,
2018.

AlphaStaff was involved in the development and implementation of
ServiCom's human resource policies and payroll practices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: (630) 232-6333
     Facsimile: (630) 845-8982

          - and -

     Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
     Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
     JOHNSONBECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
            mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


ANTHEM: Has Yet to Respond to Pathway Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Inman, Esq., writing for RACmonitor Compliance, reports that
individual policyholders in Georgia launch a class-action lawsuit
against Anthem for deceptive sales.

Frances Kirby and John David Marks, two individual policyholders
from Cook County, Georgia, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal
court in Atlanta against Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Georgia for allegedly misleading them and thousands of other
similarly situated consumers in the sale of Anthem's Pathway health
insurance plans.

Pathway is a product available through a Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act Health Care Exchange for consumers seeking
individual and family health insurance policies. The gravamen of
the complaint is that during the most recent open enrolment period,
from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, 2018, Anthem allegedly fraudulently induced
Georgia consumers to buy Anthem's individual health coverage by
falsely representing that WellStar Health System, Inc., Georgia's
largest healthcare provider, was an in-network covered provider --
when in fact, Anthem allegedly had notified WellStar several months
earlier, in August 2018, that WellStar services would no longer be
covered by the Pathway plan.

The complaint alleges the following as ranking among the deceptive
business practices in which Anthem engaged:

Throughout the enrollment period, the "provider finder" tool on
Anthem's website included WellStar doctors and hospitals as
in-network providers, despite the company knowing they would not be
in-network after Feb. 4, 2019, one month after the new policy was
issued; To enroll for Anthem's Pathway individual insurance plan,
new policyholders were required to select a primary care physician
(PCP), and WellStar doctors were included among the list of
qualifying PCPs policyholders could choose; and In some instances,
Anthem issued health insurance cards to plaintiffs that included
the name of a WellStar doctor on the card, while failing to inform
consumers that the coverage would be terminated and those PCPs
would no longer be in-network on Feb. 4, 2019.

The plaintiffs appear to take particular umbrage at the contention
that Anthem never communicated clearly about the fact that the
WellStar contract would be canceled one month into the new policy
period, meaning WellStar providers would no longer be available.
Instead, the complaint alleges, policyholders had to learn this
news from their WellStar providers and/or the public statement
WellStar issued indicating that WellStar services no longer were
being covered by Anthem/Blue Cross Blue Shield's Pathway plan.  

If the allegations are proved, the consequences for individual
consumers could be significant. According to the complaint, the two
named plaintiffs both have significant health issues, requiring
them to be seen regularly by their WellStar PCPs and a large number
of WellStar specialists. The plaintiffs allege they only chose
Anthem over their previous health insurer after confirming that
their WellStar primary care physicians and specialists and WellStar
hospital were represented as in-network. They will experience a
lapse in treatment as they seek to secure other in-network
providers (from a provider list that is sparse due to the
elimination of the WellCare providers) and will have to travel 25
miles to the next-closest covered hospital, the complaint alleges.

Since the open enrollment period is now closed, the plaintiffs also
allege that consumers are locked into their Pathway plans under
November 2019 and will continue to pay premiums for a health
insurance product with fewer providers and hospitals, which many
would not have purchased had they known the truth: that WellStar
would not be in-network.

Since the case was only filed recently, RACmonitor Compliance has
not had an opportunity to hear Anthem's response to the
allegations. Anthem announced that it was extending benefits
regarding WellStar PCPs for another 90 days, until May 4, 2019.
Media outlets such as Becker's Hospital Review and the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution are reporting that this change came at the
prodding of the Georgia Department of Insurance, which governs
whether health insurers are meeting legal standards with their
policy offerings.

RACmonitor Compliance will continue to monitor this case as it
develops, including as the defendants respond and the plaintiffs
move the court to get a Georgia class certified. [GN]


BANK INDEPENDENT: Gamez Files Civil Rights Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank Independent. The
case is styled as Joshua Gamez individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank Independent, an
Alabama corporation, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01421 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Bank Independent provides personal and business banking products
and services to communities in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
     Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
     4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


BP EXPLORATION: Court Stays E. Avila's Physical Injury Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order granting Plaintiff Ermid Avila's Motion
to Stay in the case captioned ERMID F. AVILA, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., et al., SECTION: "G" (1). Civil Action Case No.
18-6081. (E.D. La.).

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants BP Exploration &
Production Inc. and BP America Production Company, alleging that
exposure to crude oil and other hydrocarbons following the BP oil
spill, which occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010,
caused the Plaintiff chronic conjunctivitis and chronic
pharyngitis.

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Back End
Litigation Option (BELO) of the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement Agreement (MSA) entered in the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill Litigation, MDL 2179. The MSA provides the sole
remedy to certain class members, including oil spill clean-up
workers like Plaintiff, to sue Defendants for Later-Manifested
Physical Conditions (LMPC) as defined by the MSA.

Plaintiff's Arguments in Support of the Motion to Stay

The Plaintiff argues that a stay is warranted in this case because
there are additional LMPCs that may be added to this litigation at
a later date, and a stay would aid the Court in efficiently
adjudicating all claims. Plaintiff states that on August 6, 2018,
he submitted a new NOIS to the Claims Administrator regarding two
additional LMPCs for chronic diarrhea and Gastroesophageal Reflux
Disease (GERD). The Plaintiff contends that if the Claims
Administrator decides that the NOIS complies with the MSA, the
Claims Administrator will send the NOIS to Defendants for their
decision on whether or not to mediate the claims.

The Plaintiff states that the Claims Administrator has not yet
informed him of whether the Defendants will mediate the new LMPCs,
and thus, he remains unsure whether he will later seek leave to
amend the complaint. The Plaintiff insists that it would be
duplicative and inefficient for the parties to conduct discovery
and then seek leave to amend the complaint after the case has
significantly progressed. The Plaintiff contends that it would be
premature for the parties to conduct the scheduling conference
before the Claims Administrator approves the additional medical
conditions, issues a valid NOIS, and BP Defendants decide whether
to mediate.

Defendants' Arguments in Opposition to the Motion to Stay

The Defendants argue that the Court should deny the Plaintiff's
request for a stay because the purported ground for the motion is
factually inaccurate and legally without merit. First, the
Defendants assert that the Plaintiff misrepresents the new NOIS
because it lists only chronic diarrhea, not GERD.

The Defendants also allege that chronic diarrhea and GERD are not
new conditions because both were listed on the medical form that
Plaintiff submitted for his first NOIS in 2013.

The Defendants aver that under the MSA, a claim for an injury or
illness may be alleged in a BELO lawsuit only if the Plaintiff has
first satisfied all of the MSA's conditions precedent. One of those
conditions precedent is submission of a timely NOIS to the Claims
Administrator. An NOIS is timely only if it was submitted within
four years of the date the physical condition was first diagnosed
or the MSA's effective date (February 12, 2014), whichever is
later. The Defendants argue that because chronic diarrhea and GERD
were listed on the Plaintiff's medical form dated February 28,
2013, he was required to file a claim regarding these conditions by
February 12, 2018, four years from the effective date of the MSA.

Therefore, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's second NOIS
will be denied by the Claims Administrator as untimely and there
will be no additional claims added to the case.

Plaintiffs' Arguments in Further Support of the Motion to Stay

In reply, the Plaintiff argues that the Court should issue a stay
in the case because the second NOIS does not include untimely
claims, the claims may be added at a later date, and proceeding
with the case would create hardship for the parties and the Court.
The Plaintiff contends that acute diarrhea was listed on his
February 28, 2013 medical record, but the record clearly indicated
that there was only a complaint of this condition, not a diagnosis.

The Plaintiff asserts that since his 2013 examination, the
diarrhea has worsened over time and is now officially diagnosed as
a chronic condition. The Plaintiff also alleges that the 2013
medical record listed stomach function disorder as a condition he
complained of, but this condition, which was also not diagnosed, is
different from the GERD diagnosis that is included on the new NOIS.


Therefore, the Plaintiff argues that chronic diarrhea and GERD are
newly diagnosed conditions, and the second NOIS was not untimely.

Defendants' Arguments in Further Opposition to the Motion to Stay

In the sur-reply, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not
proven that he is entitled to a stay in this case. The Defendants
contend that the Plaintiff has not provided the Court with
documentation proving his new diagnoses because the Plaintiff
failed to include evidence of his new conditions or the date of
their diagnosis in either his motion or his reply. The Defendants
aver that because the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of
his alleged conditions, he has not shown that he has satisfied the
conditions precedent for another BELO lawsuit under the MSA. The
Defendants argue that this is fatal to the Plaintiff's motion.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff cannot meet the legal
standards for a stay because he did not meet his.
  
Pursuant to United States Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit
precedent, it is well settled that a district court has the
inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants, and that this authority includes the district
court's wide discretion to grant a stay in a pending matter. The
Supreme Court has instructed that a party requesting a stay must
make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to
go forward if there is even a fair possibility that the stay would
harm another party.  

Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has shown that a stay of
this matter is warranted. Under the MSA, claimants are only allowed
to file a BELO action after the Claims Administrator determines
that the NOIS complies with the terms of the MSA and the Defendants
decline to mediate. The Plaintiff submitted his second NOIS to the
Claims Administrator on August 6, 2018. The Claims Administrator
has not yet rendered a determination on whether this second NOIS
complies with the terms of the MSA, and the Defendants have not
decided whether they will elect to mediate.

Under the terms of the MSA, the Plaintiff cannot move to amend the
complaint to raise these claims in this Court or file a new BELO
action until after that process is complete. Allowing the case to
proceed before this process is complete could result in duplicative
litigation, and it is unclear whether Plaintiff would be barred
from raising these claims in subsequent litigation. Therefore, the
Court finds that a stay would promote judicial economy and
efficient administration of this case.

The Defendants argue that a stay is not warranted because the
Plaintiff's second NOIS was untimely and will be denied by the MSA
Claims Administrator. In reply, the Plaintiff contends that the
second NOIS was timely filed because chronic diarrhea and GERD are
newly diagnosed conditions, and the second NOIS was not untimely.
The MSA Claims Administrator will make an initial determination as
to whether these claims were timely filed and comply with the MSA.

The Plaintiff cites a decision by another district court in the
Eastern District of Louisiana which sets forth three factors
district courts consider in deciding whether to stay a case pending
a determination on whether the case will be consolidated with other
cases by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. These
factors include: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party;
(2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not
stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by
avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact
consolidated. Although not directly applicable here, these factors
also weigh in favor of granting the motion to stay. Defendants have
not alleged that they would be prejudiced by a stay, whereas
Plaintiff could be prejudiced if this action is not stayed.
Furthermore, staying the case would avoid duplicative litigation.

The Court will exercise its discretion and stay this matter pending
a decision of the Claims Administrator on whether Plaintiff's
second NOIS complies with the MSA and notification regarding
Defendants' election on whether to mediate the claims raised in
Plaintiff's second NOIS.

Accordingly,Plaintiff Ermid Avila's Motion to Stay is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6dld93wfrom Leagle.com.

Ermid F. Avila, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs, Downs Law
Group, PA, Nathan Lee Nelson, Downs Law Group, PA & Vanessa
Elizabeth Diaz, Downs Law Group, PA.

BP America Production Company & BP Exploration & Production, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Russell Keith Jarrett --
rkjarrett@liskow.com --  Liskow & Lewis, pro hac vice, Charles B.
Wilmore -- cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, pro hac vice,
Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, pro hac vice
& Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


CANADA: Settles Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benefits Canada reports that the federal government's about-face in
settling a multi-million dollar class action in the Federal Court
of Canada means more than 1,700 individuals who become ill while on
parental leave between 2002 and 2013 will be compensated for the
government's refusal to convert their benefits into employment
insurance sickness benefits.

For 11 years after the Employment Insurance Act was amended in 2002
to allow for the "stacking" of maternity, parental and sickness
benefits, the government took the position that employees on
parental leave could not switch to EI sickness benefits because
they weren't "otherwise available for work" -- a condition whose
potential impact on the 2002 changes appears to have been
overlooked when the amendments were drafted. The condition was
removed when the legislation was revised again in 2013, but the
revisions weren't retroactive.

In filing the class action in 2012, Stephen Moreau, a lawyer in
Cavalluzzo LLP's labour group who is representing the class,
alleged the government had been negligent in its interpretation and
administration of the 2002 amendments by not allowing claimants to
switch to sickness benefits, a refusal that resulted in the
amendments failing to address the identified gap in the previous
version of the law.

Although the government didn't admit liability in settling the
case, it agreed to pay between $8.5 million and $11 million in
damages to members of the class, including representative plaintiff
Jennifer McCrea of Calgary, who was diagnosed with breast cancer
while on parental leave after her son's birth in 2011. The
settlement will compensate class members for the full amount of the
sickness benefits they were denied.

Justice Catherine Kane of the Federal Court also ordered the
government to pay some $2.5 million to Moreau and his firm for
legal fees -- separately and apart from the sums paid in damages to
class members.

Mr. Moreau believes the settlement, approved in late January,
restores confidence in the country's EI regime.

"Although we're talking about a social insurance scheme, employment
insurance has many of the features of a private contract in the
sense that people expect to get their benefits if they pay their
premiums and meet the statutory conditions," he says. "With
employees and employers each paying about $1,000 annually in
premiums, there would be no backing for the system if the payouts
were all about government discretion and if the government did not
provide the support required to ensure that individuals received
the benefits they had paid for and deserved."

In her reasons for approving the settlement, Justice Kane noted
"the importance of the litigation, which, as she saw it, went
'above and beyond' the award of compensation to restoring the
public's faith in the system. Unsuccessful claimants were likely
discouraged by the outcome for them, while observing that new
benefits programs were promised and implemented to address other
important needs, but not to address their failed claims," she
wrote.

Christopher Simard, a spokesperson with Employment and Social
Development Canada, denied negligence on the government's part and
told media the settlement "demonstrates that the government
understands the challenges faced by this group of claimants who
were in a very tough position, sick and taking care of a child or
children."

Mr. Simard said the objective of the settlement was "to bring
closure to parents and their families who were denied by the rules
set out at the time from receiving EI sickness benefits while in
receipt of parental benefits."

Justice Kane also awarded an honorarium of $10,000 to McCrea in
recognition of her "exceptional" contribution to class members'
pursuit of access to justice over the six years the case had been
ongoing. She had raised awareness of the gap in the parental
benefits regime, was the recognized face of this issue long before
the lawsuit was filed, immersed herself in the litigation, prepared
several affidavits, provided input on the settlement, communicated
with class members, brought their concerns to counsel's attention,
was media spokesperson for the group and would likely be the go-to
person during the settlement's implementation.

"The Court has no hesitation in approving the honorarium of $10,000
for Ms. McCrea in recognition of her role in bringing this
litigation and this cause to the finish line," wrote Justice Kane.
[GN]


CASSENA CARE: Olsen Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Cassena Care, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cassena Care, LLC doing business as: Upper
East Side Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01146 (E.D. N.Y., February 26, 2019).

Cassena Care, LLC is a Rehabilitation center in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Azeveda, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV341868 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., January 30, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
wages and interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Azeveda worked for Comcast as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
1999 through May 19, 2016. Aside from being denied overtime pay,
when Azeveda applied for employment, Comcast performed a background
investigation on Azeveda despite not providing legally compliant
disclosure and authorization forms to Aceveda, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMHAR GROUP: Perez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN EDDY SARMIENTO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMHAR GROUP LLC (D/B/A
COMHAR GROUP LLC) and LEONEL LENNYM, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00964-FB-JO (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants as a carpenter, working in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff
wages on a timely basis.  The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a carpentry company,
located at 40-49 69th Street Woodside, NY 11377.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Brian K. Davis on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00268-LJO-JLT (E.D.
Cal., Feb. 26, 2019).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
     Wajda Law Group, APC
     11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (310) 997-0471
     Fax: (866) 286-8433
     Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


COOPERSURGICAL, INC: Sawyer Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM P. SAWYER, M.D., individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs.
COOPERSURGICAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00295-MPS (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. taking motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
      alternatively;

   2. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          Facsimile: 847-368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

CORAL TINT AND ACCESSORIES: Devivo Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Devivo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Coral Tint And Accessories, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60262 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2019),
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant specializes in automotive glass tinting. To promote its
services, it engages in sending unsolicited text messaging en
masse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


CORNING CORP: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq., and Christina M. Janice, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on
February 4, 2019, in Woods-Early v. Corning Corp., Case No.
18-CV-6162, a race discrimination class action, Judge Frank P.
Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York refused to strike class allegations of discrimination in
promotions on the basis of race and color in violation of Title VII
and the New York State Human Rights Law.  Although Plaintiff's
amended complaint failed to identify a single promotion she was
denied on the basis of race and color, the Court found that
allegations of discriminatory decision-making by a small group of
upper-level management exercising unfettered discretion over an
employer's performance review process was sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss the class claims under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).  

Background
In 2018 an employee of Corning, a multinational technology company
specializing in designing and manufacturing materials for
industrial and scientific applications, brought a class action
alleging that the employer discriminated against her on the basis
of her color and race (Black, African-American) in violation of
Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Plaintiff
asserted that by utilizing a performance evaluation tool and
process that disadvantaged Black, African-American employees in
obtaining access to promotion opportunities, the employer violated
the law.  Plaintiff alleged that the Company used an evaluation
tool that allowed supervisors, without sufficient training, to
exercise unfettered discretion in evaluating employee performance
on the basis of ill-defined "Corning Values," and that these
ratings then were advanced to a group of high-level executives
called the "brain trust," who themselves had unfettered discretion
to change the ratings.

The discriminatory result alleged by Plaintiff was that
African-American employees routinely received lower ratings than
their non-minority counterparts, and because of this they were
unable to achieve the "Emerging Talent" internal designation and
higher salary bands required by Corning to access training and
other executive networking opportunities necessary to obtain
promotional opportunities.  Plaintiff did not, however, identify
any single promotional opportunity she was denied.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class allegations as well
as any allegations of discrimination against Plaintiff in
promotions.  Relying on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S.
338 (2011), the Company argued that discrimination claims based on
the exercise of managerial discretion in the performance evaluation
process lack sufficient commonality to proceed in litigation.
Moreover, Defendant argued that allegations that its executive
"brain trust" controlled the performance evaluation process, and
had the unfettered discretion to change performance ratings and
determine who is designated "Emerging Talent," were merely
"conclusory and implausible."  It further argued that Plaintiff's
claims should fail because she could not link any discriminatory,
low performance ratings to an adverse action against her.

The Court's Ruling
Observing that parties often mistake the import of Wal-Mart as
requiring that sustainable class allegations present common
questions, the Court opined that the proper inquiry in scrutinizing
class allegations is whether the class mechanism is appropriate to
find common answers to the allegations.  Noting that the Supreme
Court in Wal-Mart emphasized that in Title VII claims implicating
many employment decisions there must be a "glue" holding the
alleged reasons for the decisions together, the Court stated that
this "glue" can come in different forms, such as a biased testing
procedure or general policy of discrimination manifested in
promotions practices.

The Court followed the lead of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits
respectively in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105
(4th Cir. 2013), and Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. Of
Educ. Of Chicago, 797 F.3d  426 (7th Cit. 2015), each of which
found that the commonality required to sustain class treatment is
satisfied when discretion is exercised uniformly by higher-level
management.  As a result, the Court ruled that allegations of the
unfettered discretion of the Company's "brain trust" — to
determine employee performance ratings, the incentive of this
singular and cohesive group to manipulate performance ratings to
impact the individuals designated as "Emerging Talent," and the
effect of the exercise of that discretion to bar African-American
employees from advancing to higher pay bands and the access to
executives and training needed for promotions — were sufficient
to survive the motion to dismiss.

