CAR_Public/190318.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 55

                            Headlines

3M CO: Faces Class Action Over Whidbey Island Water Contamination
AARON'S INC: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in Byrd Lawsuit
AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Winslow Class Action
ACETO CORP: Continues to Defend Mulligan and Yang Suits
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action

ALASKA AIR: $78MM Final Judgment Entered in Flight Attendants Suit
ALKERMES PLC: Gagnon Class Action Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zeltiq Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in Asacol(R) Suit Denied
ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchaser Class in Namenda(R) Suit Certified

ALLSTATE CORP: Pierce Class Action Underway in Florida
ALTICE TECHNICAL: Mingo Sues over Meal Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Class Action Over Union Fees Ongoing
AMERICAN GOLF: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Scilla Says

AMERICAN HOME: Shainfeld et al. Sue over False Repair Warranty
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending
ASPEN CORPORATIONS: Rive Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
ASSOCIATED BUILDING: Settlement in Urbino FLSA Suit Has Approval
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Michele Cianci Claims Unpaid Overtime

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Boitnott Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
CBS CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in NY Consolidated Class Suit
CELGENE CORP: Ciavarella Balks at Merger Deal with Bristol-Myers
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Action in Ohio
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends PFOS Class Action in New Jersey

COLUMBIA, SC: 2nd Class-Action Lawsuit Filed vs Housing Authority
COMMAND SECURITY: Voluntary Discontinuance Entered in Franchi Suit
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces Almon et al. Suit in N.D. Georgia
CREDIT ONE: Removes Bolden Suit to Northern District of Ohio
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action

DEBT RECOVERY: Lucero Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Review of Remand Bid Denial in Butler Suit Nixed
DENONE LLC: Andrus Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DJM L: Employees Denied of Overtime Pay, Marquez Says
EL IMPERIO: Puig Seeks Overtime Wages for Turner Mechanics

ELI LILLY: Must Diabetics' Insulin Price-Gouging Class Action
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Abernethy ERISA Suit
EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Kay Company's Suit
ESTEE LAUDER: Akana Overtime Row Removed to C.D. California
FELIDIA: Former Employees File Wage Theft Class Action

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Ramirez Sues over Credit Background Checks
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Appeal in Duarte Suit Underway
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Action Remains Stayed
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Birnbaum Hits Stock Drop from Alstom Acquisition
GOPRO INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit

HAIN CELESTIAL: Andrade-Heymsfield Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
HAWAIIUSA FEDERAL: Faces Obo Suit in Oahu Court
HCP INC: HCRMC & Officers Dropped from Pension Fund Suit
HILL'S PET: Navarrete Sues over Tainted Dog Food
HYATT HOTELS: Faces TravelPass Group Suit in Texas

I.Q. DATA: Pennamacoor Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
I3 VERTICALS: To Fund Expert Auto Repair Case Settlement in April
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Glucose Test Strips Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over McNeil Over-the-Counter Products Nixed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talc-Related Class Suit Underway in NJ

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Suit Still Ongoing in Louisiana
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Kirby Suit in C.D. California
LG&E & KU: Asks Court to Remand Talen Retirement Plan Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Class Action Ongoing

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Suit Against Unit, Voya Remains Pending
LOGITECH: Arbitration Clause No Help to Manufacturer in Suit
LULAROE: Faces Class Action in Alaska Over Sales Taxes
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Sued Over Handling of AmTrust Portfolio Risks
MAPLE LEAF: SCOC to Hear Food Recall Class Action

MARU RESTAURANT: Settlement in Daoust FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
MDL 2492: Davis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Ferrara v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Foley v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Geist v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Hearn v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Helu v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kaaekuahiwi Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Lacy Suit v. NCAA over WIU Student-Athletes' Safety Moved
MDL 2492: Lumpkin v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Martin v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Moon Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Pfeifer v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Pledger v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rickenbach v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Sawyer v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2741: Aldison Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Anthony Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Bingham Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Brown Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Peetz Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Raygoza Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MEDNAX INC: Suit Related to Anesthesiology Business Ongoing
MEKRUTH INC: Sued over Unlawful Rounding Down of Employee Time
MONARCH RECOVERY: Copper Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MONSANTO COMPANY: Carriger Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Drews Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Elmer Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Sue over Sale of Roundup Products

MURRAY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Count II in Mitchell Suit Denied
NATIONAL COMMERCE: Parshall Balks at Merger with CenterState Bank
NCAA: Disregards Safety of BGSU Student-Athletes, Glaud Claims
NCAA: Faces Gray Suit Over Butler Student-Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Garay Sues Over ETBU Student-Athletes' Injuries

NESTLE WATERS: Removes Mendel Case to Middle District of Florida
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Declared Bankruptcy, Faces Class Action
NEW YORK TRANSIT: Robinson et al. Sue over Default Judgment Notice
NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: Averts Class Action Over Strip Search Policy
NIANTIC: May Have to Remove Pokemon Go POI Near Residential Areas

NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Furth Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA
NRT WEST: Claim under UCL in Chinitz Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ORACLE AMERICA: Takes Anti-Arbitration Stance in Pay Dispute
PETER THOMAS: Removes Miller et al. Suit to N.D. California
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Fact Discovery in Broiler Chicken Due Oct. 2019

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Class Action Still Ongoing in Colorado
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Securities Suit Certified as Class Action
PROSHARES SHORT: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement in Huffman Granted Initial Okay
RADY CHILDREN'S: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement
RBJ RESTAURANT: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers, Boldt Claims
READING CINEMAS: Faces Brown Labor Suit in Kern County
READY CAPITAL: Faces Scarantino Class Action in Maryland

RED HILL: Families of Slippery Parkway Victims Considering Lawsuit
ROYAL DIE: Faces Graziano Suit over Biometric Data Collection
SAGINAW, MA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Property Class Action
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Teachers' Pay Differences
SUNPASS: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Enormous Bills

SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Ward Labor Suit in Sacramento
SWISSPORT USA: Sandhu Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Agents
SYNCREON NORTH: Scott et al. Sue over Biometric Data Collection
T.A.J. FINANCIAL: Butler Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TCAG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooke Suit Alleges

TESSIE CLEVELAND: Underpays Parent Partners, Herrera Suit Claims
TEXAS HEALTH: Williams Sues over Background Checks
TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL: Removes Chusid Suit to D. New Jersey
TRINET GROUP: Appeal in Welgus Class Action Underway
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Justice Dep't Objects to Coupon Settlement

U & E BRAND: Sanchez Seeks Wages for Cell Phone Repair Staff
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Trump State of Emergency Declaration
US BANK NA: Malik Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Notices
VALE S.A.: Mihaescu Says Financial Report Misleading
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Gordon Securities Suit in New York

VERU INC: Class Certification Bid in Illinois Suit Still Pending
VIRGIN AMERICA: Alaska Air to Appeal $78MM Class Action Judgment
VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Antitrust Suits in US & Canada Underway
WEATHER CHANNEL: Website Not Convenient to Deaf, Suris Says

WEST COVINA, CA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Franco Alleges
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Public Defenders' Pay
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces Labul Suit in Connecticut
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Funds in Leung Suit Already Distributed
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Last Mile Logistics Suits

[*] Lewis Brisbois Expects Uptick in BIPA-Related Litigation
[*] New Mexico Homebuilders Support Mandatory New-Home Warranty

                            *********

3M CO: Faces Class Action Over Whidbey Island Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peninsula Daily News reports that lawyers for a North Whidbey woman
have filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for more than $5
million from a manufacturing corporation and fire equipment
companies they say are responsible for contamination of groundwater
on the island.

The suit filed on Feb. 19 in U.S. District Court in Seattle says
that contamination has been with "highly toxic" chemicals found in
a type of firefighting foam.

Testing by the Navy in recent years showed that wells near the Ault
Field base on North Whidbey and Outlying Field Coupeville in
Central Whidbey contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,
collectively known as PFASs, that are present in aqueous
film-forming foam, or AFFF, used by Navy fire departments to
extinguish aircraft fires.

The attorneys are seeking class-action status and hope to add
potentially thousands of other current and former Whidbey Island
residents as plaintiffs in the lawsuit; the town of Coupeville also
is a potential plaintiff, attorneys said.

The law firm Edelson of San Francisco and Seattle attorney Robert
Teel are representing Krista Jackson in the lawsuit against the 3M
Co., Tyco Fire Products, Buckeye Fire Equipment Co., Chemguard Inc.
and National Foam Inc.

Ms. Jackson and the attorneys emphasized that they are not suing
the Navy or blaming it for the problem.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, claims that
3M and Tyco knew about the toxicity of the substances in the 1970s
and that 3M internationally concealed the information from the
public.

"Defendants collectively designed, produced and distributed AFFF
with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and long lasting
PFASs," the lawsuit says, "which would inevitably reach the water
supply of and pose a significant health risk to humans that consume
or have other exposure to that water."

The 3M Co., a multinational conglomerate headquartered in
Minneapolis, provided a statement in response to the lawsuit.

"3M acted responsibly in connection with its manufacture and sale
of AFFF [aqueous film-forming foam] and will defend its record of
environmental stewardship," the statement said.

The lawsuit says that more than $5 million in damages are being
sought.

Attorney Christopher Dore of Edelson said similar lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of communities and individuals near military
bases across the country where groundwater has been similarly
contaminated.

He said this lawsuit likely will be consolidated with all the other
cases at some point.

In addition, he said it's possible that some individuals could file
separate lawsuits, especially if they are experiencing health
problems they feel are linked to the chemicals.

Ms. Jackson has lived at her home near the Ault Field base for 20
years and shares a private community well with neighbors. The Navy
has been using the firefighting foam since the 1970s.

Ms. Jackson said she became concerned about potential contamination
after the Navy announced it was testing private wells for PFASs in
2016. She wasn't included in the first round of testing, so she
researched the issue extensively and hired a company to test her
water.

The results showed that her water was indeed contaminated. The Navy
also tested her water during a second phase of sampling and found
it contained PFASs, but not at levels exceeding the Environmental
Protection Agency's lifetime advisory level. As a result, the Navy
hasn't supplied her with clean drinking water as it has those with
higher levels of the chemicals.

A nearby neighbor's water, however, tested at many times the
advisory level, raising concerns that the level of the chemical in
her water will increase in the future or was higher in the past
because of the underground movement of the chemicals.

"There are nine homes hooked up to the well," she said, "and some
of those have children, including an infant."

Ms. Jackson and the attorneys pointed out that other agencies and
different states have set advisory levels significantly lower than
the EPA's advisory level. The level of PFASs in Jackson's water is
triple the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's
minimum appreciable health risk level.