The Court also rejected Defendant's challenge that although
Plaintiff alleged that she suffered discriminatorily low
performance ratings, her claim for discrimination in promotions
should be dismissed for failing to allege any promotional
opportunity for which she applied and was qualified, and that she
had been denied.  The Court rejected the contention that Plaintiff
must allege the adverse action of a specific promotion sought and
denied in order to survive a motion to dismiss a claim of
discrimination in promotions.  Rather, the Court determined that
Plaintiff's allegations of a discriminatory performance evaluation
and rating process, and a link between the alleged discriminatory
actions of the Company's "brain trust" and tangible adverse impacts
to African-Americans, including herself, was sufficient for her
promotions claims to proceed.

Implications For Employers
This decision is one of a growing body of case law authority
interpreting and expanding the contours of class actions
maintainable in the aftermath of Wal-Mart.  Over time, employers
may expect the plaintiffs' class action bar to test and refine
theories to obtain class certification in "managerial discretion"
cases.  To get ahead of this curve, employers should periodically
review their performance evaluation processes for disparate impact
and other vulnerabilities.  Evaluating performance management
programs for well-communicated expectations, detailed and
sufficiently objective metrics, disciplined scoring, and
standardized supervisor training, also is a proactive step for
savvy employers to take to enhance the workplace while reducing
risk. [GN]


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Knapper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cox Communications, Inc., filed an appeal from the
District Court's February 6, 2019 class certification order issued
in the lawsuit titled Joanne Knapper, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No.
CV-17-00913-PHX-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.

On February 6, 2019, the Honorable Steven P. Logan granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Counsel.  The District Court certified the class as:

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

Cox Communications wants the Appeals Court to determine whether the
District Court erred in:

   1. certifying a TCPA class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), where
      the Plaintiff's proposed methodology to resolve
      individualized issues of consent confirms that whether the
      call recipients gave consent cannot be resolved with
      class-wide proof; and

   2. holding, in a TCPA case, that a Rule 23(b)(3) class may
      properly include the defendant's former customers, from
      whom the Defendant received consent.

The appellate case is captioned as JOANNE KNAPPER v. COX
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 19-80019, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keith Bradley, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          1801 California Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 894-6156
          E-mail: keith.bradley@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Amy Brown Doolittle, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          2550 M Street NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 626-6707
          E-mail: amy.doolittle@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Petrina A. McDaniel, Esq.
          Keshia W. Lipscomb, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (678) 272-3207
          E-mail: petrina.mcdaniel@squirepb.com
                  keshia.lipscomb@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Eric Troutman, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 689-6510
          E-mail: eric.troutman@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Steffen N. Johnson, Esq.
          Sean G. Wieber, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282-5000
          E-mail: sjohnson@winston.com
                  swieber@winston.com


CRUS-Z FAMILY CORP: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Laura Conde Martinez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Crus-Z Family Corp., Andres
Cruz, Juan Carlos Mora and David Cruz, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00571 (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide
itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant, located
at 87-09 Roosevelt Ave., Jackson Heights, NY 11372 under the name
"The Crus-Z Family" where Martinez worked as a waitress. She worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that she
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked. Her actual duties, in payroll records, were as
a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee, thus
allowing Defendants to pay her above the tip-credit rate, but below
the minimum wage, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVR REFINING: Common Units Being Sold Too Cheaply, Bonnell Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DWIGHT BONNELL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated former unitholders of CVR REFINING, LP v. CVR REFINING,
LP, CVR ENERGY, INC., CVR REFINING HOLDINGS, LLC, CVR REFINING GP,
LLC, ICAHN ENTERPRISES, L.P., CARL C. ICAHN, SUNGHWAN CHO, JONATHAN
FRATES, DAVID L. LAMP, ANDREW LANGHAM, LOUIS J. PASTOR, KENNETH
SHEA, JON R. WHITNEY, AND GLENN R. ZANDER, Case No. 2019-0138 (Del.
Ch., February 21, 2019), challenges the multi-step plan by which
Icahn Enterprises, L.P. ("Icahn"), an investment firm controlled by
Carl Icahn, acting through various entities, weaponized a call
right in the limited partnership agreement of the CVR Refining, LP
(the "Partnership") in order to buy out the Partnership's public
common unitholders on the cheap.

The Partnership is a Delaware master limited partnership ("MLP")
that owns and operates petroleum refining and auxiliary businesses
in the United States.  The Partnership is an oil refiner and
marketer of transportation fuels organized as a limited partnership
under the laws of the state of Delaware and headquartered in Sugar
Land, Texas.

CVR Refining GP, LLC (the "General Partner") is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware, and is an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of CVR
Energy through CVR Holdings.  The General Partner is the general
partner of the Partnership, and has direct responsibility for
conducting the Partnership's business and managing its operations.

CVR Holdings is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware, and is an indirectly
wholly owned subsidiary of CVR Energy. CVR Holdings owns and
controls the General Partner.

CVR Energy is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware.  The Partnership, CVR Holdings, and the
General Partner are now wholly owned subsidiaries of CVR Energy.
CVR Energy controlled the General Partner.

Icahn is a limited partnership organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware.  Icahn either directly or indirectly
controlled the actions of CVR Energy, CVR Holdings, the General
Partner, and, thus, the Partnership.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of one or more of the Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Jeffrey Gorris, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
                  jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
                  cquinn@friedlandergorris.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  adam@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Frank A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com


CVR REFINING: Graulich Alleges Breach of Call Right
---------------------------------------------------
KARL GRAULICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CVR REFINING, LP; CVR REFINING GP,
LLC; CVR ENERGY, INC.; CVR REFINING HOLDINGS, LLC; and ICAHN
ENTERPRISES, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0121 (Del. Ch.
Feb. 15, 2019), seeks to recover minimum damages arising out of
CVI's January 18, 2019 exercise, as an assignee, of CVR GP's right
pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Limited Partnership Agreement
("LPA"), to purchase the remaining outstanding public units of CVR
LP (the "Call Units") at a designated price where the General
Partner and its Affiliates at any time held less than 70% of the
total Limited Partner Interests, and thereafter hold more that 80%
of the total Limited Partner Interests (the "Call Right").

CVR GP reached the 80% threshold via completion of its May 29, 2018
tender offer to purchase Common Units at approximately $26 per
Unit. The LPA provides that, if the General Partner exercises the
Call Right, the price for the Call Units shall be the greater of
(a) the Current Market Price [defined in the LPA as the average
daily Closing Prices of such class for the 20 consecutive Trading
Days, immediately prior to such date] as of three days prior to the
date that the notice of such purchase is mailed, or (b) the highest
price paid by the General Partner or any of its Affiliates for any
2such Limited Partner Interest of such class purchased during the
90-day period preceding the date the notice is mailed.

On January 17, 2019, CVI announced that it was exercising the Call
Right (which was assigned to CVI by the General Partner, CVR GP) at
a purchase price of $10.50 per Common Unit (the "Call Price"), a
price based on the average of the daily closing prices for the
Common Units on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") for the
20-consecutive trading days ending on January 14, 2019. CVI
provided no information regarding any purchases by Affiliates
within the 90-day period prior to the Notice Date.

The Call Price breached Section 15.l(a) because CVI was required to
pay the greater of the 20-day trailing average or the price paid by
the General Partner or any of its Affiliates for any such units
during the 90-day period preceding the date the notice described in
Section 15.1(b) was mailed. As detailed in an SEC Form 4 filed on
January 15, 2019, Janice T. DeVelasco, a CVI and CVR LP Officer,
purchased (through a dividend reinvestment) 236.2019 Common Units
of CVR LP at a price of $16.7162 per Unit on November 14, 2018,
which was well within the 90-day period.

As a result, utilizing the price paid by DeVelasco on November 14,
2018 as a baseline for CVI's exercise of the Call Right, the
minimum price for the Call Units should have been $16.7162 (the
"Minimum Call Price"), not the $10.50 Call Price. Thus, under the
second prong of Section 15.1(a), the minimum total paid to members
of the Class should have been $383 million, which is $140 million
more than the $241 million that was paid to members of the Class on
January 29, 2019. CVI's purchase of the remaining Common Units at
the Call Price of $10.50 breached the LPA in this regard, entitling
Public Unitholders to damages, the lawsuit says.

CVR Refining, LP is an independent petroleum refiner and a marketer
of high value transportation fuels. The Partnership owns a complex
full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas
and a complex crude oil refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma. The
Partnership is party to a services agreement pursuant to which the
Partnership and its General Partner obtain certain management and
other services from Defendant CVI. CVR LP's Common Units were
listed on the NYSE and began trading on January 17, 2013 under the
symbol "CVRR".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          Rosemary J. Piergiovanni, Esq.
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  rpiergiovanni@farnanlaw.com

DELAWARE, PA: Beamer Granted Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZAHKEE FATTAH BEAMER, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE W. HILL
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-CV-0650 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) granted Beamer
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and (ii) dismissed his
Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Pro se Plaintiff Beamer has filed the civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sectuib 1983 against the George W. Hill Correctional
Facility ("GWHCF") and the Geo Group, raising claims regarding
conditions of confinement during his recent incarceration there.
He has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.


Beamer was admitted to an intake holding room at the GWHCF on Jan.
12, 2019.  He alleges that this holding room contained over a
20-man cell capacity with far less than three feet of content
spacing between inmates.  Beamer was in the holding room for three
days, until Jan. 14, 2019, when inmates were then 'classified' and
were dispersed back into lawful conditions.  He states that
officers ignored his remarks and continued to fill the cell up to
an unlawful capacity causing him to sleep on a floor under a bench
with his body touching two other inmates.  During this time, no
bedding, heat, and hygiene were provided, causing Beamer's anxiety
to spike at an unhealthy level.

Beamer states that he would like to file a class action on behalf
of himself and 19 other inmates regarding these conditions.  As
relief, he asks the Court to diagnose the real problem here which
lies with the privatization of the facility in the first place.  He
also asks for monetary compensation for every day confined to such
conditions.

During portions of this time, he was assigned to a cell with two
other men.  Beamer also alleges that he was without water and heat
for three days.  He suggests that he and his cellmates got into a
lot of arguing and fights, and that he could not use the toilet
"without someone watching."  As relief, Beamer asks to separate
inmates and for someone to discuss problems with.

Judge Sanchez finds that a pro se litigant who is not an attorney
may not pursue claims on behalf of anyone other than himself.
Accordingly, he will dismiss without prejudice any claims raised on
others' behalf.

The Judge also finds that Beamer has named the GWHCF as a Defendant
in the matter.  However, his claims against the GWHCF must be
dismissed because the facility is not a legal entity susceptible to
suit.  The Geo Group acts under the color of state law by providing
services for GWHCF.  However, to hold the Geo Group liable under
Section 1983, Beamer must allege that his constitutional rights
were violated as a result of a custom or policy adopted by that
entity.  He has not done so in his Complaint.  Accordingly, he
cannot maintain a claim against the Geo Group at this time.  For
these reasons alone, Beamer's Complaint is subject to dismissal.

Finally, the Judge finds that Beamer takes issues with various
conditions at the GWHCF.  The Eighth Amendment governs claims
brought by convicted inmates challenging their conditions of
confinement, while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment governs claims brought by pretrial detainees.  He says
Beamer's Complaint fails to state a claim with respect to his
allegations of overcrowding.  Beamer has not established a
plausible constitutional violation because he has not alleged that
the overcrowded conditions amounted to punishment, deprived him of
a basic need, or otherwise caused him harm.

Beamer also suggests that he was without bedding, heat and hygiene
(presumably a reference to showers) for the three days he spent in
the holding room.  While being made to endure extreme temperatures
can rise to the level of a deprivation of a basic human need, the
Complaint fails to plausibly allege that the lack of heat amounted
to punishment or deprived Beamer of any basic human needs for a
significant period of time.  Accordingly, Beamer cannot maintain
his claims regarding these conditions at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sanchez granted Beamer leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The dismissal is without prejudice to Beamer's right to file an
amended complaint within 30 days if he can cure the defects noted.
An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zp37pz from Leagle.com.

ZAHKEE FATTAH BEAMER, Plaintiff, pro se.


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Kramer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled STEVE KRAMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a Missouri corporation, Case No.
CGC-19-572530, was removed on February 21, 2019, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00979-LB to the
proceeding.

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff Steve Kramer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the Complaint in the
Superior Court.  The Complaint asserts claims for violation of
Article I, Section 1, of the California Constitution; and violation
of California's Rental Passenger Vehicle Transactions Law.  The
Complaint alleges that affiliates of EHI violated the laws when
they allegedly failed to erase personal data that was purportedly
transmitted to the vehicle's infotainment system when the Plaintiff
and members of the proposed class paired their mobile phones with
cars rented from EHI's affiliates.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that EHI "fail[ed] to
promulgate or maintain adequate policies and procedures to
safeguard the 'Private Data' . . . of consumers, including
Plaintiff and the Class members, who rented vehicles on a
short-term basis from Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental,
and Alamo Rent A Car and who paired their smartphones or mobile
devices . . . with the vehicles' GPS technology and/or automotive
infotainment systems . . . during the period from January 3, 2016,
to the present."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          David A. Carroll, Esq.
          Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq.
          Robert E. Opdyke, Esq.
          RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1200
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 732-9099
          Facsimile: (702) 732-7110
          E-mail: dcarroll@rrsc-law.com
                  adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com
                  ropdyke@rrsc-lcnv.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica L. Grant, Esq.
          Daniel E. Lassen, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-3750
          Facsimile: (415) 653-3755
          E-mail: jgrant@venable.com
                  delassen@venable.com

               - and -

          Michael B. MacWilliams, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 244-7514
          Facsimile: (410) 244-7742
          E-mail: mbmacwilliams@venable.com


EPIC GAMES: Krohm Sues over Theft of Fortnite Gamers' Data
----------------------------------------------------------
A case ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02032 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Feb. 15, 2019), asserts Defendant's lax cybersecurity
policies and procedures created a Vulnerability that allowed
hackers to obtain access to the Plaintiffs and other players'
personally identifiable information (PII) and Payment Information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is the developer of
Fortnite, one of the most popular video games ever produced with
tens of millions of active monthly users across the globe.
Defendant's Fortnite video game generates hundreds of millions of
dollars mannual revenue, a significant portion of which is derived
from players' in-game purchases of items such as outfits, or
"skins," for their in-game characters. In order to make an in-game
purchase, the Defendant requires players to purchase and utilize
its own Fortnite currency called "Vbucks."

Around or before November 2018, the Defendant became aware of a
significant cybersecurity Vulnerability in its Fortnite video game
that allowed cyber-criminals and unauthorized third parties to
hijack player accounts and access players' PII, credit card and
payment information, and other sensitive data associated with the
players' respective accounts.

After hijacking a respective player's Fortnite account, a
cyber-criminal is then able to make in-game purchases of Vbucks in
order to resell the same on the criminal black market. Indeed,
Defendant's Vbucks currency is a lucrative item for cybercriminals,
and the Defendant is fully cognizant of the substantial criminal
activity surrounding the fraudulent acquisition of Vbucks.

In addition to exposing the PII and Payment Information of Fortnite
players, the Vulnerability also enabled unauthorized parties to
covertly listen in on the conversations of Fortnite players, many
of which are minors, thereby constituting a severe breach of
privacy.

Even though Defendant knew that it was storing sensitive
information which was valuable and vulnerable to cyber attackers,
particularly credit card and other Payment Information, the
Defendant nonetheless failed to take basic security precautions
that could have prevented, and certainly at least mitigated, the
ramifications of the Vulnerability, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

EVERQUOTE INC: Townsend Files IPO-related Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Townsend, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EverQuote, Inc., Seth Birnbaum, John
Wagner, David Blundin, Sanju Bansal, John Lunny, George Neble, John
Shields, Mira Wilczek, David Mason, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Canaccord
Genuity LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Needham & Company LLC, Oppenheimer
& Co. Inc, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and William Blair &
Company, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 651177/2019 (Sup. Ct., New
York Cty., February 26, 2019) is a securities class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired EverQuote common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
EverQuote's June 2018 initial public offering.

In late June 2018, defendants commenced the IPO, issuing
approximately 4.7 million shares of EverQuote common stock to the
investing public at $18 per share, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement.

However, the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted to state material facts both required by
governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, says the complaint.

With these misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration
Statement, the IPO was extremely lucrative for defendants, who
raised more than $84 million in gross proceeds. But when the truth
of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions became known,
the price of EverQuote shares suffered sharp declines, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mark Townsend purchased EverQuote shares pursuant to the
Registration Statement in the Offering and was damaged thereby.

EverQuote is an online lead generation company, specializing
primarily in leads for auto insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     James I. Jaconette, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Phone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423
     Email: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/802-1486
     Fax: 212/602-1592
     Email: scotth@j ohnsonfistel.com

          - and -

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


FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Converts Dismissal Bid to Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order converting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
to Summary Judgment in the case captioined LOWELL and GINA SMITH,
husband and wife, and WILLIAM KIVETT, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a
federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. No. C
18-05131 WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs, as a putative class, allege breach of contract and
violation of Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions
Code. Under Section 17200, plaintiffs allege unlawful business
practices based on violation of California Civil Code Section
2954.8(a) and unfair business practices for undertaking
substantially harmful conduct that lacked any legitimate utility.

Flagstar initially moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
for all plaintiffs on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were
wholly preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA)
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face. FRCP 12(d), however, provides that if
matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by
the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment
under Rule 56.

HOLA PREEMPTION

HOLA preemption is again at issue. The primary question is whether
HOLA preempts California Civil Code Section 2954.8(a), which
requires the following:

"Every financial institution that makes loans upon the security of
real property containing only a one-to four-family residence and
located in this state or purchases obligations secured by such
property and that receives money in advance for payment of taxes
and assessments on the property, for insurance, or for other
purposes relating to the property, shall pay interest on the amount
so held to the borrower. The interest on such amounts shall be at
the rate of at least 2 percent simple interest per annum. Such
interest shall be credited to the borrower's account annually or
upon termination of such account, whichever is earlier."

Here, the Smiths' deed of trust originated in October 2004, which
puts it temporally within the realm of Section 5553. The next issue
is whether the Smiths entered into a contract with a national bank,
Federal savings associations, or subsidiaries thereof. The four
corners of the operative complaint do not speak to the issue, yet
Flagstar attempts to resolve the factual dispute at the pleading
stage by requesting judicial notice of the proposition that
Flagstar was involved in the origination of the Smiths' mortgage
and became its original servicer.

Given the importance of this factual dispute and because matters
outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the
court, the motion to dismiss must be treated as one for summary
judgment under Rule 12(d). In turn, under Rule 56(d), which
authorizes a court to allow time for discovery during a motion for
summary judgment when facts are unavailable to the nonmovant,
parties must be given reasonable opportunity to present all
material pertinent to the motion, specifically as to (1) what
extent Flagstar was involved in the origination of the Smiths'
mortgage and (2) whether a contract existed between the Smiths and
Flagstar that would have preserved HOLA preemption pursuant to
Section 5553. Immediate discovery into these issues is now allowed
and supplements on this motion will be filed by NOON ON APRIL 18,
2019.

Rule 12 motion to dismiss will be treated as a Rule 56 motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yy69f9ohfrom Leagle.com.

Lowell Smith & Gina Smith, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman
& Thomas Eric Loeser --  toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

William Kivett, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser ,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Flagstar Bank, FSB, Defendant, represented by Carolee Anne Hoover
-- choover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, David Carlyle
Powell -- dpowell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Alexander
Jacob Gershen agershen@mcguirewoods.com, McGuireWoods LLP &Alicia
Anne Baiardo -- abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


FRONTIER ACCESS: Green Claims Compensation for Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Millard Green, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Frontier Access, LLC, Frontier K2, LLC, and
K2 Waste Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00332 (S.D.
Tex., January 30, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Frontier provides waste disposal services in the state of Texas
where Green worked as a driver, driving waste disposal trucks,
hauling waste, recycling and other refuse to various landfill or
disposal sites throughout Texas. Frontier automatically deducts 30
minutes a day for a meal-period break from the "on-the-clock"
hours, regardless of whether the driver actually took a break or
not. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


GANNETT CO: Dispute Over Pella Class Action Settlement Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
seizing on a federal judge's order barring "serial" class action
settlement objector Christopher Bandas from further objecting to
class action settlements, a group of lawyers seeking to cash in on
a sizable settlement in a controversy-plagued class action against
Pella Windows have asked a federal judge to box out other objectors
from collecting off their deal, because Bandas had been among those
objectors.