The Minnesota attorney general sued 3M for polluting water with
PFAS compounds and won an $850 million settlement, the lawsuit
says.

As the document says, PFASs have been found in Coupeville's
municipal water supply, but in amounts below the EPA's lifetime
advisory level. Nevertheless, the Navy has committed to creating a
filtering system for the town's water.

Mr. Dore said the town is welcome to join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit will divide the plaintiffs into two classes, the
attorney said.

One class will seek compensation for the effect the contaminants
have on property values. Dore said that could include people who
own properties not directly affected by the contaminants.

The other class will seek medical monitoring as well as
compensation for impacts on health.

"Early diagnosis and treatment for the cancers, diseases, and
disorders caused by PFAS exposure is essential to detect and
mitigate long-term health consequences in Plaintiff and the Class,"
the lawsuit says.

"Simple procedures including, but not limited to, blood tests, skin
evaluations, scans, urine tests, and physical examinations are
well-established and readily available."

The lawsuit outlines the danger the PFASs pose to human health.
They persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body.

Studies have associated the chemicals with kidney and testicular
cancer, the complaint says, as well as "decreased birth weight,
thyroid disease, decreased sperm quality, high cholesterol,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, asthma, ulcerative colitis, and
decreased response to vaccination."

The chemicals also have been shown to affect growth and learning
abilities in children, interfere with hormones and increase
cholesterol levels, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Dore said one of the goals of the lawsuit is to put an end to
the use and manufacturing of the chemicals. The lawsuit states that
3M marketed a version of the AFFF as environmentally responsible
because it contains PFAS chemicals with a lower number of atoms on
the carbon chains. The lawsuit claims the chemicals are still
harmful and accumulate in the body and the environment.

"Rather than abandon this line of dangerous chemicals, Defendants
have elected to instead take a page out of drug dealers'
playbooks," the lawsuit states.

"In the same way that designer drugs are manufactured to skirt drug
laws, some formulations of PFASs are being discontinued in favor of
new and slightly different formulations of the same toxic compounds
to replace them."

The lawsuit claims that the companies acted with gross negligence,
and/or willful, wanton, and careless disregard for the health,
safety, and property of the plaintiffs.

Anyone interested in joining the lawsuit can go to
www.whidbeyislandpfas.com. [GN]


AARON'S INC: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in Byrd Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to
appeal the denial of class certification.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company and its
independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises
("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative
nationwide class.

Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software
program called "PC Rental Agent." Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, asserting claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of
privacy, seeking an injunction, and naming additional independently
owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification.

On September 26, 2017, the District Court again denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification.

On December 11, 2018, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition. The case will now proceed for determination on an
individual basis as to the named plaintiffs. In March 2018, the
District Court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider the prior
dismissal of the Wyoming invasion of privacy claim, so that claim
will now be considered as part of the individual plaintiffs’
case.

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


AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Winslow Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action lawsuit entitled, Michael Winslow
and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc.,
John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as
certification of a putative California class.

In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In
May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the
case.

The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations
remain pending. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay, which was denied in July 2015.

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

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


ACETO CORP: Continues to Defend Mulligan and Yang Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Aceto Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the appointed lead
plaintiff will file a single consolidated amended class action
complaint to supersede the earlier complaints in Mulligan v. Aceto
Corporation, et al and Yang v. Aceto Corporation, No.
1:18-cv-02437.  

The Company and certain of its current and former officers are
named defendants in two putative securities class actions (the
"Securities Class Action Lawsuits") filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in April 2018,
captioned Mulligan v. Aceto Corporation, et al, No. 2:18-cv-02425,
and Yang v. Aceto Corporation, No. 1:18-cv-02437.  

The complaints arise from the April 19, 2018 drop in the Company's
stock price following the Company's announcement on April 18, 2018
that it would recognize a substantial impairment charge for the
third fiscal quarter. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements in public filings with the SEC and
seek unspecified damages.  

On June 26, 2018, five motions were filed seeking to appoint lead
plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as well as to
consolidate the Mulligan or Yang actions.  

Three motions were subsequently withdrawn or abandoned, and the
remaining two motions are pending before the Court. Following the
appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Company expects that the
appointed lead plaintiff will file a single consolidated amended
class action complaint to supersede the earlier complaints.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The impact of the
resolution of this matter on the Company's results of operations in
a particular reporting period is not currently known.

Aceto Corporation engages in the development, marketing, sale, and
distribution of finished dosage form generic pharmaceuticals,
nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical active ingredients and
intermediates, specialty performance chemicals, and agricultural
protection products. Aceto Corporation was founded in 1947 and is
headquartered in Port Washington, New York. On February 19, 2019,
Aceto Corporation, along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary
petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by contacting
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If
you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI)
Class Period: August 2, 2018 - January 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 19, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/atvi

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the termination of Activision Blizzard and
Bungie's partnership, giving Bungie full publishing rights and
responsibilities for the Destinyfranchise, was imminent; (2) the
termination of the two companies' relationship would foreseeably
have a significant negative impact on Activision Blizzard's
revenues; and (3) as a result, Activision Blizzard's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


ALASKA AIR: $78MM Final Judgment Entered in Flight Attendants Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court in the
class action initiated by three flight attendants has entered a
final judgment against Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the
amount of approximately $78 million.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all California-based Virgin America flight
attendants for damages based on alleged violations of California
and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws.