On Feb. 5, a group of attorneys, led by Robert A. Clifford, of the
Clifford Law Offices, of Chicago, filed a motion in Chicago federal
court, asking the judge to consider the decision issued against Mr.
Bandas.

But the attorneys, representing a class of potentially thousands of
plaintiffs, went further still, saying, just as Mr. Bandas was
blocked out of the deal, so, too, should other objectors, which
include lawsuit reform advocate Ted Frank.

"Equity and fairness demand that (Frank and the other objectors) be
denied the relief each seeks," Mr. Clifford wrote in the Feb. 5
brief. "They waged a bet in Mr. Bandas' well-established model, all
for financial gain; but, alas, the model is now crestfallen. That
does not entitle them to more money."

The demand drew a sharp response from Mr. Frank, who noted his
objection to the Pella Windows lawsuit settlement resulted in a
decision from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which
resulted in the court reworking the deal to add millions of dollars
to the pot for plaintiffs, not just their lawyers.

"There is of course some irony in Plaintiffs'. . . strategy of
attempting to tie Frank to abusive objection practices," Mr.
Frank's attorneys wrote in their Feb. 12 reply. "As Frank explained
. . . the Seventh Circuit agreed with his arguments. There is
nothing abusive about a successful objection . . .

"Especially this objection and appeal, which unquestionably
benefitted the class to the tune of millions of dollars."

TORTURED PAST

The exchange come as a federal judge had been working toward
ultimately latching shut the class action lawsuit case, and ending
its tortured run through Chicago's federal courts.

In 2006, plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Pella, claiming its ProLine
Series of windows allowed water to infiltrate houses, damaging wood
frames and eventually the structure of the house itself.

The lawsuit was initially brought by Leonard Saltzman, a dentist
whose son-in-law, lawyer Paul Weiss, served as lead counsel for the
plaintiffs. At the time, Saltzman's daughter and Weiss' wife, Jamie
E. Weiss, also served as a partner at Weiss' firm.

Other plaintiffs were later added to the action.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge James Zagel approved a settlement
agreement, ostensibly worth $90 million overall, but also worth $11
million to Weiss and others from his firm, Complex Litigation
Group, of suburban Hinsdale.

However, other plaintiffs objected to the settlement, asserting an
ongoing feud between Weiss and a law partner and disciplinary
proceedings launched by state regulators against Weiss had left him
unfit to continue to lead the case. They said Weiss had simply used
the case to run up the amount of fees he and his wife would earn.

Among those objectors was a man identified as Michael Schulz, who
was represented by Mr. Frank.

Mr. Frank, a tort reform advocate, is the founder of the Center for
Class Action Fairness. The CCAF was not  involved in the Pella
case.

Mr. Frank has regularly argued objections to class action
settlements alleged to be lopsided in favor of lawyers at the
expense of the members of the plaintiffs' class the lawyers claim
to represent.

The objection to the Pella settlement ultimately landed before the
Seventh Circuit appeals court, which savaged the deal for awarding
plaintiffs' lawyers $11 million in fees up front, while securing no
guarantee class members would receive any real benefit.

The Seventh Circuit judges threw Mr. Weiss and his firm off the
case, along with lead plaintiff Saltzman, and substituted in the
Clifford firm, as well as attorneys from the Lang Law Office, of
Crystal Lake; Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, of Tampa,
Fla.; the Rhine Law Firm, of Wilmington, N.C.; and the Moor Law
Office, of Chicago.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs and Pella returned with a new
settlement, this time offering $35 million, including $25 million
for class members and $9 million to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

SPOTLIGHT ON BANDAS

In May, Frank asked the court to also award him $1.5 million from
the settlement for his work on behalf of Schulz, which he noted
helped undo the original settlement deal and produce the new deal.

However, as the Pella settlement talks were continuing, the
spotlight elsewhere fell on Mr. Bandas.

In the Pella litigation, Mr. Bandas, of Corpus Christi, Texas, had
initially represented Schulz, and had handed him off to Mr. Frank,
under an agreement granting Mr.Bandas a share of whatever fees
Frank may ultimately receive under a new Pella settlement.

But in late 2016, Mr. Bandas was sued by the Chicago plaintiffs'
law firm of Edelson P.C., who accused the Texas lawyer of
masterminding a scheme to use the class action settlement objection
process to essentially extort money from other lawyers trying to
close their deals.

The Edelson lawsuit centered on Mr. Bandas' alleged conduct in
leading an effort to bog down a settlement in a class action
lawsuit Mr. Edelson had led against Gannett Co. for allegedly
violating a federal telecommunications law.

In the Gannett case, Mr. Edelson accused Mr. Bandas of agreeing to
drop his objections in exchange for $225,000.

However, Mr. Edelson noted the Gannett case served as only an
example of Mr. Bandas' conduct in a host of other lawsuits across
the country. Mr. Edelson called him a "professional" and "serial"
objector, and accused him of racketeering.

A federal judge ultimately threw out the racketeering charges, but
allowed the case to continue on Edelson's assertions Mr. Bandas had
improperly practiced law in Illinois.

In January 2019, the judge in the Edelson lawsuit against Mr.
Bandas granted Mr. Bandas' request to end the action. In that
motion, Mr. Bandas admitted to "unethical, improper and misleading
conduct."

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer slapped a permanent
injunction on Mr. Bandas, prohibiting him from practicing law in
Illinois or from representing anyone objecting to class action
settlements in "any state or federal court."

On Feb. 13, Judge Pallmeyer also refused Mr. Bandas' request to
"clarify" her ruling and limit the objection prohibition to cases
involving Edelson.

Mr. Edelson had argued against that request, saying Mr. Bandas had
requested the change merely to allow him to continue to collect on
the Pella settlement objection.

Following Judge Pallmeyer's January ruling, Mr Clifford filed his
Feb. 8 motion, asking U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman,
who is presiding in the Pella case, to take that ruling into
consideration, and prohibit Frank and others who represented
objectors from collecting attorney fees from the Pella objections.

In his response, Mr. Frank said he was not implicated in any way in
the Edelson lawsuit or the Bandas decision.

"To be sure, Frank's agreement with Bandas required Frank to share
a portion of any attorneys' fee award that might result from the
successful appeal of an objection to the original settlement that
Bandas filed," Mr. Frank wrote. "That successful appeal does not in
any way equate to Bandas having 'caused' Frank's recent filing
seeking fees . . .

"As Frank explained in his fee application, his efforts on appeal
were a but-for cause of that settlement. At most, the only effect
of the Edelson order on Frank or Schulz is to forbid Bandas from
sharing in any fees awarded to Frank."

Judge Coleman has ordered hearings on the question.

Editor's note: This article has been revised from an earlier
version to clarify attorney Ted Frank's relationship to the Center
for Class Action Fairness and to clarify the CCAF played no role in
this litigation. [GN]


GC SERVICES: Bonoan Sues for TCPA Breach Over Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viann Bonoan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
GC Services, LP, Case No. 4:19-cv-00673 (S.D. Tex., February 26,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is a resident of Humble, Texas.

The Defendant is a limited partnership based in Houston, Texas and
operates over 30 call centers around the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 803-1578
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


GEICO CASUALTY: Butta Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, FRANCIS J. BUTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, vs. GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 190102146, was removed from the
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Feb. 15, 2019.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00675-MAK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon Mark A. Kearney. The suit alleges insurance contract related
violation.

GEICO Casualty operates as an insurance company. The company offers
auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life, general liability,
travel, and business insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC
          1835 Market St Ste. 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350-6609
          E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Kymberly Kochis
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Ave of the Americas 38th FL
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          E-mail: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com

GENERAL MILLS: Settlement in Weninger FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WENINGER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS LLC,
Defendant, Case Case No. 18-CV-321-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge Joseph
Peter Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin granted the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

On Jan. 30, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of their settlement agreement resolving the Plaintiffs'
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims against the Defendant.
After reviewing the terms of the settlement agreement, the Judge
finds that the parties' settlement constitutes a fair and
reasonable resolution of bona fide disputes under the FLSA.  As
such, he will preliminarily approve the parties' settlement
agreement and set a date for the fairness hearing.  The Judge will
adopt the parties' stipulation as to the certification of the
collective action, naming John Weninger as the class
representative, and designating Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as the class
counsel.  The parties indicate that the class counsel will petition
the Court for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs of no more
than $113,090 pursuant to the lodestar calculation method.

Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller granted the parties' joint motion
and preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement.  He
adopted the parties' stipulation to certify the collective action
for the purposes of settlement.  He denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to modify the Court's notice protocol order.

The class counsel file a petition with the Court for reimbursement
of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses of no
more than $113,090 no later than 21 calendar days prior to the
fairness hearing.  The fairness settlement hearing is set for March
28, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.  All pending dates and deadlines of the
amended trial scheduling order be and the same are stayed until
further order from the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/o3TTMW from Leagle.com.

John Weninger, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Potteiger,
Walcheske & Luzi LLC, James A. Walcheske --
jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC, Matthew J.
Tobin , Walcheske & Luzi LLC & Scott S. Luzi --
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC.

General Mills Operations LLC, Defendant, represented by Casey M.
Kaiser -- ckaiser@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, John H.
Lassetter -- jlassetter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Shanthi V. Gaur -- sgaur@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC &
Sofija Anderson -- sanderson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


GET FRESH: Collects Biometric Info Without Consent, Ralph Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN RALPH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GET FRESH PRODUCE, INC., Case No. 2019CH02324 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., February 21, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
captured, collected, received through trade, and/or otherwise
obtained biometric identifiers or information of their Illinois
employees, like the Plaintiff, without properly obtaining written
executed release as required by the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Get Fresh Produce, Inc., is an Illinois corporation and has at
least one place of business in Illinois.

Get Fresh Produce operates as a foodservice supply and distribution
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAIN PROCESSING: Settles Class Action Over Nuisance Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Stadtwald, writing for Voice of Muscatine, reports that on
Tuesday, February 5th at the Muscatine School Board Office, Judge
John Telleen approved Grain Processing Corporation's (GPC's) class
action settlement.

The foundation for the class action lawsuit came in 2012 when eight
residents sued GPC for foul-smelling nuisance emissions from their
plant. In 2015, the lawsuit became certified when an additional 200
people filed claims. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the
certification in May of 2017. GPC and the claimants entered
judge-ordered mediation beginning in April of 2018, and in October
they came to a settlement.

According to the terms of the agreement, GPC will pay out a total
of $45 million to people included in the class action lawsuit. GPC
will also need to spend an additional $6.5 million to install more
stringent pollution reduction devices at their plant to prevent
further nuisance emissions.

The agreement outlines that people who lived within a mile and a
half radius of GPC at any time from April 24th of 2007 to September
1st of 2017 can receive monetary compensation. Each individual
person of any age looking to collect from the settlement must
complete a separate set of paperwork. GPC directors, managers,
presidents, senior vice presidents, and vice presidents cannot
receive settlement money. People who opted out of the class action
lawsuit previously can also not receive settlement money.

To learn more about the settlement and to get forms to apply for
settlement money, visit www.GPCclassaction.com, call
(888)-952-9083, or contact Larew Law Office at (563)-263-2120.
Anyone intending to file a claim must have their forms postmarked
by March 19th, 2019. [GN]


HIGH MAY: Accused by Gao of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIANYI GAO, LIU YU, and LIU LI, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HIGH MAY INC. and DUO WANG, Case No.
1:19-cv-01053 (E.D.N.Y., February 21, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

High May is a domestic business corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal
place of business in Far Rockaway, New York.  The Individual
Defendant is an owner, manager, and/or employee of the Corporate
Defendant.

High May ships goods from producers in the United States to China
and vice versa.  The Defendants operate a warehouse and a store in
Queen County, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
          E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com


HOT CHICKS: Raham Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
SAMEH ABDEL RAHAM, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HOT CHICKS & BALLERS CORP., dba
PLAYERS USA; PLAYERS USA INC., dba PLAYERS USA; KICKS CLOSET
SPORTSWEAR INC.; ALI ABADI; and ISMAIL ABADI, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation;
liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours
over 40 each workweek. Work performed by the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees above 40 hours per week was not paid
at time and one-half their regular rate of pay (or the minimum
wage, when greater), as required by state and federal law, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate sneaker and apparel stores on Southern
Boulevard in the Bronx.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

INLAND PRODUCTS: Court Enlarges Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order enlarging time to file response and
reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
MONGKOL MAHAVONGTRAKUL, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. INLAND PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant. Case No. 4:18-cv-07261-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Mongkol Mahavongtrakul filed his Complaint against
Defendant Inland Products, Inc.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction (Motion) on January 30, 2019, and set a date for the
hearing on the Motion for April 25, 2019.

The Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion is currently due February
13, 2019, and the Defendant's reply in further support of the
Motion is due February 20, 2019.

The Plaintiff has sought from the Defendant an enlargement of time
to respond to the Motion.

The Defendant does not oppose enlargement of time to respond to the
Motion.

Where have been no other time modifications in this matter and the
proposed enlargement of time to respond to the Motion will not
affect the date of the Hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6rnorf7from Leagle.com.

Mongkol Mahavongtrakul, individually and on behlaf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence
D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber, LLP., pro hac vice, Jean M. Sedlak, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson Garber, LLP & Mario Man-Lung Choi --
mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Inland Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Irwin
Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Tyson Keith Hottinger --
thottinger@mabr.com -- Maschoff Brennan.


J.C. PENNEY: Court Dismiss Class Action Claims in Garrido
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment dismissing Class Action Claim in the
case captioned STEPHANIE GARRIDO and JAZMIN SOLANO, as aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
Plaintiffs, v. J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware
corporation; J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
5:18-cv-02051-JVS-SP. (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs'
proposed class action claims are dismissed without prejudice.

In all other respects, this Action is dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs,
all Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California waive and
forever discharge the Released Parties from the Released Claims, as
defined in the Settlement Agreement.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019 Judgment
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y53b9u6yfrom Leagle.com.

Stephanie Garrido, as aggrieved employees pursuant to hte Private
Attorneys General Act PAGA & Jazmin Solano, as aggrieved employees
pursuant to hte Private Attorneys General Act PAGA, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com  -- Capstone Law APC, Natalie
Torbati, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Jr. --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Eduardo
Santos -- Eduardo.Santos@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC &
Raul Perez --  Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley L.
Allyn -- aallyn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP,
Dustin Gary May -- dmay@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP, Katherine V.A. Smith -- ksmith@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher LLP & Catherine A. Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


JACKSON, TN: Sued Over Failure to Properly Sworn in Warrants
------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Jelks, writing for WBBJ 7 Eyewitness News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the city of Jackson.

Both the chief of police and city court clerk have been listed as
defendants.

In January, WBBJ 7 Eyewitness News spoke to District Attorney
General Jody Pickens about numerous warrants out of Jackson City
Court that were allegedly not properly sworn in.

"Warrants that are not properly attained are void. It's as if they
never existed," plaintiff attorney Mark Donahoe said.

"It is a technical procedural safeguard that should be done, and
the city probably has an increased awareness of how important it is
to be done," city attorney Lewis Cobb said.

Now a lawsuit has been filed against the city by Steven Cox and
Kelly Freeman, who faced charges in city court in 2017 and 2018.

"It creates an issue for anyone who was arrested that went through
city court, even if it was a felony case where you were later
convicted," Mr. Donahoe said.

Mr. Donahoe says this is a civil lawsuit involving damages and
potential money recovery, and a different suit will need to be
filed in order for those affected to attempt to clear their
record.

According to documents filed in federal court, the plaintiffs do
not believe the city of Jackson met the requirements of the 4th and
14th Amendments while arresting and detaining numerous
individuals.

"We think we will be able to prove that, should this case proceed
to trial," Mr. Donahoe said.

He also says the suit is not against any specific individual.

"Chief Wiser and Clerk Hubbard are served only in their official
capacity as representatives of the city," Mr. Donahoe said.

"None of this was any type of intention or deliberate," Mr. Cobb
said. "It was just some oversights." [GN]


JAY'S LANDSCAPING: Fitchborn Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Fitchhorn, Benjamin Pollgreen and Christopher Duffield, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jay's
Landscaping and Custom Lawn Service, Inc. dba Jay Eubanks Tree
Service and Haul-It-Off Professional Debris Removal and John "Jay"
Eubanks, Jr., Case No. 1:19-cv-00092 (S.D. Ala., February 26,
2019), seek to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges that they regularly work in excess of 40
hours per week for the Defendants but were not paid time and
one-half for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in
violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs performed landscaping and debris removal services
for the Defendants.

The Defendant Jay's Landscaping and Custom Lawn Service, Inc. is or
was an Alabama company that, during all or part of the time period
set forth in the Complaint, was engaged in business in the Southern
District of Alabama under its own name and doing business as "Jay
Eubanks Tree Service" and "Haul-It-Off Professional Debris
Removal". [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON+JACKSON
      2100 Southbridge Parkway, Ste 650
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 414-7467
      Fax: (888) 988-6499
      E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net


JL AUDIO: Bishop Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------
JL Audio, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Cedric
Bishop and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JL Audio, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01756
(S.D. N.Y., February 25, 2019).

JL Audio is an American manufacturer of consumer audio products.
They produce marine, home, and mobile audio products, but are best
known for their subwoofers. JL Audio is known as one of the
pioneers of the car audio industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Allowed to Block Mandatory Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
BreakingViews reports that stay classy, Securities and Exchange
Commission. The U.S. financial watchdog on Feb. 11 allowed Johnson
& Johnson to block a proposal that would have banned shareholders
from joining together to sue. So-called class actions are an
essential check on corporate fraud, and the SEC deserves credit for
resisting pressure to undermine them. Unfortunately, its admirable
display of backbone may not last.

The latest assault on securities class actions came last November
when a small J&J investor asked the healthcare giant to put a
proposed ban to a vote at its 2019 annual meeting. If approved, the
new bylaw would have forced shareholders to resolve gripes against
the company or its directors or officers in private arbitration.
The investor argued that class actions expose U.S. public companies
to excessive litigation that can cost stockholders billions of
dollars. J&J balked, asking the SEC for assurance that it would not
sue if the company ditched the proposal. The watchdog agreed
because the measure seemed to violate the laws of New Jersey, where
J&J is based.

Corporate America typically welcomes limits on costly litigation.
That's why companies from AT&T to Wells Fargo require employees and
customers to resolve disputes individually in the cheaper, faster
forum of private arbitration rather than banding together in court.
The loss of rights and adequate recompense that arbitration often
entails can be seen as more feature than flaw for a company like
Johnson & Johnson, which faces, for example, thousands of lawsuits
for selling baby powder that allegedly contained asbestos.

Yet the firm, which declined to comment, had good reason to reject
the proposal. The SEC has long blocked mandatory arbitration of
shareholder complaints, citing a prohibition in federal securities
laws against waiving the right to go to court. The commission also
relies on investor lawsuits to police the market, given that they
often produce more and bigger settlements than agency
investigations do.

When private-equity firm Carlyle tried to tuck a
mandatory-arbitration provision into its 2012 IPO filing, for
example, the SEC cried foul. Pharmaceutical goliath Pfizer and
media outfit Gannett, meanwhile, gained the commission's backing
that same year for excluding shareholder proposals that would have
blocked investors from pursuing complaints in court. In Johnson &
Johnson's case, there was the additional factor of a New Jersey
attorney-general opinion saying the arbitration proposal would have
been outside the scope of permissible bylaw provisions.

It was not far-fetched, though, to believe that the proposal might
pass muster with the SEC. Recently appointed Commissioner Hester
Peirce said in September that, on arbitration, "the SEC does not
have statutory grounds to substitute its judgment for that of
shareholders and the companies they own." Commission Chairman Jay
Clayton has said that he wants to cut regulations that might
discourage companies from going public, though he hasn't mentioned
rules against arbitration specifically. He has treated the issue
cautiously, saying on Feb. 11 that any decision on the issue
"should be made by the commission in a measured and deliberative
manner."

The pressure for relief from lawsuits is building, though. The
number of securities-fraud class actions hovers near record highs,
with the 403 filed last year, the second most -- after the 412 in
2017 -- since 2001, when 498 were filed, according to Stanford Law
School. Many are no doubt justified, especially in a
post-financial-crisis world where the likes of Citigroup, JPMorgan
and others have coughed up billions of dollars for transgressions
against shareholders. Yet the number of bogus claims is also
rising. In 2017, courts dismissed about one-fifth of securities
class-action cases within a year of their filing – the most ever,
according to Cornerstone Research.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continues its heavy drumbeat in favor
of mandatory arbitration and against class actions. Just in
January, the justices ruled unanimously that an arbitrator – not
a judge -- gets to decide whether a contract requiring arbitration
covers a particular dispute. It was Justice Brett Kavanaugh's first
opinion, and it appeared to kill any hope that, as retired Justice
Anthony Kennedy's successor, he would help soften the top
tribunal's views on the issue. If anything, those views are
hardening. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced the late Antonin
Scalia on the bench in 2017, is a vocal supporter of arbitration
and long-time critic of securities-fraud lawsuits.

In the face of these developments, a shift in the SEC's position
would be understandable. It would also be a mistake. Countless
studies have shown that mandatory arbitration typically deprives
individuals of meaningful redress. That's why SEC Commissioner
Robert Jackson, for one, has forcefully opposed allowing it in the
securities context without an exhaustive rule-making process
involving public comments and studies of how investors would be
affected.

"If we're going to take away investors' right to their day in
court," he said in a recent speech, ". . . we should, at least, do
so in the light of day." It may make little difference in the end,
but there's a good chance that shareholders -- and the public
officials obligated to protect them -- won't like what they see.
[GN]


JONATHAN NEIL: Court Vacates Hearing Schedule in Brown
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of a class action settlement in the case captioned TERI
BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Teri Brown filed this action individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated alleging violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.  

The Court, having reviewed the record and considering that no class
member has objected to the settlement, finds this matter suitable
for decision without oral argument.

The previously scheduled hearing set on February 13, 2019, is
vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at that
time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y4ap2u5lfrom Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Egan, Porter Scott, APC, Derek Joseph Haynes,
Porter Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar, Porter Scott.


KHODAL MAA INC: Mayo Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Esperanza Gutierrez Mayo, individually and on behalf of FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Khodal Maa,
Inc., Jai Khodi Mata, Inc. and El Rey Supermarket, Dilip Patel,
Vinny Patel, Visno Patel, Manny Patel, Mukesh Patel, ABC
Corporations 1-5, and John Does 1-5, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00993 (D. N.J., January 23, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage
Collection Law.

Defendants operate as Eagle Supermarket and El Rey Supermarket
where Mayo worked as a supermarket worker from in or about March
2012 to on or about November 15, 2018. She claims to be denied
overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per week and
wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Schley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
      197 Route 18 South
      South Tower, Suite 3000
      East Brunswick, NJ 08816
      Telephone: (732) 325-0318
      Email: mschley@schleylaw.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Seeks OT Pay for Skilled Clinicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH STONEHOCKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC and
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-573756 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 14, 2019), concerns Kindred's strict and impracticable minimum
Patient Care Ratio ("minimum PCR") productivity standard and the
attendant systemic failure to pay skilled clinicians for overtime
hours worked and to pay wages when due.

Skilled Clinicians include physical therapists, occupational
therapists, and speech therapists who worked at Kindred's Skilled
Nursing Facilities ("SNFs") throughout the State of California.

According to the complaint, SCs did not typically report all
overtime hours worked to managers because Kindred sought to limit
or eliminate overtime hours worked and managers reprimanded SCs for
working overtime hours. Indeed, management circulated an "overtime
watch list" for California "areas". On the infrequent occasions on
which Class Members did report overtime hours worked, Kindred
management would oftentimes simply change Class Members' time
records so that the records showed fewer overtime hours worked than
were actually worked, or no overtime hours worked at all. As a
result of Kindred's failure to pay overtime wages, Class Members,
or an identifiable subset, were not paid wages owed at the time of
quitting or discharge, the lawsuit says.

Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. owns, operates, and manages the
Cordova Rehabilitation and Nursing Center. It was formerly known as
Vencor Operating, Inc. and changed its name to Kindred Healthcare
Operating, Inc. in April 2001.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
          50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400, #206
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 242-1234
          E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Grants Jury Trial in J. Underwood Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendants' Motion
to Deny Jury Trial in the case captioned JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-730. (E.D. Pa.).

In the instant motion, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's
claim is equitable in nature, and thus she is not entitled to a
jury trial.

This case involves a class action, brought by named Plaintiff
Jennifer Underwood against Defendants Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc. and Capital One, National Association, arguing that the two
companies were unjustly enriched at her and the class's expense.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants profited from a deficient
credit-monitoring product called PrivacyGuard that was sold to her
and members of the class. In particular, when Plaintiff and class
members did not complete the second step in registering for
PrivacyGuard services, they did not receive the full range of
promised credit-monitoring services.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution provides that in Suits at
common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

The elements of unjust enrichment are: (1) an enrichment (2) an
impoverishment (3) a relation between the enrichment and
impoverishment (4) the absence of justification, and (5) the
absence of a remedy provided by law.

The first step, comparing the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
to 18th century actions weighs in favor of finding this claim to be
legal, rather than equitable. The modern formulation of the term
'unjust enrichment' is actually the scholarly creation of the
American Law Institute and is a synthesis of both law and equity
principles that existed in the era of the divided bench.  

Nonetheless, courts have held that similar actions are
quasi-contractual where a plaintiff contends that she provided
funds to defendants in reliance on certain misrepresentations that
defendants made and that defendants have thereby been unjustly
enriched.  A quasi-contractual claim is akin to the assumpsit
actions of eighteenth-century England, which were indisputably law
cases.  

The second, more important step, whether the remedy sought is legal
or equitable in nature also weighs in favor of finding a right to a
jury trial. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of funds that were paid
to the Defendants for limited benefits under the PrivacyGuard
service enhancement.

Restitution is not per se legal or equitable in nature.  

Applying these cases to the instant matter, the restitution sought
here is legal, not equitable, in nature. There is no specifically
identified fund or account from which the Plaintiff seeks to draw;
rather, the Plaintiff seeks recovery from the Defendants' assets
generally.

On balance, and particularly given that the second factor is the
more important, the claim at issue here is legal rather than
equitable in nature. Accordingly, the Seventh Amendment right to a
jury trial attaches. The Defendants' motion therefore shall be
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3jxymlvfrom
Leagle.com.

JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ANGELA EDWARDS, LAW
OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS, CHARLES J. KOCHER -- ckocher@smbb.com --
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC, LEE S. SHALOV --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP, PATRICK
HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY,
WADE C. WILKINSON -- wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN &
STERN LLP & SIMON BAHNE PARIS  -- sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ
MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by MARTIN C.
BRYCE, Jr. -- BRYCE BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND
INGERSOLL, L.L.P., DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA -- MCKENNAD BALLARDSPAHR.COM
-- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP, ELANOR A. MULHERN --
MULHERNE BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & JOSEPH J.
SCHUSTER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by MARTIN
C. BRYCE, Jr., BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P., DANIEL
J.T. MCKENNA, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP & ELANOR A.
MULHERN, BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


L PLUS L: Zamora Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO ZAMORA, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. L PLUS L PRODUCTIONS LLC, dba OFRENDA
RESTAURANT; or any other business entity doing business as OFRENDA
RESTAURANT, located at 113 7th Avenue South, New York, New York
10014, the Defendants,Case No. 1:19-cv-01506 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid
overtime compensation; liquidated damages; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff wss employed by the
Defendants as a food preparer and cook for the Defendants'
restaurant known as "Ofrenda". The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff lawfully earned wages in
contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week in six shifts, and his
hours ranged from 50-70 hours per week. The Plaintiff was not paid
hourly for all hours worked, or overtime compensation, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

LIGHTHOUSE MARINA: Faces Bishop Suit Alleging ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Marina,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop and On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Lighthouse Marina, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01814 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2019).

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

Lighthouse Marina is a second generation family owned marina. Their
"Full-Service Marina with a Resort Atmosphere" is one of the
premier marinas on Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUIS MARINE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Marine, Ltd.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop and On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Louis Marine, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01816 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2019).

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

Louis Marine is a family-owned business and one of the most
successful marine retailers in the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARTIN-BROWER CO: Court OKs Cy Pres Beneficiary in J. Titus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order approving Proposed Cy Pres Beneficiary
in the case captioned JUSTIN TITUS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE MARTIN-BROWER
COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
2:17-cv-00558-JAM-GGH. (E.D. Cal.).

Having considered the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause
appearing therefore, the Court approves St. Christopher Truckers
Development and Relief Fund as the cy pres beneficiary of the class
action Settlement in this action, and modifies paragraph 19 of the
Final Approval Order nunc pro tunc as follows: the Settlement
Administrator, Atticus Administration, LLC, shall send all funds
associated with settlement checks that have not been cashed after
the check cashing deadline to St. Christopher Truckers Development
and Relief Fund.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y3swut25from Leagle.com.

Justin Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C.,Nicholas John
Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert
Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC,
Vladimir Joseph Kozina -- vjkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley,
P.C. & William J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall
Hurley, PC.

Martin-Brower Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Reiko Linda
Furuta -- rfuruta@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & David D.
Jacobson -- djacobson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


MAUI JIM: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Maui Jim, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Cedric
Bishop and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Maui Jim, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01753
(S.D. N.Y., February 25, 2019).

Maui Jim is a Peoria, Illinois-based manufacturer of sunglasses.
The company was founded in Lahaina, Hawaii in 1980. As of 2015, the
company was the third largest producer of sunglasses in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Leggett Files Suit Over Sale to Tesla
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kip Leggett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Richard Bergman,
Steve Bilodeau, Jörg Buchheim, Franz J. Fink, Burkhard Goeschel,
Ilya Golubovich, John Mutch, Tesla, Inc., and Cambria Acquisition
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00377-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
February 26, 2019) is a stockholder class action on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of the Defendant
against Maxwell, the Company's Board of Directors for violations of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company to Tesla, Inc. and Cambria Acquisition Corp., at an unfair
process and for an unfair price.

On February 20, 2019, Maxwell filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction. Also, on February 20, 2019, Tesla filed a Registration
Statement on Schedule S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction is unfair and
undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the 14D-9
describes an insufficient sales process in which the Board rushed
through an inadequate "sales process" in which the only end goal
was a sale to Tesla, and in proper fiduciary measures such as a
special committee and market were undertaken only after Tesla had
made several bids and had threatened to end its customer
relationship with Maxwell should the Company not accept its offer
to purchase it.

In further violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused
to be filed the materially deficient Proxy Materials on February
20, 2019 with SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to tender
their Maxwell shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The
Proxy Materials are materially deficient, deprives Maxwell
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to tender their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, and is thus in breach of the
Defendants fiduciary duties, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of California and, has been a Maxwell
stockholder.

Maxwell develops, manufactures, and markets energy storage and
power delivery products worldwide. Maxwell is incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware.

Individual Defendants have been directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
     Phone: (877) 534-2590
     Facsimile (310) 247-0160
     Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
            rcardona@brodskysmith.com


MDL 2875: Valsartan Products Liability Litigation to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued
an Order transferring the Action in the case captioned IN RE:
VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 2875. (J.P.M.L.).

The Plaintiff in one action moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize 10 actions, as listed on Schedule A, in the District of
New Jersey.

This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products
containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of
high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the
FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic
valsartan medications were issued.

Purchasers of recalled lots of generic valsartan subsequently filed
actions alleging economic losses. The initial wave of consumer
class actions was followed by actions alleging personal injuries
from the ingestion of affected valsartan medications, as well as
other related litigation.

The principal common defendants in this litigation, Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (ZHP) and its U.S. affiliates Prinston
Pharmaceutical Inc., Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, and Huahai U.S.,
Inc. (together, the ZHP defendants) along with pharmacy defendants
Walgreen Co. and Throggs Neck Pharmacy support centralization of
the IO actions on the motion in the District of New Jersey. They
ask the Panel to limit the scope of the MDL solely to consumer
class actions, though they acknowledged shared factual issues among
the personal injury and consumer actions at oral argument.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Court
finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. All actions involve common factual questions arising
out of allegations that plaintiffs purchased or used generic
formulations of valsartan medications containing the nitrosamine
impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these impurities present a risk
of cancer and liver damage; and that defendants knew, or should
have known, of the impurities as early as 2012. All actions stem
from the same FDA investigation and voluntary recall announced in
July 2018, and the voluntary recalls are ongoing.

Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed actions, focused
on ZHP as the source of the alleged impurities, the FDA
investigation and the actions before the Panel now encompass
alleged industry-wide issues concerning the production of the
valsartan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) which will be
common to all actions.

The Court finds that Section 1404 transfer is not a practicable
alternative to centralization, given the number of actions,
districts, and counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. There are
presently a total of 40 related actions pending in 22 districts,
which involve over a dozen distinct slates of the plaintiffs'
counsel and some 20 defendants, most of whom do not share counsel.


These circumstances portend significant inefficiencies and
obstacles to Section 1404 transfer of the related actions to a
single district.  The number of involved districts and counsel also
would make efforts to informally coordinate discovery and pretrial
motions impracticable.

The District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. Five actions on the motion and seven potential
tag-along actions are pending in this district. Many of the
defendants have their U.S. headquarters in New Jersey, including
ZIIP's U.S. affiliates, which are named in nearly all actions, as
well as Hetcro USA Inc., Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Torrent
Pharma, Inc. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be
located in this district. Nearly all responding parties support, or
do not oppose, the District of New Jersey as their first or second
choice. Judge Robert B. Kugler is an experienced transferee judge
with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation. We are
confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

That the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the
District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Robert B. Kugler for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

That, in light of this opinion, MDL No. 2875 is renamed In re:
Valsartan Products Liability Litigation.

A full-text copy of the Panel's February 14, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y26gqq9cfrom Leagle.com.


MIDLAND BOAT: Faces Bishop Suit Asserting ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Midland Boat Sales Corp. d/b/a Kehl's Family Boating is facing a
class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled Cedric Bishop and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Boat
Sales Corp. d/b/a Kehl's Family Boating, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01811 (S.D. N.Y., February 26, 2019).

Midland Boat Sales Corp. d/b/a Kehl's Family Boating is a marine
dealer in Lindenhurst, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Moore Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Samantha Moore on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 618324/2018, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip)
on Feb. 18, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00959 to the proceeding.  The suit
demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in
San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com
                  esilverman@hinshawlaw.com

MOLSON COORS: Mathes Sues over Misleading Finacial Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Mathes individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOLSON COORS BREWING
COMPANY, MARK R. HUNTER, and TRACEY I. JOUBERT, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01162 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded Molson Coors
securities from February 14, 2017 through February 11, 2019, both
dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, on October 11, 2016, Molson Coors
completed its acquisition of SABMiller plc's 58% stake in
MillerCoors LLC, the joint venture formed in the United States and
Puerto Rico by both companies in 2008. On February 14, 2017, Molson
Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which provided its financial
results and position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
(the "2016 10-K"). The 2016 10-K was signed by Defendants Hunter
and Joubert. The 2016 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant
to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Hunter and
Joubert attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company’s internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.
The 2016 10-K stated the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting was effective, excluding the internal control
over financial reporting at its recently acquired stake in
MillerCoors LLC.

On February 12, 2019, before the market opened, Molson Coors
announced that its "previously issued consolidated financial
statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016 should be restated and no longer be relied upon."
On this news, shares of Molson Coors fell $6.17 per share or
approximately 9.5% to close at $59.19 per share on February 12,
2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Molson Coors manufactures and sells beer and other beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
The Company is a Delaware corporation. The headquarters of the
Company's U.S. segment is located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-3110
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Phillip Kim
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues for Injury Over Roundup Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Jung, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00302 (E.D. Mo., February 25, 2019) is an action for
damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

In 1996, the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") filed a lawsuit
against Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of
Roundup products. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged Monsanto's
general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based
herbicides, including Roundup, were "safer than table salt" and
"practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish. Monsanto did
not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state other
than New York, and on information and belief still has not done so
today.

Plaintiff Gerhard Jung is a resident and citizen of Hancock County,
Illinois. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2015.
He brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure
to Roundup.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, who advertises and
sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONTAUK YACHT: Bishop Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Montauk Yacht Sales, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Montauk Yacht Sales, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01807 (S.D. N.Y., February 25, 2019).

Montauk Yacht Sales, LLC is a Yacht broker in Freeport, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRS BPO: Violates TCPA, Giles Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------
Debbie Giles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06907 (D. N.J., February
26, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant of negligently placing automated text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular phone. MRS BPO is debt collector that operates
an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting
consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with automated text
messages. The Plaintiff is such a consumer. She does not owe a debt
to MRS BPO directly or indirectly, yet MRS BPO has repeatedly
contacted her in an attempt to reach another, unrelated
individual.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Sand Springs, Oklahoma.

The Defendant MRS BPO is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business located at 1930 Olney Avenue, Cherry
Hill, New Jersey 08003. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sofia Balile, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (203) 653-2250
      Fax: (203) 653-3424


MY ROULA INC: Perros Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Perros, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. My Roula, Inc., Michael C. Moudatsos, Sr.
and Michael C. Moudatso, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00584
(E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control Mike Jr.'s Richmond Diner and
Mike's Place located at 4677 Hylan Boulevard Staten Island, New
York 10312 and 3954 Richmond Avenue Staten Island, New York 10312,
respectively, where Perros worked as a waitress. Perros worked
between 60 to 65 hours a week without meal breaks during her
12-13-hour daily shifts. Defendants failed to compensate employees
the minimum wage for hours over 33-35, overtime premiums and
spread-of-hour pay, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emre Polat, Esq.
      POLAT LAW GROUP, PLLC
      45 Broadway, Suite 1420
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 480-4500
      Email: emre@polatlawyers.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McCormick Files Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Michael McCormick
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, The Johns
Hopkins University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01073 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 26, 2019).

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.

The Johns Hopkins University is a private research university in
Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
     Raizner Slania, Llp
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 554-9099
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Dash Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Howard Dash, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 613012/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Nassau County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip ) on Feb. 15,
2019. The Eastern District of New York assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00914 to the proceeding. The lawsuit demands $501,000 and
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Nationwide Credit, Inc.:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com
                  esilverman@hinshawlaw.com

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Demartino Suit Moved to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, Adele Demartino, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Nationwide Credit, Inc. and
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A., the Defendants, Case No.
617189/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Nassau County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Eastern
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00915 to
the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Nationwide Credit, Inc.:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com
                  esilverman@hinshawlaw.com

NCAA: Keith Williams Sues over Safety of Concord Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-709 (S.D. Ind., Feb.
18, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Concord
University ("Concord") student-athletes.

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NCAA: Kerns Sues over Safety of IUB Student-Athletes
----------------------------------------------------
TOBI KERNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00686-JMS-DML (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Indiana University, Bloomington ("IUB")
student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NCAA: Milburn Sues over Safety of Toledo Student-Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MILBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00684-JRS-MJD (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Toledo (UT) student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Murray Sues over Safety of OSU Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------
VICTOR DUSTIN THOMAS VON HOPKINS MURRAY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00731-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of University of OSU ("OSU")
student-athletes.