The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight
attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims in
this case are without factual and legal merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.

On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award behavioral relief from Alaska
Airlines.

Alaska Air said, "The Company will then seek an appellate court
ruling that the California laws on which the judgment is based are
invalid as applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution and federal law and for other employment law and
improper class certification reasons. The Company remains confident
that a higher court will respect the federal preemption principles
that were enacted to shield inter-state common carriers from a
patchwork of state and local wage and hour regulations such as
those at issue in this case and agree with the Company's other
bases for appeal. For these reasons, no loss has been accrued."

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


ALKERMES PLC: Gagnon Class Action Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Gagnon v. Alkermes
plc, et al.

On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the Company and certain of its
officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:17-cv-09178.

This complaint has been amended twice since its initial filing. The
second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 24,
2015 through November 14, 2017 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's marketing practices related to VIVITROL.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages for
alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Oral arguments on this motion were heard on
October 23, 2018.

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

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zeltiq Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in Zeltiq
Advertising Litigation have voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Zeltiq in state
court in California alleging that Zeltiq misled customers regarding
the promotion of its CoolSculpting(R) product and the product's
premarket notification clearance status.  

The case was later removed to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The case was dismissed by the district
court and, while the plaintiffs started the process of appealing
this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, they have
since voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in Asacol(R) Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appellate court has
denied plaintiffs' motion for rehearing en banc in the Asacol(R)
Litigation.

Class action complaints have been filed against certain
subsidiaries of the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct
and indirect purchasers. The lawsuits have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  

The complaints allege that plaintiffs paid higher prices for
Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) as a result of alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for an
older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. The Company has settled the
claims brought by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

While the district court granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued an order granting the Company's motion to appeal the
district court's decision to certify the proposed class and later
issued a decision reversing the lower court's decision on class
certification.  

The appellate court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for
rehearing en banc.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchaser Class in Namenda(R) Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has certified
the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs in the Namenda(R)
Litigation

In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest
was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement
to resolve the dispute.

Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter,
putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers in the same federal court.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between a Company
subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.


Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and
attorneys' fees.  

The court has denied defendants' motion for summary judgement in
the direct purchaser action and has certified the direct purchaser
class of plaintiffs.

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


ALLSTATE CORP: Pierce Class Action Underway in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Allstate
Insurance Company continues to defend a putative class action suit
initiated by Gail Pierce.

Gail Pierce, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company is a putative
class action filed on August 13, 2013 in the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. It is
brought on behalf of all insureds and their health care provider
assignees who submitted claims for personal injury protection under
auto policies in effect from March 2008.

In the policies at issue, the Company applied the personal injury
protection deductible to health care provider charges after the
Company reduced those charges for reasonableness. In Pierce and the
individual matters, plaintiffs seek determinations that the Company
must apply the personal injury protection deductible to the full
amount charged by the providers.

In addition to the difference in policy benefits that may result
from applying the deductible to the full amount charged, plaintiffs
also seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Florida
statutes.

The question concerning how the personal injury protection
deductible is to be applied under Florida law was recently decided
by the Florida Supreme Court in a matter involving another insurer,
Progressive v. Florida Hospital. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the providers, and held that under the Florida law, the
personal injury protection deductible must be applied to the full
amount charged by the providers before any other adjustments are
applied.

The Company has taken steps to comply with the Florida Supreme
Court's ruling in this case, including the recalculation of
benefits recorded.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALTICE TECHNICAL: Mingo Sues over Meal Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Mingo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Altice Technical Services, Defendant, Case
No. 601560/2019 (N.Y. Sup, January 9, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, redress for failure to provide accurate wage statements,
injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
New York Labor Law.

Mingo worked for Altice as an engineer, replacing wires, replacing
amplifiers, taking repairs, making repairs and working on outside
poles. He claims that Altice automatically deducted thirty minutes
per shift for an unpaid meal break despite actually working without
compensation during their meal breaks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
      Tel. (516) 625-0105 Ext. 18


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against an antitrust class action
lawsuit entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co.,
et al.

In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of AmEx's charge cards and credit cards
in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in
this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
damages.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Class Action Over Union Fees Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Even after Michigan enacted its popular Right to Work Law
protecting workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a
condition of employment, union officials continued to harass and
threaten two public school employees in attempts to illegally
extract forced union fees from them.

After years of union bosses' intimidation tactics, Linda Gervais
and Tammy Williams filed a federal class action lawsuit, with free
legal aid from Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, to enforce
their First Amendment protections under the Foundation-won Janus v.
AFSCME decision. Their lawsuit demands that union officials stop
the harassment, including the use of debt collectors, and refund
dues illegally obtained from potentially thousands of other
victims.

Michigan Education Association Union Bosses Ignore Law and Harass
Workers for Dues
Gervais and Williams both are employees of the Port Huron Area
School District. Both workers exercised their right to resign their
union memberships in September 2013, within a year after Michigan
enacted Right to Work legislation freeing employees to choose
whether or not to financially support a union without fear of being
fired.

However, Michigan Education Association (MEA) union officials
refuse to acknowledge that Gervais and Williams have resigned their
union membership and continue to claim that the workers still owe
union dues.

Ignoring the Right to Work law that protects workers' right to
refrain from subsidizing a union, MEA agents contacted Gervais and
Williams dozens of times demanding hundreds of dollars worth of
back dues. Although the workers were under no legal obligation to
pay, union agents threatened to take both women to court to extract
the fees.

Foundation Continues to Defend Michigan Right to Work Law —
Litigated More Than 100 Cases In Michigan
Gervais and Williams sought free legal assistance from Foundation
staff attorneys in filing a class action lawsuit to put an end to
MEA officials' demands. The complaint asks the court to certify a
class including other workers who faced, or continue to face, the
same harassment, along with refunds for all workers who paid the
dues MEA officials unlawfully demanded.

Their lawsuit seeks to apply to the class the protections
established in Janus. In the landmark Janus decision, the Supreme
Court ruled that union officials violate the First Amendment by
demanding or coercing public employees to pay union dues or fees
without the workers' affirmative, clear consent.

Since the 2012 passage of Right to Work legislation in Michigan,
Foundation staff attorneys have litigated more than 100 cases in
the state to combat compulsory unionism and union bosses' attempts
to stop workers from exercising their Right to Work.

"As union bosses' attempts to counteract Michigan's Right to Work
Law demonstrate, the fact that union membership and financial
support are voluntary under the law doesn't mean Big Labor will
obey that law," said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal
director of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Thankfully,
armed with the Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court decision, Linda,
Tammy, and countless other Michigan educators are a step closer to
ending this multi-year campaign of illegal dues threats." [GN]


AMERICAN GOLF: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Scilla Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENZO SCILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION; NEW AGE
LLC; RICK ROSEN; JAMES MICHAEL HINCKLEY; SARAH L. WATTERSON;
LAWRENCE A. GOODFIELD JR.; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 702978/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks
to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons who are presently or
were formerly employed by the Defendants at Defendants' restaurant
and catering venues located in the State of New York, including but
not limited to the facility commonly known as Dyker Beach Park Golf
Course, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all
of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York.
The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of similarly situated individuals who performed work for
Defendants as service employees, including such workers as wait
staff, waiters, servers, captains, bussers, bartenders, food
runners, maitre d's, bridal attendants, and in various other
related customarily tipped trades.

The Defendants are engaged in the hospitality industry.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

AMERICAN HOME: Shainfeld et al. Sue over False Repair Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT SHAINFELD, and SHIRLEY WOODS-LADAY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
HOME SHIELD CORPORATION; AMERICAN HOME SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03865 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of falsely advertising their services and repeatedly closing filed
warranty claims.

According to the complaint, the Defendants mislead consumers in
order to increase the charged deductibles of their home warranty
repair protection. This occurs with the Defendants prematurely
cancelling repair orders without effectuating necessary and
contractually obligated repairs, and opening "new repair orders" to
re-determine issues that the Defendants were previously notified by
consumers, and subsequently charging additional deductibles in a
manner that is unfair, deceptive and illegal and violates
California law. Specifically, the Defendants promote their home
warranty repair contracts as providing comprehensive or extensive
repair and replacement coverage when in fact AHS does not provide
the repair coverage advertised.

American Home Shield Corporation provides home warranty services in
the United States. The company offers a service contract that
covers the repair or replacement of home system components and
appliances that breakdown over time. It serves homeowners through
its home service professionals. The company was founded in 1971 and
is based in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court
has not issued an order on the motion to dismiss the case entitled,
In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer and merger for JAVELIN.  All nine suits name
ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior
to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board
of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition
Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants.

Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants.
The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27,
2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling. To date, the Court has not issued an
order on the Motion to Dismiss.

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

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.


ASPEN CORPORATIONS: Rive Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVE RIVE, on behalf of himself, and all others similar situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ASPEN CORPORATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation
d/b/a Aspen Media, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00554-MSK (D.
Colo., Feb. 25, 2019), asks the Court to stop the Defendant from
making unsolicited phone calls, as well as for an award of
statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, in a misguided effort to solicit
business, Aspen Media routinely contacts potential customers
through unsolicited phone calls placed with automatic telephone
dialing equipment and featuring artificial and/or prerecorded voice
messages. However, Aspen Media regularly places these phone calls
to cellular telephone numbers, without consent, in violation of the
TCPA.

The TCPA strictly forbids nuisance phone calls exactly like those
alleged in this Complaint – intrusive phone calls to private
cellular phones, placed to numbers obtained without the prior
express consent of the recipients.

The Defendant's violations caused the Plaintiff and members of the
Class actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited
phone calls, as well as the violation of their statutory rights.
The Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered a concrete injury
in fact, whether tangible or intangible, that is directly traceable
to the Defendant's conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision in this action, the lawsuit says.

Aspen provides lending, development, investment, and management
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: alexis@consumersadvocates.com

ASSOCIATED BUILDING: Settlement in Urbino FLSA Suit Has Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CEASAR URBINO, Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATED BUILDING
SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., SECTION: "E" (2). Defendants, Civil Docket
No. 18-4006 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Approve Settlement.

Urbino filed the collective action, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, on April 17, 2018.  He alleges the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by
failing to pay him and other employees one and one half times their
hourly rate for the hours they work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

On Sept. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification
as a collective action and notice to potential class members. The
putative class was defined as all individuals who worked or are
working performing manual labor for Associated Building Services,
LLC, ABS Maintenance, LLC, LADNB, LLC, and/or ABS Production
Services, LLC through a labor subcontractor during the previous
three years who worked in excess of 40 hours in any work week and
failed to receive premium pay, at the rate of one-an-a-half times
their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek.