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Pinkney Sues over Safety of WSU Student-Athletes
------------------------------------------------------
ARRONN PINKNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00683-JPH-TAB (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
Washington State University ("WSU") student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NCAA: Stewart Sues over Safety of Cincinnati Student-Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00727-JRS-MPB (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 18, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
University of Cincinnati ("Cincinnati") student-athletes.

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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


NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: Class Action Improperly Decertified, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a federal
district court improperly decertified the class action filed by
used car dealerships alleging their lender charged them too much in
interest fees, the Seventh Circuit held Feb. 13.

A federal district court improperly decertified the class action
filed by used car dealerships alleging their lender charged them
too much in interest fees, the Seventh Circuit held Feb. 13.

The court's original certification decision was a "model of clarity
and thoroughness" but the decertification decision was "terse" and
lacked the required detail, Judge Ilana D. Rovner wrote for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The dealerships sued NextGear Capital Inc. [GN]


NORTHROP: Allen Sues for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paxton Allen, David Dunn, Scott Meredith, Ramon Baney, Nicole
Henaire, individually and as representatives of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northrop Grumman, AECOM, General Dynamics,
and Raytheon Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00491-B (N.D.
Tex., February 26, 2019) is a suit arising under Federal Law and is
a claim for civil damages based on violations of 26 U.S.C. Section
6103 and common law fraud.

The Defendants are defense sub-contractors for the United States of
America employing a significant number of individuals to work at
the Joint Defense Facility Pine Gap ("JDFPG") located in Alice
Springs, Australia. Plaintiffs received job offers to work at the
JDFPG site and immediately upon acceptance underwent a rigorous
"on-boarding" process that took several months.

Either after Plaintiffs' arrival to the JDFPG site or on the eve of
their departure, Plaintiffs received from Defendants a "Closing
Agreement" that purported to waive their right to certain tax
benefits from working overseas pursuant to an incorrect
understanding of the 1966 JDFPG Defense Treaty. At no time during
Plaintiffs' on-boarding process and, for some, at no time prior to
their arrival at JDFPG, were Plaintiffs advised that a "Closing
Agreement" might be necessary; much less that it would be
mandatory. This "Closing Agreement" requirement was never reflected
in any of the paperwork that had been involved in the entire
months-long onboarding process.

The Defendants have committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation
to Plaintiffs by and through the doctrine of vicarious liability in
regard to obtaining each signature on the "Closing Agreement",
"Consent to Disclose", and "Declaration" forms, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals who are United States citizens and
taxpayers.

Northrop Grumman, is a Virginia corporation with substantial
contacts in this judicial district.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kathryn Magan, Esq.
     CASTRO & CO., LLC
     13155 Noel Road, Suite 900
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: (469) 550-0036
     Fax: (866) 700-7595
     Email: K.Magan@CastroAndCo.com


ONE FIFTY: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Summary Judgment Denial in Maor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an Order affirming the District Court's judgment
denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned MARSHALL MAOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ONE
FIFTY FIFTY SEVEN CORP. DOING BUSINESS AS RUSSIAN TEA ROOM, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants. 158840/14, 8392, 8391. (N.Y. App. Div.).

The Defendants appeal from the District Court’s denial of their
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Maor and Garcia worked as catering staff for specific events at the
Russian Tea Room under the direct supervision of Russian Tea Room
managers. Although they were assigned to work the events by
Ambitious, a third-party staffing agency, triable issues of fact
exist as to the degree of control that One Fifty Fifty Seven and
its principal, Gerald Lieblich, exercised over the results produced
or the means used to achieve the results.  

Maor's motion for class certification was properly granted, but
only to the extent that the class is limited to the period during
which he and additional plaintiff Garcia worked at catered events
at the Russian Tea Room staffed by Ambitious from 2008 through
2010. As to such a class, plaintiffs meet the requirements of CPLR
901(a) and demonstrate that a class action is more desirable and
feasible than requiring individual members to prosecute separate
actions. The record shows that Maor is familiar with the action and
has no conflict of interest with other class members, who may opt
out.  

Accordingly, the class is narrowed to include members whose claims
are governed by the standard applicable before that date.

Maor's motion, to the extent that it sought to amend the complaint
to add Garcia as a plaintiff, was properly granted. Defendants
cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting directly from any delay in
moving to add Garcia, who was identified as a putative plaintiff
and deposed by defendants.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court’s February 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y48nkfutfrom Leagle.com.

Jackson Lewis, P.C., New York (John J. Porta --
John.Porta@jacksonlewis.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna Lusher, 40 Broad
Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 1004, of counsel), for
respondents.


OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Toliver et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SEAN TOLIVER, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., the Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01899-SRU (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Contaminated Water Class:

      "all current and former inmates of Osborn who, from November
      19, 2013 through the present, have had to drink and shower in

      tap water from one or more of the onsite wells at Osborn,
      whether or not such current and former inmates were housed in

      the Q Buildings";

   2. certifying Q Buildings Subclass:

      "all current and former inmates of Osborn who were housed in

      the Q Buildings from November 19, 2013 through the closing of

      the Q Buildings in or around December 2016, who may have been

      exposed to PCBs and friable asbestos"; and

   3. appointing David Friedman, Lorey Rives Leddy, and the law
      firm of Murtha Cullina LLP, as class counsel.

The Osborn Correctional Institute is a prison in Somers,
Connecticut.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Sean Toliver, James Babulsky,
Jeremy Louis Barney, William Boo, Kenneth Carter, Luis Claudio,
Anthony R. Johnson, Roger Johnson, Randal Licari, John F. Moore,
Timothy Monroe, Jose Pesante, Jose Rivera, Marcos Rivera, Harold
Rogers, Osbert Teekasingh, Anthony C. Wade, Sr., Zion T. Webb and
Tyshun Willliams, who are represented by:

          Lorey Rives Leddy, Esq.
          David P. Friedman, Esq.
          Lorey Rives Leddy, Esq.
          MURTHA CULLINA LLP
          177 Broad Street, 16th Floor
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 653-5400
          Facsimile: (203) 653-5444
          E-mail: dfriedman@murthalaw.com
                  lleddy@murthalaw.com

PARED INC: Feldman Files Suit Under TCPA Over Spam Ads
------------------------------------------------------
David Feldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pared Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:19-cv-01059 (N.D.
Calif., February 26, 2019), seeks damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant began to use the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff
spam advertisements and promotional offers, via text messages,
including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff on or
about November of 2018, from Defendant's phone number.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Hawaii.

The Defendant provides hospitality and culinary staffing to
restaurants. The Defendant conducted business in the State of
California and in the County of San Francisco, and within this
judicial district. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PF STOCKTON: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against PF
Stockton Fitness LLC, alleging that the company failed to lawfully
provide meal and rest periods and pay their California employees
for all overtime worked. The class action lawsuit against PF
Stockton Fitness LLC, is currently pending in the San Joaquin
County Superior Court, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-1325.

The lawsuit alleges the company does not have a policy or practice
which provides legally compliant thirty minute uninterrupted meal
breaks and paid rest breaks to their California Employees. The
lawsuit also alleges that the failure of PF Stockton Fitness LLC,,
to provide the legally required meal and rest period is evidenced
by the company's records.

The complaint further alleges, DEFENDANT did not have in place an
immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual time these
employees worked each day, including overtime hours. As a result
DEFENDANT was able to and did in fact systematically, unlawfully,
and unilaterally alter the time recorded in DEFENDANT's timekeeping
system for PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in
order to avoid paying these employees the applicable overtime
compensation for overtime worked and to avoid paying these
employees for missed meal breaks.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against PF
Stockton Fitness LLC, call (800) 568-8020 to speak to Attorney
Nicholas De Blouw.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's subsidiary in Canada continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.  

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began
in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court
issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.

The trial court found that the company's subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131
million (approximately $100 million) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35 million) to the
company's subsidiary. The trial court found that defendants
violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by
failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking.

The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' addiction. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault
advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay
the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and
found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages to
individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to
administer. The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed
process for the distribution of sums remaining from the punitive
damage award after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the company's subsidiary
make the payment into a trust within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Létourneau case and the Blais case
described below. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the
motion and ordered the company's subsidiary to furnish security
totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $172.5 million), in the
form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal
consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately $28.7 million) beginning in December 2015
through March 2017.

The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in
November 2016. The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating
a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or
otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking
by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class
members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even
though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent
addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct.

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

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


PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that that
plaintiff's en banc appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice in
Brazil and defendants' constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme
Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring
the lawsuit, are still pending.

In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$273) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.

The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed
in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not
estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals,
which annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial
court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and
returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015,
the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In
September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff
filed an en banc appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

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

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


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Lockett Seeks to Recover Minimum/OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL LOCKETT, AMBER L. CASWELL, JACQUELINE DAVIS, DAVID C. DEVUN
JR., TABATHA K. DOZIER, SETH B. ISTRE, RACAL JOHNSON, CYNTHIA J.
KOFRON, TONISHA S. LONZO, NATHAN J. MCDERMOTT, JEREMY MITCHELL,
LAURA PEREZ, WAYNE SHEFFIELD JAMAICA S. YOUNG, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., AMERISTAR CASINO COUNCIL BLUFFS, LLC D/B/A AMERSITAR COUNCIL
BLUFFS, AMERISTAR CASINO EAST CHICAGO, LLC D/B/A AMERISTAR EAST
CHICAGO, CATCUS PETE'S, LLC D/B/A CACTUS PETE'S RESORT CASINO,
LOUISIANA-I GAMING, A LOUISIANA PARNTERNSHIP IN COMMENDAM D/B/A
BOOMTOWN NEW ORLEANS PNK (BATON ROUGE) PARTNERSHIP D/B/A L'AUBERGE
BATON ROUGE, PNK (BOSSIER CITY), L.L.C. D/B/A BOOMTOWN BOSSIER
CITY, PNK (LAKE CHARLES), L.L.C. D/B/A L'AUBERGE LAKE CHARLES, PNK
(RIVER CITY), LLC D/B/A RIVER CITY, PNK VICKSBURG, LLC D/B/A
AMERISTAR VICSBURG, WASHINGTON TROTTING ASSOCIATION, LLC D/B/A THE
MEADOWS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00315 (D. Nev., February 21, 2019), seeks
to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pinnacle owns and operates each of
the subsidiary casino entities (the other Defendants).

Ameristar Casino Council Bluffs, LLC, is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the state of Iowa.  Ameristar
Casino Council Bluffs, LLC, owns and operates Ameristar Council
Bluffs, which is a casino located in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of Indiana.  Ameristar Casino
East Chicago, LLC, owns and operates Ameristar East Chicago, which
is a casino located in East Chicago, Indiana.

Cactus Pete's, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of and registered to do business in the state of Nevada.
Cactus Pete's, LLC, owns and operates Cactus Pete's Resort Casino,
which is a casino located in Jackpot, Nevada.  Louisiana-I Gaming
is a Louisiana Partnership in Commendam.  Louisiana-I Gaming owns
and operates Boomtown New Orleans, which is a casino located in
Harvey, Louisiana.

PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership is a partnership organized under the
laws of the state of Louisiana.  PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership owns
and operates L'Auberge Baton Rouge, which is a casino located in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  PNK (Bossier City), L.L.C., is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of the state of
Louisiana.  PNK (Bossier City), L.L.C., owns and operates Boomtown
Bossier City, which is a casino located in Bossier City,
Louisiana.

PNK (Lake Charles), L.L.C., is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana.  PNK (Lake
Charles), L.L.C., owns and operates L'Auberge Lake Charles, which
is a casino located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  PNK (River City),
LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
State of Missouri.  PNK (River City), LLC owns and operates River
City, which is a casino located in Lemay, Missouri (in South St.
Louis County, Missouri).

PNK Vicksburg, LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Mississippi.  PNK Vicksburg, LLC owns and
operates Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, which is a casino located in
Vicksburg, Mississippi.  Washington Trotting Association, LLC is a
limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware.  Washington Trotting Association, LLC owns and operates
The Meadows, which is a racetrack and casino located in Washington,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jenny L. Foley, Esq.
          Marta D. Kurshumova, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          1785 East Sahara, Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89104
          Telephone: (702) 805-8340
          Facsimile: (702) 625-3893
          E-mail: jfoley@hkm.com
                  mkurshumova@hkm.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com


POPSUGAR: Must Face Fashion Blogger's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that media
company PopSugar can't evade a class action lawsuit from a fashion
blogger who claims the site stole images from thousands of
influencers and cashed in on third-party links.

Nitra Batra, who goes by the surname Mann professionally, in June
sued PopSugar on behalf of herself and others like her. She claims
the site copied influencers' Instagram images, removed links to
"shoppable" products that allowed them to monetize their following
and then reposted the same images with new links that allowed
PopSugar to profit when users clicked through and purchased items.
(Brittani Friedman, Zoha Memari, Cathy O'Brien and Laura Adney
filed related complaints last summer.)

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. on Feb. 7 denied PopSugar's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, finding an
Instagram caption plausibly constitutes copyright management
information under the law and it's reasonable to infer PopSugar
removed the info to conceal the alleged infringement.

Ms. Batra's complaint also includes a Lanham Act claim alleging
that PopSugar's use of class members' names falsely implies they
are affiliated with the company's goods or services and is likely
to confuse consumers. The website argued that the only "goods or
services" are the products purchased after clicking through links
on its site, but Gilliam isn't buying it.

"Plaintiff alleges that both Plaintiff and POPSUGAR provide an
online platform for users to shop for fashion and accessories
through other affiliated platforms, by posting 'shoppable' images
of influencers and products," writes Gilliam. "Plaintiff has
alleged a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding Defendant's
service of providing these 'shoppable' images.  . . .  The false
impression alleged in the complaint is that Plaintiff endorses or
is affiliated with Defendant's service, not that Plaintiff falsely
endorses the products themselves."

PopSugar also argued that Ms. Batra's claims for right of
publicity, contract interference and unfair competition are
preempted by the Copyright Act. Again, Gilliam sides with Batra.

"[B]ecause Plaintiff alleges an unlawful use of her likeness by
Defendant, and further alleges the misappropriation of
non-photographic elements of her likeness and identity, Plaintiff
has asserted rights that are not equivalent to the rights of
copyright holders," writes Judge Gilliam. Further, the court finds
the alleged removal of monetized links from Ms. Batra's instagram
is sufficient to maintain a claim for contract interference and
unfair competition.

Judge Gilliam also found Ms. Batra has plausibly alleged facts to
support her copyright infringement claims, although the court notes
that she will have to establish copyright registration dates in
order to survive summary judgment and to serve as a class
representative. [GN]
    

PREFERRED HOME: Hyppolite Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
MARIE E. HYPPOLITE, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PREFERRED HOME CARE OF NEW
YORK, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00927 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
15, 2019), seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York's Wage
and Hour Laws.

The case asserts a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act in connection with Defendant's violation of its
statutory obligation to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation,
to non-exempt employees, for work in excess of 40 hours per week,
at a rate of 1.5 times his/her regular rate of pay, pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 207(a), the lawsuit says.

Preferred Home Care of New York is a PCA/HHA training and home
health agency, matching individuals in need of care with
compassionate caregivers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          LAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          Shelly A. Leonard
          23 Green Street, Suite 303
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Thompson Files Class Action in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Universal
Insurance Co.  The case is styled as Darcee Thompson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Progressive Universal Insurance Co., a Wisconsin corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00150 (W.D. Wis., February 25, 2019).

Progressive Universal Insurance Company was incorporated in 1992
and is based in Mayfield, Ohio. Progressive Universal Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of Progressive Direct Holdings,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Aaron Kotchen,Esq.
   Kotchen & Low
   1745 Kalorama Road NW Suite 101
   Washington, DC 20009
   Tel: (202) 468-4014
   Email: dkotchen@kotchen.com

       - and -

   Jeffrey Miles Ostrow,Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow
   200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 525-4100x4200
   Fax: (954) 525-4300
   Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com


PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jucha Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Jucha as an individual and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Purple Communications, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; CSDVRS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06373 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., February 26, 2019) seeks recovery of penalties
under Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4, in
addition to seeking declaratory relief.

Plaintiff worked in excess of eight hours per workday and/or more
than 40 hours per workweek but did not receive overtime
compensation equal to one and one-half times her regular rate of
pay for working overtime hours, notes the complaint. Specifically,
Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses based on her
billable minutes, non-discretionary bonuses based on acquiring
repeat customers, and other forms of non-discretionary pay that are
not excludable from the regular rate of pay.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to accurately calculate Plaintiff's
regular rate of pay as a result of receiving Incentive Pay, as
Plaintiff was only paid one-and-a-half times her base rate of pay
for overtime hours, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all
her required overtime wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a California resident and was employed by Defendants
from approximately November 2011 until December 19, 2016.

Defendants did (and continue to do) business by providing American
Sign Language ("ASL") interpreting services for the deaf and
hard-of-hearing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
     Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 292-2350
     Fax: (424) 292-2355
     Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
            fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
            arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


REGIONAL ONE: Aleman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Aleman Jr. and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Regional One, Inc., Hank Gibson, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-20399 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2019), requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
along with court costs, interest and any other relief.

Aleman worked for Defendants as a inventory and cost analyst in the
cost accounting department. He claims to have worked over 40 hours
a week and was not paid the extra half time rate for any hours
worked over 40 hours in a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REIMER LAW: N.D. Ohio Strikes Class Claims in Glazer FDCA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE GLAZER, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. REIMER LAW CO.,
ET AL., Defendant, Case No. 1:09CV1262 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' Motion
to Strike and Dismiss Class Allegations and Claims Contained in
Third Amended Complaint.

In 2003, Charles Klie purchased residential property near Columbus,
Ohio.  Klie obtained a loan secured by a mortgage from Coldwell
Banker for the property.  In September 2003, Coldwell sold and
assigned the Loan to Federal National Mortgage Corp.  Coldwell
continued to service the Loan until October 2007, when it
transferred the servicing rights to JP Morgan Chase.  At the same
time, Coldwell assigned the servicing rights on the mortgage to JP
Morgan. Chase assumed the day-to-day servicing of the Loan on
behalf of JP Morgan.

Klie maintained current payments on the Loan until his death in
January 2008.  His fiduciaries, the Plaintiff included, informed
Chase that a probate proceeding in Franklin County, Ohio would
handle all of Klie's debts, including the Loan.  Chase did not file
a creditor claim in probate court.  Around this time, the Plaintiff
came into possession of the property and the Loan.

In May 2008, Chase, using a Twinsburg, Ohio law firm, Riemer,
Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co. ("RACJ"), began foreclosure
proceedings against the Loan.  During the foreclosure action, the
Plaintiff alleged that Chase falsely represented it was the owner
and holder of the Loan.  He filed the action alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and state law
claims against Chase and other named Defendants, including RACJ and
Cindy A. Smith.  In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendants unlawfully entered and damaged the property while
winterizing it.  The Plaintiff also claimed that the Defendants
placed new locks on the doors even though he put a note on the
house saying it was not abandoned.

On March 31, 2010, the Court dismissed the federal claims against
Chase, RACJ, Smith and other Defendants.  Because the Court
dismissed all the federal claims, the Court refused to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law claims.  On appeal, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, in part, and reversed,
in part. The Sixth Circuit found that the Court properly dismissed
the claims against Chase, but that it erred in dismissing the
claims against RACJ because a law firm conducting a mortgage
foreclosure is partaking in "debt collection" under the FDCPA.  In
addition to reinstating the federal claims against RACJ, the Sixth
Circuit reinstated the state law claims as well.

The Plaintiff did not appeal the Court's decision to dismiss Smith.
During the pendency of the Plaintiff's appeal, the Plaintiff
prosecuted his state law claims in state court. Those claims were
adjudicated and are no longer before the Court.

According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff cannot proceed with a
class action because he seeks to represent the class not only as
the Named Plaintiff but also as the class counsel.  Case law
provided by the Defendants clearly demonstrates that a pro se
plaintiff cannot fairly represent a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).  The Plaintiff has either been unwilling
or unable to retain new counsel to litigate the action since the
Court disqualified former counsel, the Plaintiff's wife, as the
counsel in the action due, in part, to her being a witness in the
case.

According to them, the Named Plaintiff also lacks experience in
litigating class actions of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
claims, such that even were he able to represent a class while
serving as the Named Plaintiff, his lack of experience would
disqualify him from consideration as class counsel.  Furthermore,
the Plaintiff has expressly indicated he will not seek to retain
new counsel despite the Court giving him ample opportunity to do
so. Plaintiff has requested the Court appoint class counsel.

In addition, the Defendants contend the Plaintiff is an inadequate
class representative because he has an inherent conflict due to his
wife's prior representation in the case and because he seeks
attorneys fees of over $600,000 and damages of over $1.5 million.
Thus, his claims do not share a common interest with the putative
class. Given his reluctance to provide discovery in the case and
answer questions concerning his claims at deposition, the
Defendants argue the Plaintiff's claims are antagonistic to the
class.

The Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Strike, arguing that the Court
lacks the authority to strike class allegations.  According to him,
he did not seek to proceed pro se, rather, the Court prematurely
disqualified his wife from representing him and the putative class.
Having convinced the Court to disqualify his wife, the Plaintiff
contends the Defendants should not benefit by their gamesmanship.

The Plaintiff further contends the Court must apply Rule 23 and not
Rule 12 in deciding whether a plaintiff may proceed as a class
action. Plaintiff argues that class certification is not
conditioned upon the adequacy of a class representative.  That
analysis occurs only after the Court has determined whether a class
may be certified under Rule 23.  inally, the Plaintiff asserts the
Court should appoint class counsel if it finds a class may be
certified.

Judge Boyko finds that the central issue is the obvious conflict of
interest presented when a named pro se Plaintiff also seeks to
represent the putative class.  He finds a Motion to Strike
appropriate given that class discovery would not elicit further
facts that would potentially preserve the class claims.  Instead,
were the Court to deny the Motion as procedurally improper, it
would only result in the same foregone conclusion, denial of class
certification, in yet another round of motion practice and would
result in needless further delay of this already ancient case.
Because the Plaintiff's status as the Named Plaintiff and the
proposed class counsel militates against class certification
whether in a motion to strike, motion to dismiss or class
certification opposition, further delay is unnecessary.

He also finds that while certainly not the Court's preferred method
to address the issue, the case has languished through many fits and
starts, involving unique issues of law and procedure that have
delayed resolution.  It is apparent at this stage that the
Plaintiff cannot or will not cure the defect presented in his
status as proposed class representative and class counsel.  As
Sixth Circuit caselaw is clear he cannot be both, the Judge will
grant the Defendants' Motion and Strikes the class allegations in
the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.

The Judge further declines to appoint the counsel to represent the
putative class.  First, because there is no constitutional right to
appointed counsel in a civil case.  Second, the Plaintiff's
reluctance to seek new counsel weighs strongly in the Court's mind
that he does not have the best interests of the class in mind.
Finally, there is no proposed counsel other than Named Plaintiff
and his already disqualified wife, for the court to consider.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Boyko granted the
Defendants' Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.  The case will
proceed on the Plaintiff's individual claims.  The parties will
confer and submit to the Court, no later than Feb. 28, 2019, a new
proposed schedule to include a settlement conference and trial date
to be held before the end of 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/T6v9zb from Leagle.com.

Larry R. Glazer, Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, pro se.

Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co. & Ronald Chernek, Esq.,
Defendants, represented by Darryl E. Gormley, Reimer Law, Lori E.
Brown -- lbrown@gallaghersharp.com -- Gallagher Sharp & Timothy T.
Brick -- tbrick@gallaghersharp.com -- Gallagher Sharp.

Darryl E. Gormley, Esq., Defendant, pro se.

Darryl Gormley, Esq., Defendant, represented by Lori E. Brown,
Gallagher Sharp & Timothy T. Brick, Gallagher Sharp.

ProVest LLC, Movant, represented by Sarah A. Okrzynski.

Nova Title Agency, Inc., Movant, represented by John F. Burke,
III.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Interested Party,
represented by Jennifer M. Monty, Ulmer & Berne & Daniel A.
Friedlander -- dfriedlander@weltman.com -- Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis.


RELIANT WIRING: Campos Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Campos and Nicholas Sumner, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cable Man,
Inc. and Reliant Wiring Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00054, (M.D. La., January 30, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide underground cable and fiber optic installation
services where Cable Man is an authorized contractor of Cox
Communications while Reliant is its subcontractor. Campos and
Sumner were employed by Cable Man through Reliant as technicians.
Reliant misclassified them as independent contractors instead of
employees, thus, denying them overtime pay despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: bdebes@eeoc.net

             - and -

      J. Arthur Smith, III, Esq.
      SMITH LAW FIRM
      830 North Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 224-0831
      Facsimile: (225) 383-7773
      Email: jasmith@jarthursmith.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Dismisses Usury Claim in P. Blair's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order granting Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment on Usury Claim in the case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA
ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a
Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. No. C 17-02335
WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

In this class action involving rent-to-own transactions, the
defendants move for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' usury
claim.

Defendants Rent-A-Center, Inc. and Rent-A-Center West, Inc.
maintained rent-to-own stores throughout California. These stores
rented and sold new and used household merchandise (e.g.,
appliances, electronics, and furniture) to consumers for periodic
payments. The operative complaint sought relief for violations of
(1) California's Karnette Rental-Purchase Act (2) California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (3) usury, and (4) Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.
  
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and
affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case.


Here, the relevant facts are not in dispute.

The California Constitution provides that any loan or forbearance
of any money, goods, or things in action, if the money, goods, or
things in action are for use primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, may accrue at a rate not exceeding 10 percent
per annum. California's usury law therefore applies only to
transactions which constitute a loan or forbearance. This order
concludes that the rent-to-own transactions at issue in this
litigation do not constitute a loan or forbearance and that
California's usury laws are therefore inapplicable.

A loan of money is a contract by which one delivers a sum of money
to another, and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum
equivalent to that which he borrowed. Rent-to-own transactions do
not fall within this definition. Under the parties' rental-purchase
agreements, plaintiffs made rental payments in advance to lease
household goods on a weekly or monthly basis.

The Plaintiffs agree that this is a lease "in form" but argue that
the transaction is nevertheless a loan in substance. To be sure, in
determining whether a transaction is a usurious loan, one "must
look to the substance of the transaction rather than to its form.

According to the plaintiffs' characterization, if a consumer makes
all rental payments delineated in a rental-purchase agreement and
thereby gains ownership of an item, the consumer has in effect
borrowed money to purchase the item and then repaid the purchase
price with an additional sum. If the consumer chooses not to make
all rental payments, plaintiffs argue, the consumer has effectively
borrowed the item and paid a hefty price for the item's use during
the rental period.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' characterizations, the plaintiffs never
incurred a debt or obligation to purchase the goods they rented.
Rather, they paid in advance of each rental period with the choice
to terminate the rental agreement at any time. While the plaintiffs
indisputably paid RAC significantly more to rent these items than
they would have paid to purchase outright from a traditional
retailer, this does not transform the rental transaction into a
loan.

The Karnette Act itself the very premise on which the plaintiffs
have anchored their case defines a rental-purchase agreement as an
agreement between a lessor and a consumer pursuant to which the
lessor rents or leases, for valuable consideration, personal
property for use by a consumer for personal, family, or household
purposes for an initial term not exceeding four months that may be
renewed or otherwise extended, if under the terms of the agreement
the consumer acquires an option or other legally enforceable right
to become owner of the property.

The Plaintiffs concede that RAC is not liable under California
usury law for rental-purchase transactions that fully comply with
the Karnette Act's pricing requirements. They instead argue that a
transaction becomes subject to usury when it fails to adhere to the
Act's price caps. This order disagrees. That a violation of the
Karnette Act's price-caps may be remedied both through the Karnette
Act's remedial provisions and through other remedies or penalties
established under other laws does not mean that the non-compliance
of a rental-purchase agreement transforms the nature of the
transaction into a loan or forbearance subject to usury laws.

In sum, because the parties' rental-purchase transactions do not
constitute a loan or forbearance under California law, RAC's motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' usury claim is granted.

Accordingly, RAC's motion for summary judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y4jahw3cfrom Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Andrea Robinson & Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiffs,
represented by James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart
Hannink and Coveney, Zachariah Paul Dostart -- ZDostart@SDLaw.com
-- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Andrew Edward Kushner --
akushner@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eric Prince
Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP &
Michael Rubin  -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Rent-A-Center West,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Christina
Guerola Sarchio -- christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Dechert

LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III  -- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com --
Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher -KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
– Kgallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP,
Lily Anna North -- lily.north@dechert.com -- Dechert, LLP, Robert
Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner --
vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory
G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


SAIGON CAFE: Cortez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Miguel Gonzaga Cortez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hang Lin, Qing Quan Zheng and
Saigon Cafe 89 Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00905, (S.D. N.Y.,
January 30, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees
and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the
bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate "Mido," a restaurant located at 612 Amsterdam
Ave., New York, where Cortez worked as a cook. He claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      39 Broadway Suite 1530
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 344-9022
      Fax: (212) 344-0301


SAKS INCORPORATED: N.Y. App. Div. Affirms Amendment Leave Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an Order affirming the District Court's denial
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in the case
captioned SAMUEL T. COHEN, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAKS
INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents. THOMAS H. JENNINGS,
ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAKS INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Respondents. ROBERT OLIVER, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SAKS INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents. JOSHUA
TEITELBAUM, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, ET
AL., Defendants-Respondents. JACK OLIVER, ETC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents. SHARON GOLDING, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SAKS INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents. MICHELLE
SABATTINI, ETC., Plaintiff, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants. 8421N, 652724/13, 652725/13, 652758/13, 652793/13,
652854/13, 653036/13, 652817/13. (N.Y. App. Div.).

The Plaintiffs appeal from the District Court's denial of their
Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs, shareholders of defendant Saks Incorporated, allege
that the board of directors of Saks breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the $2.9 billion acquisition of Saks by
defendant Hudson's Bay Company (the merger) insofar as the sale
price failed to account for the significant value of Saks's
flagship store in Manhattan. The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the
complaint to add new allegations against the Saks defendants and an
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against Saks's
financial advisor during the merger, Goldman Sachs.

To the extent plaintiffs allege that the Saks defendants breached
the duty of loyalty by virtue of the accelerated vesting of equity
and change of control benefits they received in connection with the
merger, these allegations are palpably insufficient. The directors'
interests were aligned with those of the shareholders to obtain the
highest value for their stock, and the change of control benefits
stemmed from their employment agreements, which were negotiated
years before any merger was contemplated and therefore did not
arise by virtue of the Merger.

Although the releases in the parties' stipulation of settlement are
sufficiently broad to cover the new allegations and claims, they do
not pose an independent basis for denying the motion to amend,
because, while class action settlements may generally be binding on
the named plaintiffs even before judicial approval, the terms of
the instant stipulation make clear that the releases do not become
effective until after court approval, which has not yet occurred.

While the plaintiffs' promise to support the stipulation and
cooperate in seeking court approval is not an unenforceable
statement of intention to do something in the future, it is
nonetheless unenforceable. The Plaintiffs and their counsel owe
fiduciary duties to absent class members and thus cannot be
required to support a settlement that is contrary to the best
interests of those class members.  

In light of this, the N.Y. App. Div. believes it need not reach the
plaintiffs' arguments with respect to rescission, vacatur, or the
necessity of a preliminary approval determination.

A full-text copy of the N.Y. App. Div.'s February 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6elej7gfrom Leagle.com.

Brower Piven, New York (David A.P. Brower, 475 Park Avenue
South33rd FloorNew York, NY10016, of counsel), for Samuel T. Cohen,
appellant.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York (Eduard Korsinsky  -- ek@zlk.com
-- of counsel), for Thomas H. Jennings, appellant.

Brodsky & Smith, LLP, Mineola (Evan J. Smith  --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com  -- of counsel), for Robert Oliver,
appellant.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, New York (Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. --
Seidman@bernlieb.com -- of counsel), for Joshua Teitelbaum,
appellant.

Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York (Peter Safirstein, 350 5th Ave,
New York, NY 10118, of counsel), for Jack Oliver and Wanda Oliver,
appellants.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York (Daniel Tepper
--
tepper@whafh.com -- of counsel), for Sharon Golding, appellant.

Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York (Tariq Mundiya --
tmundiya@willkie.com -- of counsel), for Saks Incorporated,
Hudson's Bay and Harry Acquisition Inc., respondents.


SALOMON SMITH: Alston Attorneys Discuss New Class Action Theory
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Tapson Macon, Esq. -- lauren.macon@alston.com -- and Tod
Sawicki, Esq. -- tod.sawicki@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an
article for JDSupra, report that the law firm's Securities
Litigation Group explains how the novel theory from the plaintiffs'
bar to bring a breach of fiduciary duty class action could
foreshadow an increase in financial firms' litigation risk.

   -- The complaint's allegations
   -- Dicta from the Georgia Supreme Court
   -- Holes in the plaintiff's theory

A class action was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia against a variable annuity company
and its captive broker-dealer asserting a novel theory of classwide
liability for purported breach of fiduciary duty because the
broker-dealer recommended its parent's variable annuity investments
for customers' tax-qualified retirement plans. The theory plays off
the plaintiffs' bar's success in ERISA fee cases[1] by cobbling
together the all-too-familiar saw about the unsuitability and
expense of variable annuity products for tax-advantaged accounts
and an expansive reading of dicta from a 2010 Supreme Court of
Georgia decision about the nature and scope of a broker's fiduciary
duty to its customers in nondiscretionary accounts. The plaintiff's
lawyer in the case has indicated he may be filing similar actions
against other firms.

The complaint seeks the certification of the class of "all Georgia
residents who purchased an individual variable deferred annuity
contract or who received a certificate to a group variable deferred
annuity contract issued by [the defendant], or who made an
additional investment through such a contract, within the
applicable statute of limitations that was used to fund a
[tax-qualified retirement plan]." The complaint then alleges that
the defendants "owed fiduciary duties" to the class members and
breached those duties "by providing investment advice that was not
in customers' best interest in an effort to steer class members'
money into variable annuities that would pay higher fees to" the
defendants.

The broad fiduciary duty the complaint depends on comes from dicta
in the last two sentences of the Supreme Court of Georgia's
decision in Holmes v. Grubman, 286 Ga. 636 (2010). The Holmes
opinion is the product of the Supreme Court of Georgia's answers to
the Second Circuit's certified questions concerning the viability
of "holder" claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
breach of fiduciary duty under Georgia common law. The plaintiff in
Holmes was a Salomon Smith Barney customer who relied on the
broker's false statements about the value of the customer's
substantial holdings of Worldcom Inc. stock, and the broker's
failure to disclose its conflict of interest as Worldcom's
investment banker, in deciding to hold, rather than sell, those
shares. In the opinion's last two sentences, the Supreme Court of
Georgia wrote:

However, we further conclude that the fiduciary duties owed by a
broker to a customer with a non-discretionary account are not
restricted to the actual execution of transactions. The broker will
generally have a heightened duty, even to the holder of a
non-discretionary account, when recommending an investment which
the holder has previously rejected or as to which the broker has a
conflict of interest.

In pursuing classwide treatment, the lawsuit assumes equivalence
between the rigid and uniform fiduciary duty imposed on ERISA plan
fiduciaries and the Holmes Court's recognition of the limited
fiduciary duty owed by a broker to its customer under Georgia
common law. But in doing so, the complaint's theory conveniently
ignores the myriad individualized circumstances and considerations
that inform and define a broker's relationship with each of its
customers. And further, the complaint's theory improperly conflates
the concepts of disclosure and suitability by implying that the
defendants could not satisfy their duties to their customers by
fulsome disclosure (which is not alleged to have been deficient),
but rather only by recommending different, less expensive
investment products. It is for these reasons, among others, that
the theory is unlikely to gain traction as the basis for a class
action against the variable annuity company and its captive
broker-dealer.

While this novel theory seems unlikely to take hold under the
current state of the law, if nothing else, it foreshadows one
variation of many new theories that may substantially increase the
litigation risk financial services firms will face in the
fast-approaching epoch of the SEC's best interest standard and
numerous states' codifications of fiduciary standards for brokers.

[1] Federal class actions brought under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by plan participants against
ERISA plan fiduciaries for choosing relatively expensive investment
options for the plan. [GN]


SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER UNGER, and DUSTIN LACH, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, th Plaintiffs, vs. SC ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and JOHN K.
SEARS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00125 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 18,
2019), alleges that the Defendants paid their employees at their
regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without a one and one-half regular rate overtime premium. The
Defendants attempted to conceal their failure to pay overtime
premium by a scheme in which Defendants falsely recorded employees'
time in their payroll records at 40 hours per week, regardless of
the number of hours actually worked.

SC Environmental Services, LLC provides wrecking and demolition
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq.
          LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY,
          DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.
          124 West Allegan, Suite 700
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 482-2400
          E-mail: jstheuer@loomislaw.com

SELIP & STYLIANOU: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tompkins FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned ROBERT TOMPKINS, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP, RAB
PERFORMANCE RECOVERIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-24, Defendants. Civil
Action No. 18-12524 (JLL). (D.N.J.).

This matter comes before the Court by way of a Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint filed by Defendant RAB Performance Recoveries, LLC
(RAB) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  
This is a putative state-wide class action arising from a
debt-collection letter that Plaintiff alleges was sent by
Defendants RAB, a debt collection agency, and Selip & Stylianou
(Selip), RAB's legal counsel, in violation of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA).
  
To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she
is a consumer (2) the defendant is a debt collector (3) the
defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a
debt' as the FDCPA defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a
provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt. Here, RAB
disputes only the fourth prong that its attempt to collect on the
Superior Court judgment against Plaintiff violated the FDCPA.

RAB does not dispute that a debt collector's failure to comply with
the NJCFLA's licensing requirements may constitute a violation of
the FDCPA. Rather, RAB argues that it was exempt from those
requirements.

The NJCFLA provides that no person shall engage in business as a
consumer lender or sales finance company without first obtaining a
license or licenses under this act. Plaintiff argues that RAB was
subject to the licensing requirements as both a consumer lender as
well as a sales finance company.  

Consumer Lender

The NJCFLA defines the consumer loan business as follows: "Consumer
loan business means the business of making loans of money, credit,
goods or things in action, which are to be used primarily for
personal, family or household purposes, in the amount or value of
$50,000 or less and charging, contracting for, or receiving a
greater rate of interest, discount or consideration therefor than
the lender would be permitted by law to charge if he were not a
licensee hereunder, except as authorized by this act and without
first obtaining a license from the commissioner. Any person
directly or indirectly engaging in the business of soliciting or
taking applications for such loans of $50,000 or less, or in the
business of negotiating or arranging or aiding the borrower or
lender in procuring or making such loans of $50,000 or less, or in
the business of buying, discounting or endorsing notes, or of
furnishing, or procuring guarantee or security for compensation in
amounts of $50,000 or less, shall be deemed to be engaging in the
consumer loan business."

RAB argues that, pursuant to the italicized text in the first part
of the definition of consumer loan business, so long as a lender
charges an interest rate below the usury law's 16% limit, the
lender need not be licensed under the NJCFLA. RAB submits that it
never charged the Plaintiff over 16% interest on the Juniper Bank
obligation, so it is therefore exempt from the consumer lender
licensing requirements.  

The Plaintiff argues that RAB's licensing violation arises instead
from the bolded language in the second part of the definition,
since RAB directly or indirectly engages in the business of buying
notes.  

RAB's argument that it has not purchased debt since 2012 and that
it therefore was not required to be licensed at the time of the May
30, 2018 letter is unavailing, since RAB would have had to acquire
the appropriate license before purchasing the Plaintiffs debt in
order to ensure that its purchase and subsequent collection effort
conformed with the NJCFLA.  