The Defendants opposed.  Conditional certification as a collective
action has not been granted.  On Feb. 14, 2019, the parties filed
the instant motion to approve their proposed settlement agreement.

Judge Morgan finds that (i) there is no indication of fraud or
collusion; (ii) the unresolved issues and the complexity of the
litigation indicate the settlement is fair and reasonable; (iii)
the parties have litigated the case in an adversarial manner and
are sufficiently familiar with the facts of the case to reach a
fair settlement; (iv) given the unresolved disputes between the
parties and the stage at which the litigation remains, it is
unclear whether and to what extent the Plaintiff would be
meritorious; (v) there here is no evidence indicating the
settlement amount for the Plaintiff ($20,000) would not be within a
range of possible recovery; and (vi) the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Morgan granted the Motion to
Approve Settlement, and approved the Parties' settlement
agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/9YhGSp from Leagle.com.

Cesar Urbino, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales --
rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office, Jonathan Mille
Kirkland -- jmk@beaumontcostales.com -- Beaumont Costales LLC &
William Henry Beaumont -- whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H.
Beaumont Law.

Associated Building Services, LLC & Troy Strahan, Defendants,
represented by James Monroe White, III, James M. White, III, LLC.


BRIGHT HORIZONS: Michele Cianci Claims Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Michele Cianci, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-01008 (E.D. N.Y., February 1, 2019), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and other wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bright Horizons Family Solutions is a provider of child care, early
education, back-up dependent care and educational advisory
services. Cianci worked for Bright Horizons as an assistant
director at a Bright Horizons center in White Plains, New York.
Ciani regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, but was
not compensated for overtime hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Boitnott Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Jerald Boitnott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Brinker International, Inc. doing business
as: Chili's Grill & Bar and ERJ Dining IV, LLC doing business as:
Chili's Grill & Bar, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-00538-NEB-ECW (D.
Minn., March 5, 2019).

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chad Throndset, Esq.
   Throndset Michenfelder, LLC
   One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
   St. Michael, MN 55376
   Tel: (763) 515-6110
   Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com

      - and -

   Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
   Throndset Michenfelder Law Office, LLC
   One Central Avenue West, Ste 203
   St. Michael, MN 55376
   Tel: (763) 515-6110
   Fax: (763) 226-2515
   Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com




CBS CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in NY Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a consolidated amended
putative class action complaint has been lodged against the Company
in the lawsuit initially commenced by Gene Samit and John Lantz.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, each of Gene Samit and
John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint
described below.  

On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions. On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction
Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead
plaintiff of the consolidated action.  

On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint against the Company,
certain current and former senior executives and members of the
Board.  

The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between
September 26, 2016 and December 4, 2018. This action seeks to
recover damages arising during this time period allegedly caused by
the defendants' purported violations of the federal securities
laws, including by allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements or failing to disclose material information, and seeks
costs and expenses as well as remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks,
Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CELGENE CORP: Ciavarella Balks at Merger Deal with Bristol-Myers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL CIAVARELLA, the Plaintiff, vs MARK J. ALLES,
RICHARD BARKER, HANS BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL D. CASEY,
CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, JULIA A. HALLER, PATRICIA
HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES J. LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, JOHN H. WEILAND,
CELGENE CORPORATION, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0133 (Del. Ch., Feb. 20, 2019), seeks to
enjoin Defendants from breaching their fiduciary duties in the
proposed merger with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.

BMY has proposed to acquire Celgene for approximately $74 billion
in the aggregate.  On January 2, 2019, Celgene and BMY entered into
a merger agreement wherein Celgene stockholders will receive 1.0
BMY share and $50.00 in cash for each share of Celgene.

Celgene stockholders will also receive one tradeable Contingent
Value Right ("CVR") for each share of Celgene. The CVR will entitle
its holder to receive a one-time potential payment of $9.00 in cash
if the FDA approves all three of Ozanimod (by December 31, 2020),
Liso-cel (JCAR017) (by December 31, 2020) and bb2121 (by March 31,
2021), in each case for a specified indication.

Based on the closing price of BMY stock of $52.43 on January 2,
2019, the cash and stock consideration to be received by Celgene
stockholders at closing is valued at $102.43 per Celgene share.
However, after the announcement BMY shares dropped by 13% lowering
the overall value to Celgene stockholders. Any perceived "premium"
is based on a stock price that was depressed because of Celgene's
errors in getting approval of a new drug. Industry experts
anticipate the drug will ultimately get approved which would result
in a rebound in the Company's stock price that is not reflected in
the alleged premium.

According to the complaint, the price being offered to stockholders
is unfair. Celgene knows that its stock is worth more than $102.43
per share, having recently engaged in billions of dollars of share
buybacks reportedly at prices well above the deal price.

The CVR undervalues the drugs seeking regulatory approval. At the
$9 per share price these approvals are collectively being valued at
just $6.3 billion, which is far less than Celgene's own estimates
for the drugs. Celgene estimates that these three drugs will be
worth $8 to $10 billion per year.