The Court therefore finds that the Complaint states a plausible
FDCPA claim based on RAB's failure to obtain a license pursuant to
the consumer lender provision of the NJCFLA. The Complaint alleges
that RAB is a consumer lender as defined at N.J.S.A. 17:11C-2
insofar as RAB is in the business of buying, discounting or
endorsing notes, or of furnishing, or procuring guarantee or
security for compensation in amounts of $50,000 or less. Plaintiff
further alleges that RAB did not obtain the appropriate license
issued by the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and
that therefore it was prohibited from attempting to collect on
Plaintiff's obligation.

Finally, the Complaint alleges that the letter would cause the
least sophisticated consumer to believe that Defendants had the
legal ability to attempt to collect the debt and that Defendants
had acquired the appropriate licenses or had otherwise complied
with New Jersey regulations.

These allegations sufficiently state a claim pursuant to Section
1692e(10) of the FDCPA.

Sales Finance Company

Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff plausibly states a claim
under the FDCPA based on his theory that RAB was subject to NJCFLA
licensing requirements as a consumer lender, the Court need not
wade into superfluous interpretation of state law to determine
whether RAB was further subject to the NJCFLA as a sales finance
company.

Summary Judgment

RAB urges that, to the extent the Court relies on certain factual
statements contained in a declaration from its managing member
submitted in support of its Motion, the Court should convert its
Motion to Dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Because the
Court does not rely on those factual statements and finds that a
motion for summary judgment is premature at this stage, the Court
treats RAB's Motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) only.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y33a4qd6from Leagle.com.

ROBERT TOMPKINS, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BEN A. KAPLAN.

SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP, Defendant, represented by ANDREW MICHAEL
SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC, LAWRENCE J. BARTEL, III -- ljbartel@mdwcg.com
-- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN & RICHARD SAMUEL
EICHENBAUM, SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP.

RAB PERFORMANCE RECOVERIES, LLC, Defendant, represented by DAVID
EDELBERG, CULLEN and DYKMAN LLP.


SHOEDAZZLE.COM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHOEDAZZLE.COM, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01433-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website at style.shoedazzle.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

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

ShoeDazzle is an American online fashion subscription service based
in El Segundo, California. Each month the company debuts a
selection of shoes, handbags, jewelry and provides its members with
a showroom curated to their indicated fashion preferences.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

SIDESHOW INC.: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SIDESHOW INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01434-PGG-SDA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website at www.sideshowtoy.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

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

Sideshow Inc. develops, finances, and produces quality independent
feature films and assists other filmmakers in reaching their
goals.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

SILDAN CORPORATION: Olsen Files ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------
Sildan Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sildan Corporation doing business as:
Illesteva, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01738 (S.D. N.Y., February
25, 2019).

Sildan Corporation is in the Sunglasses & Eyewear business in New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SITEL OPERATING: Foster Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, MARQUISE FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00414, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) on
Feb. 15, 2019. The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk
assigned Case no. 3:19-cv-00148 to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Eli J. Richardson.

The case is a collective action to recover overtime wages,
liquidated damages and other applicable penalties brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members are those similarly situated persons who have worked
for Sitel in call centers throughout the United States at any time
from December 4, 2015.

Sitel Operating Corporation, a business process outsourcing
company, provides telephone call center services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  pbotros@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Sitel Operating Corporation:

          Robyn M. Funk, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS ET AL
          8117 Preston Rd., Ste 500
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telehone: (214) 525-2191
          E-mail: robyn.funk@ogletreedeakins.com

SMITH COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Action Over Voter Registration List
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mansfield, writing for Tyler Morning Telegraph, reports that
Smith County has been named in a class-action lawsuit that alleges
illegal discrimination against U.S. citizens for sending them
letters telling them to prove their citizenship.

The class-action lawsuit calls the plaintiffs "U.S. citizens and
registered voters of Texas who have been singled out for
investigation and removal from the voter rolls by the Texas
Secretary of State because they were born outside the United
States."

The lawsuit alleges that Texas officials are taking action against
them because of their national origin, race or color, and asks for
the court to find that they have been discriminated against and
stop the action from happening.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF,
filed the original lawsuit Feb. 2 along with other organizations
involved in furthering voting rights for Latinos. The lawyers
updated the lawsuit on Feb. 10 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The updated complaint names Smith County Elections Administrator
Karen Nelson based on her office's decision to send out letters to
as many as 239 people questioning their citizenship. The local
plaintiff is a woman who received a letter and is named in the suit
under the pseudonym "Jane Doe #1."

"Plaintiff Doe #1 is injured by having been placed on the Secretary
of State's list of 'Possible Non U.S. Citizens' and having her
identifying information sent to the county in which she is
registered to vote with instructions to use that information for
investigation and possible removal from the voter rolls," the
lawsuit says.

She also was injured by the threat of removal from the voter role,
by having been investigated for illegal registration and voting,
and by having been stigmatized as a person who might have
registered illegally, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit seeks to have the court declare that the affected class
have been unconstitutionally targeted, and for the court to bar the
state and local governments from acting on the list.

This is the second lawsuit to name Ms. Nelson in her official role
as Smith County elections administrator. Nelson was summoned in the
first one, Move Texas Civic Fund v. David Whitley, Texas Secretary
of State, filed in the same court in Galveston.

The Smith County Commissioners Court held an executive session at
the end of its regular meeting on Feb. 12 to discuss the Move Texas
case and any other pending litigation against the county. Neither
members of the court nor Ms. Nelson commented on the issue. [GN]


SOGOU INC: Bishop Sues over Misleading Securities Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SKYLER BISHOP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SOGOU INC., CHARLES (CHAOYANG)
ZHANG, XIAOCHUAN WANG, YUXIN REN, JOANNA (YANFENG) LU, BIN GAO,
JOSEPH CHEN, JANICE LEE, JAMES (XIUFENG) DENG, SOHU.COM INC.,
TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) L.L.C., GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED and
DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CIV00780 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased Sogou American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's November 9, 2017 initial
public offering (IPO).

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors in connection with the IPO.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Chinese
regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because of an
increase [in its] merchants' sales of counterfeit goods and because
Sogou's existing software, advertising procedures, personnel, and
audit procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance
violations with governing Chinese regulators, and would need to be
updated, enhanced and strengthened, [requiring] increased expenses;
(ii) Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because
of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a
primary driver of Sogou's cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing
with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iii)
Sogou planned to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and
push the Company's AI capabilities to increase product
competitiveness; (iv) as a result of altering its smart hardware
strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and
transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou
hoped would reduce hardware revenues in the second half of 2018;
and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As the
truth hit the market, Sogou's share price fell to just $5.50 by
October 30, 2018, a decrease of over 57% less than a year from the
IPO.

According to the complaint, Sogou was the second largest internet
search engine provider in China by mobile queries and the fourth
largest internet company in China based on monthly active users as
of September 2017. The Company generates revenues primarily from
search and search-related advertising services, which represented
more than 90% of the Company's total revenues in the year ended
December 3l, 2016.

In February 2006, Sohu undertook a reorganization of its search and
search-related businesses, whereby most of these businesses were
transferred to Sogou. Until October 2010, Sogou was indirectly
wholly owned by Sohu. In October 2010, Sohu undertook another
reorganization in preparation for Sogou's issuance of Pre-IPO
Series A Preferred Shares in a financing transaction, and
transferred other businesses and employees related to the search
and search-related businesses to Sogou. Sogou then issued and sold
Pre-IPO Series A Preferred Shares to a number of prominent Chinese
technology companies, including Alibaba Investment Limited. In June
2012, Sohu repurchased the Pre-IPO Series A Preferred Shares held
by Alibaba.

In September 2013, Tencent, a Chinese multinational investment
holding conglomerate whose subsidiaries specialize in various
internet-related services and products both in China and globally,
invested in Sogou. In addition, Tencent transferred its Soso
search-related businesses and certain other assets to the Company
in exchange for voting Pre-IPO Series B Preferred Shares and
non-voting Pre-IPO Class B ordinary shares of Sogou. In August
2017, in preparation for the IPO, Sohu, Tencent, and Sogou entered
into a voting agreement that provided for the redesignation of all
of the Company's authorized an outstanding equity shares
outstanding immediately prior to the completion of the IPO into
either Class A ordinary shares or Class B ordinary shares effective
upon completion of the IPO.

The pre-IPO transactions put in place by the Defendants allowed
them to shift pre-IPO assets into Sogou as the issuing entity,
which then issued and sold ADSs to the public in the IPO. The Sogou
Defendant's creation of a multi-share class voting structure, along
with other favorable agreements with the Company, effectively
allowed them to entrench their control over the Company's assets
out of proportion to their exposure to the assets' economic risk.
The Class A ordinary shares which where represented by the ADSs
issued and sold to the public in the IPO, had one vote per share,
while Class B ordinary shares, which were retained by Company
insiders, had 10 votes per share.

Leading up to the IPO, the Company's market share among Chinese
internet search providers grew rapidly. Sogou claimed 15.2% market
share in March 2017, 16.9% market share in June 2017, and 17.8%
market share in September 2017. The Company sought to reassure
investors that it was well capitalized and that its rapid growth
rate was the product of sustainable business practices that had
positioned the Company to capture "massive" sales opportunities in
an expanding and underutilized Chinese market.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James I. Janette, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: 619/231-1058
          Facsimile: 619/231-7423
          E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

SOGOU: Investors Sue Over Failure to Disclose Regulatory Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
SecuringIndustry.com reports that search engine firm Sogou is
facing a class action lawsuit from investors who claim it failed to
disclose serious regulatory issues when it listed in the US.

The Chinese company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in
November 2017 and according to the plaintiffs in the case it failed
to reveal in its Initial Public Offering (IPO) prospectus that it
was under investigation by the Chinese authorities "because of an
increase in Sogou merchants' sales of counterfeit goods."

The complaint alleges that "Chinese regulators were analysing Sogou
for regulatory action because Sogou's existing software,
advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were
insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with
governing Chinese regulations."

It says Sogou failed to disclose that its systems would need to be
"updated, enhanced, and strengthened," resulting in increased
expenses. [GN]


SPIN THE PLANET: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York issued a Decision and Order granting in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned SELENA THOMPSON, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS, v. SPIN THE PLANET, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS. No.
18-CV-6755 CJS. (W.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
New York and Massachusetts labor laws in New York State Supreme
Court against the Defendants. The complaint seeks to recover
damages in the form of unpaid wages and pay as well as injunctive
relief and declaratory relief on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and
similarly situated delivery drivers who work or have worked for the
Defendants in New York and Massachusetts.

Before addressing either the motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, or the motion to extend the time to file an amended
complaint, the Court must first assure itself that it has
jurisdiction over the parties.

Personal jurisdiction is lacking for the Massachusetts claims

To establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant, due process
requires a plaintiff to allege (1) that a defendant has certain
minimum contacts' with the relevant forum, and (2) that the
exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable in the circumstances. A
defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state should
allow it to reasonably anticipate it could be haled into court
there.  

In assessing whether a defendant has the necessary minimum contacts
with the forum state, the Court must make a distinction between
specific and general personal jurisdiction.

Specific personal jurisdiction exists when a forum exercises
personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or
related to the defendant's contacts with the forum; a court's
general jurisdiction, on the other hand, is based on the
defendant's general business contacts with the forum and permits a
court to exercise its power in a case where the subject matter of
the suit is unrelated to those contacts. The existence of either
specific personal jurisdiction or general personal jurisdiction
satisfies the minimum contacts requirement of the Due Process
Clause.

Section 302 provides that personal jurisdiction in the state is
established when the defendant (1) transacts business in New York
and (2) the asserted claim arises from that business activity.
Defendants concede they are transacting business in New York, but
the complaint does not allege that the Massachusetts claims arise
from Defendants' New York business activity.

Thus, they argue, the complaint does not establish any basis for
specific jurisdiction over claims arising from activities in
Massachusetts and ask the Court to dismiss those claims, or, in the
alternative, transfer this case to Defendants' home state,
Minnesota.

Paragraphs 17, 18, 70, and 72 of the complaint allude to activities
in Massachusetts. Paragraphs 78 through 80 discuss relevant
Massachusetts law, and paragraph 90(b) describes the Massachusetts
subclass for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Second Cause of Action described in paragraphs 106-11 raises claims
under Massachusetts law. The Court agrees that the complaint does
not establish a basis for specific personal jurisdiction for the
claims arising from activities in Massachusetts under Massachusetts
law. The Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the New York
activities allegedly in violation of New York law. The Court sees
no reason at present to consider the alternative relief sought by
the Defendants.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part, in that all
claims based on actions arising from Defendants' activities in
Massachusetts are dismissed without prejudice due to lack of
personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6z3pf2sfrom
Leagle.com.

Selena Thompson, Jon M. Stewart, Christine Ost & Jacob Manning, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Annette M. Gifford, Thomas & Solomon
LLP, J. Nelson Thomas, Thomas & Solomon LLP, Jessica Lynne
Lukasiewicz, Thomas & Solomon LLP & Michael J. Lingle, Thomas &
Solomon LLP.

Spin the Planet, Inc., STP JJ Team 1, LLC, d/b/a Spin the Planet
Enterprises, d/b/a Jimmy John's, WTE, Inc. & Daniel Vansteenburg,
Defendants, represented by Joseph M. Sokolowski --
jsokolowski@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., pro hac vice &
Mary L. Fee -- mfee@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.


SUNRISE INFINITI: Martello Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARTELLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNRISE INFINITI, LLC and JOHN LASALA,
the Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-00926 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a car sales
representative for Defendants from June 2018 until August 2018.
During his employment, the Plaintiff was paid a weekly salary,
which salary did not satisfy minimum or overtime wages for all
hours the Plaintiff worked. After the Plaintiff complained about
the payment structure to Defendants, he was terminated.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and
the Class Members:

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          Facsimile: (516) 634-6341
          E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

THAI TASTE: Barajas Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER ALEJANDRO LINARES BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. THAI TASTE INC. (D/B/A SPICE HUT),
RAYYA CORPORATIONS, INC. (D/B/A SPICE HUT), NUMAN ALI, and TARIQ
DOE, Case No. 1:19-cv-01643 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2019), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law.

Thai Taste Inc. and Rayya Corporations, Inc., both doing business
as Spice Hut, are domestic corporations organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal
place of business in New York City.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant,
located at 2036 2nd Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Spice
Hut."  The Indian restaurant is located in the East Harlem section
of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRACFONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Ad Texts
-----------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida man hit prepaid mobile phone operator
Tracfone Wireless Inc. with a proposed class action on Feb. 13
accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending spam advertising. [GN]


TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Franchi Challenges Sale to Siris Capital
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Travelport Worldwide Limited, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01802 (S.D. N.Y., February 26, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on December
10, 2018, pursuant to which Travelport Worldwide Limited will be
acquired by affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC and Evergreen
Coast Capital Corp.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement that the Defendants
filed with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for
March 15, 2019, omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, rendering the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

The Plaintiff is an owner of Travelport common stock.

The Defendant Travelport is a Bermuda exempted company.
Travelport's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange,
which is based in this District, under the ticker symbol "TVPT."
Travelport is a travel commerce platform providing distribution,
technology, payment, mobile, and other solutions for the global
travel and tourism industry.

The Individual Defendants are members of Travelport's board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Ste 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 683-3516
      E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com


TRIBECA AUTOMOTIVE: J. Roberts' Suit Remanded to NJ State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
in the case captioned PEDRO ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. TRIBECA AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-8330. (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff seeks to recover wages for a class of employees that
were allegedly misclassified as independent contractors, rather
than employees.  

CAFA provides federal courts with diversity jurisdiction over class
actions when (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (2)
there are minimally diverse parties and (3) the class consists of
100 or more members.  

To determine whether the CAFA jurisdictional requirements are met,
a court may evaluate the allegations in the complaint and a
defendant's notice of removal.  

At issue here is whether the Plaintiff's damages exceed $5 million.
The Plaintiff's Complaint does not seek a specific amount of
monetary damages and specifically states that the the value of this
matter falls below the $5 million threshold of the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Tribeca argues that the Plaintiff's obviously non-arbitrary demand
for $5,752,515.51 makes it clear beyond a legal certainty that the
Plaintiff can prove damages in excess of the CAFA minimum.

The Plaintiff's letter does not. In his letter, the Plaintiff
expressly stated that the amount was only an estimate.  

Moreover, as explained by Judge Clark: "The letter fails to
demonstrate, with even the slightest detail, how the demand was
calculated and what variables were included to reach the amount.
For example, Plaintiff's correspondence does not include the number
of hours the proposed class members were already compensated for,
nor does it include their salaries or the calculation for how the
estimate of damages were reached."

By relying solely on the Plaintiff's letter, which contains
estimated damages, and without further information or analysis,
Tribeca fails to meet its burden. Because Tribeca does not satisfy
the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA, this Court does
not have jurisdiction over this matter.

Discretionary Home State Exception

Although the Defendant's failure to establish the amount in
controversy is dispositive, the Court will also address the CAFA
home state discretionary exception since the Defendant also objects
to the R&R on these grounds.

CAFA provides exceptions to federal court jurisdiction even if the
requirements of Section 1332(d)(2) are otherwise satisfied. The
discretionary home state exception is one such exception. Pursuant
to the discretionary home state exception, a court, in the
interests of justice, may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a
class action in which greater than one-third but less than
two-thirds of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes in the
aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in
which the action was originally filed.

The action was originally filed in New Jersey state court. The
Defendant does not appear to challenge the fact that it is at home
in New Jersey or that between one-third and two-thirds of the class
members are citizens of New Jersey. Instead, the Defendant argues
that the Court should not invoke the discretionary exception
because this matter involves interstate trucking, which is a field
over which federal courts generally assert jurisdiction.

The Defendant maintains that although class members operate out of
the Port of Newark, New Jersey, they deliver vehicles to other
states. Moreover, the Defendant contends that the outcome of this
case will impact other interstate carriers, ocean shipping, port
administration, and foreign and interstate commerce in general.

Although the Defendant is an interstate trucking company and the
resolution of this matter may have an impact outside of this state,
the matter involves New Jersey labor law. In fact, five of the six
statutory factors favor remand. Factors (A) and (B) weigh towards
remand because the asserted claims involve violations of the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) and the New Jersey Wage and
Payment Law (NJWPL). Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks recourse for
alleged wage violations committed by a New Jersey employer, and
does not assert any other state or federal violations. Factors (D)
and (E) also support remand.  

Because five of the six factors weigh towards remand, this matter
is uniquely local. Accordingly, if CAFA jurisdiction did exist, the
Court would exercise its discretion and remand the matter to the
Superior Court of New Jersey.  

Preemption

In its objection to the R&R, the Defendant also argues that this
case should not be remanded because the Plaintiffs claims are
preempted by the FAAAA. The Defendant did not assert FAAAA
preemption as a basis for federal jurisdiction in its Notice of
Removal, and did not argue this issue in opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for remand. Instead, the Defendant raises this
argument in its objection to the R&R for the first time.

A party objecting to an R&R shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report which
an objection is made and the basis of such objection. Thus, a court
is not "required to consider objections that were not presented
before the magistrate."

In this instance, the Defendant does not explain why it failed to
raise this argument previously. And while the Court acknowledges
that this issue has not been fully briefed, the Defendant's
argument appears to be meritless.  Consequently, the Court sees no
convincing reason to consider the Defendant's preemption argument
at this time.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yy5xhphwfrom
Leagle.com.

PEDRO ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by RAVI SATTIRAJU, THE
SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. & ANTHONY SANTOS ALMEIDA, THE SATTIRAJU
LAW FIRM, P.C.

TRIBECA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM D.
BIERMAN -- WBierman@pricemeese.com -- Price Meese Shulman &
D'Arminio & RICK A. STEINBERG -- RSteinberg@pricemeese.com -- Price
Meese Shulman & D'Arminio, P.C.