In 2018, Celgene made two large acquisitions -- Impact Biomedicines
for $7 billion and Juno Therapeutics for $9 billion -- as a way to
increase revenues and diversify their drug offerings. The timing of
the Proposed Transaction will not allow stockholders the
opportunity to realize the gains in connection with those
acquisitions.

Furthermore, Celgene CEO Mark Alles was personally motivated to get
the Board to approve the deal. Under the terms of his employment
contract, Alles will be entitled to enhanced severance benefits if
he resigns with good reason or is terminated without cause within
two years of the Proposed Transaction closing -- in this case his
severance would include a cash payment equal to three times his
annual base salary and annual cash incentive opportunity. Absent a
deal, Alles would only be entitled to two times his annual base
salary and annual cash incentive opportunity.

Celgene's other top executives, including the Company's CFO, would
be entitled to a cash payment equal to 2.5 times their annual base
salary and annual cash incentive opportunity under similar
circumstances. Without the Proposed Transaction, they would be
entitled to only 1.5 times their annual base salary and annual cash
incentive opportunity. These executives who stand to personally
profit from the Proposed Transaction are the same individuals who
are responsible for the creation of the Company's projections and
models upon which the Board relied in determining the Proposed
Transaction was fair to stockholders.

On February 1, 2019, BMY filed a Form S-4 registrations statement
and an amendment thereto (the "S-4"). The S-4 set a stockholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction for April 12, 2019. The S-4
revealed that Celgene and BMY had been engaged in merger
discussions dating back to 2017. Throughout the fourth quarter of
2018 Celgene and BMY had negotiated a merger agreement where BMY
would pay $57 cash plus 1 share of BMY stock to acquire Celgene.

However, on December 27, 2018, BMY chose to revoke its offer and
refuse to enter into the merger agreement it had been negotiating
at that price – instead making a revised proposal of $50 cash,
one BMY share, and the CVR. While the Celgene Board had previously
refused offers with consideration of this amount (or more)
Celgene's Board inexplicably agreed to the revised price. In its
haste to reach a quick deal, the Board harmed stockholders in
agreeing to a price that does not adequately compensate Celgene's
stockholders, the lawsuit says.

Celgene Corporation is an American biotechnology company that
discovers, develops and commercializes medicines for cancer and
inflammatory disorders. It is incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor, Tower 56
          New York, NY 10024
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509

               - and -

          Joseph Santoli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SANTOLI
          340 Devon Court
          Ridgewood, NJ 07450
          Telephone: (201) 444-2888

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Action in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself against a putative class action suit in Ohio
federal court.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal
court against 3M Company ("3M"), DuPont, Chemours, and other
defendants seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a
detectable level of "PFAS" (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances) in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a PFAS
Science Panel.

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

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Defends PFOS Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit in New Jersey federal
court.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in New Jersey
federal district court against 3M, DuPont, and Chemours alleging
causes of action, including negligence, nuisance, and trespass and
seeking damages including property diminution, remediation,
treatment, and abatement with compensatory and punitive damages.

The purported class includes private drinking water and well
owner-occupants within two to five miles of the Company's Chambers
Works, New Jersey site containing any detectable level of PFOA or
PFOS.

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

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.


COLUMBIA, SC: 2nd Class-Action Lawsuit Filed vs Housing Authority
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lanahan, writing for WACH.com, reports that a second class
action lawsuit has been filed by two former residents of Allen
Benedict Court against the Columbia Housing Authority, according to
documents WACH FOX News obtained.

The two former residents are suing the Authority, along with
Executive Director Gilbert Walker and the Authority's Board
Chairman Bobby Gist, claiming they were reckless and grossly
negligent.

The suit accuses all three parties failed to maintain a healthy and
safe environment for residents despite knowing about ongoing gas
leaks, failed heating and cooking systems and bug infestation,
according to documents.

The couple filing the suit also claimed that after their unit was
infested with bed bugs, the Housing Authority didn't correct the
problem, so they hired their own examiner.

The conditions described in the lawsuit were also detailed in a
letter from Columbia's fire chief to the Housing Authority's
executive director. This letter came after two men were found dead
and hundreds were evacuated from Allen Benedict Court.

WACH FOX News has reached out to the Columbia Housing Authority's
attorney for comment, but we haven't heard back from them yet.[GN]


COMMAND SECURITY: Voluntary Discontinuance Entered in Franchi Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Franchi v. Command Security Corporation, et al.,
stipulated to voluntary discontinuance of a merger litigation with
prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and without prejudice as to the
putative class.

On November 5, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County
captioned Franchi v. Command Security Corporation, et al., Index
No. 655494/2018 (the "Merger Litigation").

The complaint, which was filed by a purported Company shareholder,
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of
Directors, and aiding and abetting such breaches by the Company, in
connection with the Merger. Among other things, the complaint
asserts that (a) the preliminary proxy statement that the Company
filed with the SEC on October 5, 2018 in connection with the Merger
omitted certain purportedly material information, (b) the process
leading to the Merger was flawed, (c) the agreed-upon deal
protection measures are unduly restrictive, and (d) the merger
price is inadequate.  

The complaint contains demands for, among other things, declaratory
and mandatory injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and
"enjoinment of the Proposed Transaction" or rescission of the
Merger if consummated.  

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit. On February 6, 2019, the parties in
the Merger Litigation stipulated to voluntary discontinuance of the
Merger Litigation with prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and without
prejudice as to the putative class.