U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Amaral Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen M. Amaral, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00189 (M.D. Fla., January 30, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' and paralegal fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

U.S. Security Associates is a provider of security services with
several divisional headquarters in various parts of Florida where
Amaral worked as an administrative assistant. U.S. Security
Associates never paid Plaintiff overtime, at the rate of one and
one half of her correct hourly rate despite working in excess of 40
hours per week, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
     SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
     625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 600
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Telephone: (561) 659-3300
     Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
     Email: mail@schwarzberglaw.com
            steve@schwarzberglaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Uber told a federal judge on Feb. 12 that
what's left of a putative class action against the ride-hailing
company should be tossed after the suit's lead plaintiff, a
Massachusetts cab driver, passed away. [GN]


UNITED FEDERAL: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Gunter Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
in the case captioned TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10 inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC. (D. Nev.).

This Court finds on a preliminary basis that the class as defined
in the Settlement Agreement (Settlement Class) meets all of the
requirements for certification of a settlement class under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law.
  
This certification of a preliminary Settlement Class under this
Order is for settlement purposes only and shall not constitute, nor
be construed as, an admission on the part of the Defendant in this
Action that any other proposed or certified class action is
appropriate for class treatment pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or any similar statute, rule or common law.

Entry of this Order is without prejudice to the rights of Defendant
to oppose class certification in this action should the settlement
not be approved or not be implemented for any reason or to
terminate the Settlement Agreement as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court provisionally, and solely for purposes of this
settlement, finds that the members of the Settlement Class are so
numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable, that
the litigation and proposed settlement raise issues of law and fact
common to the claims of the Class Members and these common issues
predominate over any issues affecting only individual members of
the Settlement Class, that the claims of Tonya Gunter (Named
Plaintiff) are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class, that
in prosecuting this Action and negotiating and entering into the
Settlement Agreement, the Named Plaintiff and her counsel have
fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement
Class and will adequately represent the Settlement Class in
connection with the settlement, and that a class action is superior
to other methods available for adjudicating the controversy.

The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement and the attached
Notice of Pending Class Action and Proposed Settlement (Notice)
(Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement) and finds that the
settlement memorialized therein falls within the range of
reasonableness and potential for final approval, thereby meeting
the requirements for preliminary approval, and that the Notice
should go out to the Settlement Class in the manner described in
the Settlement Agreement. The settlement appears to be reasonable
in light of the risk inherent in continuing with litigation.

The Court also notes that the settlement is a non-reversionary one
where no money will be returned to the Defendant. The Court also
notes that the settlement was arrived at after an arm's length
negotiation involving experienced counsel.

The Court finds that the methods of giving notice prescribed in the
Settlement Agreement meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and due process, are the best notice practicable
under the circumstances, shall constitute due and sufficient notice
to all persons entitled thereto, and comply with the requirements
of the Constitution of the United States, and all other applicable
laws.

The Court approves and adopts the procedures, deadlines, and manner
governing all requests to be excluded from the Class, or for
objecting to the proposed settlement, as provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.

All costs incurred in connection with providing notice and
settlement administration services to the Class Members shall be
paid from the Settlement Fund.

If the settlement is not approved or consummated for any reason
whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement and all proceedings in
connection therewith shall terminate without prejudice to the
status quo ante and rights of the parties to the action as they
existed prior to the date of the execution of the Settlement
Agreement, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6elej7gfrom Leagle.com.

Tonya Gunter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Eddie K. Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, pro hac vice,
James Strenio -- James@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC,
Richard D. McCune- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert James Dart  -- robert@kicklawfirm.com --
The Kick Law Firm, APC, Taras Kick -- Taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro
hac vice, Thomas A. Segal -- Thomas@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law
Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G. Gordon, Glen Lerner Injury
Attorneys.

United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A.
Kohl, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC, Robert W. Hernquist, Howard
& Howard Attorneys PLLC, Stephen Paul Dunn, Howard & Howard
Attorneys PLLC, pro hac vice & Brandon J. Wilson, Howard & Howard.


UNITED STATES: Court Issues Injunctive Relief in K. Tiwari Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order enjoining Defendants from
requiring a biennial series of National Intelligence Agency Checks
for continuous monitoring or security clearance eligibility
purposes in the case captioned KIRTI TIWARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of
Defense, in his official capacity, Defendant. No. C17-242 TSZ.
(W.D. Wash.).

The Court enters the following permanent injunction: the Defendant
and the United States Department of Defense are enjoined from
requiring, in the absence of individualized suspicion, a biennial
series of National Intelligence Agency Checks for continuous
monitoring or security clearance eligibility purposes with respect
to any plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 14, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y3y6c7lffrom Leagle.com.

Kirti Tiwari, Seung Yoon Yang, Amandeep Singh, Duncan Makau,
Valdeta Mehanja, Raj Chettri, Blerta Mehanja, Rajat Kaushik, Thong
Nguyen, Sandeep Singh, Xi Cui, Mengmeng Cai, Kusuma Nio, Qi Xiong,
Angelita Acebes, Fleury Ngantchop Keigni Di Satchou & Kaushal
Wadhwani, Plaintiffs, represented by Neil T. O'Donnell, CASCADIA
CROSS BORDERLAW GROUP LLC, pro hac vice & Joseph R. Shaeffer --
joe@mhb.com -- MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS.

Patrick Shanahan, Acting Secretary, United States Department of
Defense, in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by Joseph
C. Dugan, US DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DEVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS
BRANCH, Michael Fraser Knapp, US DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DEVISION,
FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH & Nathan M. Swinton, US DEPT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH.


UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Video Teleconferencing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WNYC reports that in June of last year, the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's New York Field Office announced that it would start
holding hearings for detained immigrants exclusively through video
teleconferences.

An organization called Brooklyn Defenders Services, alongside the
Legal Aid Society and the Bronx Defender's Office filed a class
action lawsuit against ICE because of this move.

Andrea Saenz is an attorney with the nonprofit Brooklyn Defenders
Services and the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project. They
provide free lawyers to detained immigrants with low income.

Then we take a broader look at how video teleconferencing is
heavily relied on in immigration detention cases across the
country.

WNYC's Beth Fertig is joins us to discuss what this trend looks
like nationwide.

Click on the 'Listen' button above to hear this segment. Don't have
time to listen right now? Subscribe to our podcast via iTunes,
TuneIn, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts to take this
segment with you on the go. [GN]


US ZHIMINGDE: Ruixue Fan Files Securities Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruixue Fan v. US Zhimingde International Group, LLC, Beijing
Zhimingde Science Co. Ltd., China Beijing North Continent Biology
Co., Ltd., Beijing Zhimingde Liangzi Bio-Technology Co. Ltd.,
Beijing Zhengdehuitong Biotech Co. Ltd. and Zhongquan Zou, Jane Doe
and John Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:19-cv-01647 (S.D.N.Y., February 21,
2019), accuses the Defendants of engaging in fraudulent interstate
transactions in violation of the Securities Act of 1934.

Ms. Fan also accuses the Defendants of selling unregistered
securities, misbranding dietary supplement, and improperly labeling
their dietary supplement products, among other violations.  She
alleges that the Defendants advertise their Zhimingde Herbal
Supplement products with the medical effect of making human body
discharge toxins, and providing an assisting effect in lowering
blood lipid, and reducing the risks of chemical hepatic injury.

US Zhimingde International Group, LLC, with main business in New
York City, operates as a subsidiary of Beijing Zhimingde.
Zhongquan Zou is the president of US Zhimingde.  The other
Defendants are also engaged in marketing and manufacturing of the
products.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to bring a class action on behalf
of other members, who are similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666


UXIN LIMITED: Faces Chiu Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL CHIU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UXIN LIMITED; KUN DAI; ZHEN ZENG;
RONG LU; JULIAN CHENG; DOU SHEN; HAINAN TAN; MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC; GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG
SECURITIES LIMITED; and CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG)
LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 650633/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., Jan. 31, 2019) is a securities class action brought on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Uxin pursuant and traceable
to the Company's initial public offering held on or around June 27,
2018, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on June 28, 2018, the Company filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission a prospectus for its
upcoming IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement. The
Company sold in its IPO 25,000,000 American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") at a price of $9 per share. Each ADS represents three
shares of Class A common stock. The Company received proceeds of
approximately $205.1 million from the IPO, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were
purportedly to be used to improve the Company's transaction service
capabilities, research and development, and general corporate
purposes.

On November 20, 2018, Uxin reported that the transaction volume of
its 2B business had declined 8.5% year-over-year and the gross
merchandise value ("GMV") had declined 14.8% year-over-year due to
the Company's decision to stop providing services such as
inspections for its customers.

As a result, Uxin's share price had fallen $4.50 per share in total
from its $9 IPO price, or 50%, to close at $4.50 on November 20,
2018.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Registration Statement was materially
false and misleading and omitted to state that: (1) Uxin was likely
to stop providing complementary services such as inspections to its
customers; (2) instead, Uxin would connect consumers to dealers who
would provide such complementary services; (3) as a result, Uxin's
2B business would be materially impacted; and (4) consequently,
Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement regarding
Uxin's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading.

Uxin Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates an used car
e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and
is based in Beijing, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


VALE SA: Minas Gerais to Sue Over Brumadinho Dam Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------
OOSKAnews reports that the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais will
file a civil class action against iron ore mining giant Vale SA as
the numbers of deaths caused by the Brumadinho dam disaster rose to
165 with 155 still unaccounted for. An internal October 2018
document from Vale which projected how much a dam collapse in
Brumadinho would cost, how many people could die and what would be
its causes will be cited, according to the Minas Gerais State
Attorney office. The report stated that nine other dams were also
at risk of collapsing. [GN]


WE SUPERLATIVE: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
We Superlative Conspiracy, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. We Superlative Conspiracy,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01107 (E.D. N.Y., February 25,
2019).

WE Superlative Conspiracy, Inc. retails apparel online. The Company
offers shirts, hoodies, jeans, swimwear, shorts, and trousers, as
well as accessories for men and women. WE Superlative Conspiracy
serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST 171: Court Certifies Rent Fraud Suit as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned EMMA GRIFFITH and MERISSA MEYERS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEST 171
ASSOCIATES, LP, Defendant. Docket No. 159398/2017, Motion Seq. No.
001. (N.Y. Sup.).

The Plaintiffs are seeking an order pursuant to CPLR Section 901 et
seq. certifying this action as a class action.

This action was commenced as a putative class action by plaintiffs
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other past, present
and prospective tenants residing at 651 West 171st Street, City and
State of New York. The Plaintiffs allege that the building is
regulated by the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) by the defendant's
receipt of J-51 tax benefits since 2008 and that the defendant's
participation in the J-51 tax reduction program will terminate in
2042. The Plaintiffs allege that defendant engaged in a fraudulent
scheme intending to overcharge its past, current and prospective
tenants with rents that have exceeded or will exceed Rent
Stabilization levels during the J-51 tax benefit period.  

CPLR Section 901(a) sets forth five threshold requirements that
must be satisfied before a class action may be maintained:

   1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether
otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable;

   2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;

   3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class;

   4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class; and

   5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Plaintiffs argue that they have satisfied each of the five
prerequisites for class certification.

The Plaintiffs contend that given the issues alleged in the
complaint, litigating these claims as a class action is the
superior method to resolve the allegations due to the defendant's
alleged practice of circumventing the Rent Stabilization Laws while
receiving J-51 tax benefits.

The Defendant argues that the plaintiffs' motion should be denied
because Home and Community Renewal (HCR), and not this Court, has
original jurisdiction over the rent overcharge claims alleged in
the complaint. This argument was rejected by the Court in Downing v
First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 107 A.D.3d 86, 91, 965 N.Y.S.2d 9
[2013], and is similarly rejected here. The Supreme Court has
concurrent jurisdiction with HCR to entertain an action to recover
rent overcharges. Downing v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 107 A.D.3d
86, 91, 965 N.Y.S.2d 9 [2013] citing, Wolfisch v Mailman, 196
A.D.2d 466, 601 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1st Dept. 1993].

Accordingly, the plaintiffs are justified in litigating their
claims in this court and not HCR.

As to numerosity, the plaintiffs have established that there are
forty-eight residential units in the Building that are alleged to
be slated for unlawful deregulation. Based on the documents
submitted in support of this motion, it is safe to assume that the
class may exceed that number, taking into account turnover and
co-tenancies. Moreover, the class is easily defined because every
unit in the Building is subject to rent stabilization and the
number of unlawful leases provided to the current and former
tenants, during the relevant period, is information that is within
the control and knowledge of the defendant and can be exchanged
through the discovery process.  

Accordingly, the court rejects defendant's argument that the class
is overbroad and cannot be defined and finds that the plaintiffs
have met their burden to establish the threshold requirement of
numerousity.

Next, the defendant argues that the plaintiffs have not adequately
established the requirement that common issues predominate over
what they allege to be inherently individualized issues presented
by each putative class member's individual claims for
rent-overcharge. The Defendant similarly asserts that the
plaintiffs have not established typicality because plaintiffs have
failed to present sufficient proof demonstrating that their claims
are typical of those of the proposed class.

The court rejects this argument noting that the plaintiffs have
demonstrated that the common issue of whether the defendant
unlawfully deregulated the apartments while receiving J-51 benefits
predominates any individual issues and is common to the entire
class, thus justifying class certification as a means to prevent
inconsistent rulings and conserve judicial resources.  

Finally, the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs have not
established adequacy because there are no affidavits submitted by
the proposed class representatives evidencing their understanding
of the action or familiarity with the pleadings or other documents,
is unavailing. The detailed allegations set forth in the complaint
are verified on the basis of the plaintiffs' personal knowledge and
demonstrate familiarity with the basic elements of the claims, to
satisfy the prerequisite set forth in CPLR Section 901(a)(4).
  
Likewise, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed class
counsel is experienced in landlord/tenant law, and in particular
has years of experience in J-51 rent status cases.  
Finally, CPLR 901(a)(5) requires that a class action be superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy. Based on the detailed allegations set forth in the
complaint, the alternative to a class action to resolve the issues
alleged, would be individual actions by tenants or administrative
proceedings commenced before HCR. The liability determinations are
the same for all of the proposed class members; thus, adjudicating
the claims individually would be inefficient. Litigating the
plaintiffs' claims as a class action lawsuit will conserve judicial
resources by avoiding a multiplicity of lawsuits involving the same
basic facts.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have satisfied the final requirement of
CPLR 901(a).

The Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR Sections 901 and 902 for
class certification is granted.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y5y6nepnfrom Leagle.com.


[*] BakerHostetler Issues Q4 2018 Insurance Class Action Update
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Johnson, Esq. -- mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that the final quarter of 2018
witnessed a number of new twists on old theories in class actions
involving auto and homeowners claims and coverages, as well as
further activity in some long-running class actions.

A copy of the firm's Q4 2018 Insurance Class Action Update is
available at https://is.gd/xZmlil  [GN]


[*] Competition Bureau, DPP Revise Immunity and Leniency Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle McMillan, Esq. -- kmcmillan@mccarthy.ca -- and Lan Nguyen,
Esq. -- lxtnguyen@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault, in an
article for Mondaq, report that last fall, the Competition Bureau
(the "Bureau") and the Public Prosecution Service (acting under the
direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the "DPP")
announced revisions to their Immunity and Leniency Programs
(collectively, the "Programs"). The details of these new Programs
are discussed in a previous blog post. In this post, we explore the
interplay between the Programs and class action suits.

Background
The Immunity and Leniency Programs have existed since 2000 and
2010, respectively, and their purpose is straightforward: To expose
and thereby stop criminal anti-competitive behaviour by eliminating
or reducing liability for parties that come forward and cooperate
with investigations under the federal Competition Act, RSC 1985, c
C-34 (the "Act"). The Immunity Program applies to offences under
sections 45-49 (cartel behaviour, including conspiracy and
bid-rigging) or sections 52-55.1 (false or misleading
representations and deceptive marketing) of the Act, and then only
to the first party to request immunity and to have sufficient
information for the Bureau to refer the matter to the DPP. The
Leniency Program only applies to offences under sections 45-49 of
the Act, but is available to any liable party willing to cooperate
with an investigation (per section 109 of the Bureau's Technical
Bulletin, the "Bulletin").

Possible implications for class action lawsuits
A key change in the revised Programs is the Grant of Interim
Immunity ("GII"). This new stage is a conditional immunity, subject
to the applicant's ongoing cooperation with the investigation
(under the old Program, immunity was granted up front, and could be
revoked in the event of a breach). The GII sets out the
requirements for the applicant to receive final immunity (per
sections 103-105 of the Bulletin), which happens only after an
applicant has fulfilled all of its obligations under the GII and
either:

litigation is completed (including the lapsing of all necessary
appeal periods); or
no other assistance from the applicant is considered necessary.

Both the issuance of the GII and the final grant of immunity are at
the discretion of the DPP, and early revocation is also possible.
Each GII will set out the circumstances in which it may be revoked,
which gives some degree of certainty, but unfortunately the GII
must be in place to know this information (see section 74 of the
Bulletin), which makes pre-disclosure decisions difficult.

The possibility of not receiving immunity creates an obvious legal
uncertainty for the duration of the GII, which may be many years.
The impact of not receiving immunity would be significant, not only
for criminal liability, but also for civil liability in class
actions. One must presume that the Bureau will not cease an
investigation after the DPP revokes a GII, as it specifically
reserves the right to "take further action against the applicant as
appropriate in the circumstances" (section 107 of the Bulletin).

The Bureau fields many requests for information from class action
litigants, and the good news is that it takes confidentiality very
seriously. The bad news however, especially for a party denied
immunity, is that once a criminal trial commences, the alleged acts
will become known. This should also be considered by Leniency
Program applicants, who must eventually plead guilty to an offence.
Once the allegations become public, a class action is all but
certain, as this recent Ontario case demonstrates.

A conviction under Part VI of the Act (which includes all of the
offences to which the Programs could apply) puts a party at an even
greater disadvantage because section 36(2) of the Act states that
the record of proceedings in that case are rebuttable proof of
wrongdoing in a civil case, and any evidence of the effects of the
wrongdoings likewise become evidence in a civil case brought under
section 36.

Incorporating class actions into the liability planning process
For corporations, and some individuals, any competition-related
indictment or conviction makes a class action suit likely. Parties
who believe they may have violated the Act face a complex series of
decisions because they may only be able to speculate on the
positions of other relevant parties, as well as the certainty of
liability. The possibility of a class action suit only adds to this
complexity, given that a party which is not criminally liable may
still be civilly liable, as the Bureau itself has pointed out in a
recent case.

The Bureau evidently considered civil liability in drafting the
revisions to the Programs, because they include a new section
clarifying that participants' obligations to the Crown's
investigation will supersede obligations from any civil action. The
Bureau may allow the party to cooperate with civil litigants when
the Crown's investigation will not be compromised, but that is
discretionary (see sections 216-219 of the Bulletin).

It is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada whether the Act
forms a complete code for competition offences, or whether common
law remedies will remain open to plaintiffs (see Godfrey v Sony
Corporation, appealing 2017 BCCA 302). In any event, statutory
damages under section 36 of the Act will remain available to
potential litigants. Therefore, parties considering immunity or
leniency applications should seek legal advice and carefully
consider the effects of a possible class action suit before taking
any action. [GN]


[*] Dechert Attorneys Examine Life Sciences Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Life sciences companies were popular targets of class action
securities lawsuits in 2018.

In the most recent edition of the law firm's annual survey, Dechert
litigators David H. Kistenbroker, Joni S. Jacobsen and Angela M.
Liu examine these trends as well as why life sciences companies
have remained attractive targets for class action securities fraud
claims. They also offer best practices for life sciences companies
to reduce their risk of being targeted.

A copy of the full Survey is available at https://is.gd/W1Twx9
[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 ***