The Company expects the stipulation to become effective subject to
a court order approving the discontinuance.

Command Security Corporation provides uniformed security officers
and aviation security services in the United States. It operates
through Security and Aviation Safeguards divisions. Command
Security Corporation was founded in 1980 and is based in Herndon,
Virginia. As of February 21, 2019, Command Security Corporation
operates as a subsidiary of Prosegur SIS (USA) Inc.



CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces Almon et al. Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent Business
Services, LLC.  The case is captioned as JOE ALMON; CYNTHIA CLARK;
JACKIE DENSMORE; PAUL KATYNSKI; JENNIFER KREEGAR; and HAROLD
MCPHAIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; COMERICA,
INC; and COMERICA BANK, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00746-LMM
(N.D. Ga., Feb. 12, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Leigh
Martin May.

Conduent Business Services, LLC provides digital platforms and
services for Fortune 100 companies and government entities
worldwide. Conduent Business Services, LLC was formerly known as
Xerox Business Services, LLC. The company was incorporated in 1988
and is based in Florham Park, New Jersey. Conduent Business
Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Conduent Incorporated.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE&LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE&LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9594
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: flemond@webbllc.com
                  matt@webbllc.com


CREDIT ONE: Removes Bolden Suit to Northern District of Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SAADIA BOLDEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ONE
BANK, N.A., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Common Pleas Court of the State of Ohio, County of Cuyahoga
(Case No. CV-19-909283) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on February 7, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00294-CAB. The
case is assigned to Christopher A. Boyko.

Credit One Bank, N.A., a national chartered bank, provides credit
cards. It engages in issuing VISA and MasterCard credit cards to
individuals who have been historically overlooked by other banks
because of their less than perfect credit. Credit One Bank, N.A.
was formerly known as First National Bank Of Marin and changed its
name to Credit One Bank, N.A. in February 2006. The company was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. As of
March 10, 2005, Credit One Bank, N.A. operates as a subsidiary of
Credit One Financial. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Colleen M. O'Neil, Esq.
          Anthony F. Stringer, Esq.
          Alexandra R. Forkosh, Esq.
          CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
          The Calfee Building
          1405 East Sixth Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1607
          Telephone: (216) 622-8200
          Facsimile: (216) 241-0816
          E-mail: coneil@calfee.com
                  astringer@calfee.com
                  aforkosh@calfee.com


DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by contacting
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If
you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

DBV Technologies S.A. (NASDAQ: DBVT)
Class Period: October 22, 2018 - December 19, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 18, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/axgn

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) DBV Technologies' Biologics License Application
("BLA") for Viaskin Peanut failed to provide the FDA with
sufficient data on manufacturing procedures and quality controls;
(2) consequently, DBV Technologies voluntarily withdrew the BLA for
Viaskin Peanut; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
DBV Technologies' business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


DEBT RECOVERY: Lucero Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR LUCERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEBT RECOVERY ATTORNEYS; and MICHAEL SAYER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00106-KK-LF (D.N.M., Feb. 7, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.  The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Kirtan
Khalsa and referred to Judge Laura Fashing.

Debt Recovery Attorneys is a full service debt collection law firm
operating since 1995. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rob Treinen, Esq.
          TREINEN LAW OFFICE
          500 Tijeras Ave NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 247-1980
          Facsimile: (505) 843-7129
          E-mail: robtreinen@treinenlawoffice.com


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Review of Remand Bid Denial in Butler Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUANEA L. BUTLER, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC;
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ET AL., SECTION "F," Civil
Action No. 18-6685 (E.D. La.), Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied
the Plaintiff's Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider the Court's Jan. 3,
2019 Order and Reasons, denying remand to state court.

The environmental tort litigation arises from the production of
neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John
the Baptist Parish.  Neoprene production allegedly exposes those
living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of
chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk, and may
result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.

Butler, a resident of LaPlace, Louisiana, sued seeking class
certification, damages, and injunctive relief in the form of
abatement of chloroprene releases from her industrial neighbor, the
PWF.  The PWF is the only facility in the United States still
manufacturing neoprene, which is made from chloroprene, and which
the Environmental Protection Agency has classified as a likely
human carcinogen.

Denka and DuPont jointly removed the lawsuit, invoking the Court's
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  On Jan. 3, 2019, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.  The Plaintiff now moves for the Court to reconsider its
Order denying remand.

The Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider its order denying her
request to remand this case to state court.  She says
reconsideration is warranted due to the Court's manifest error of
law and injustice; specifically, that: (a) DuPont is a citizen of
the State of Louisiana, not Delaware, and thus minimal diversity
under CAFA is lacking, (b) the Court erred in finding that the
plaintiff was a resident of Louisiana, (c) DHH and DEQ's
noncitizenship disrupts minimal diversity under CAFA, and (d)
DuPont and Denka have not met their burden of establishing the
amount in controversy requirement under CAFA.

The Defendants counter that: (a) the Plaintiff identifies no
manifest error of law or manifest injustice, (b) DuPont is
incorporated and has headquarters in Delaware, (c) the Plaintiff
has herself alleged that she resides in, and is a domiciliary of
Louisiana, (d) the citizenship of the state agency Defendants is
irrelevant for purposes of the minimal diversity requirement under
CAFA, and (e) it is facially apparent that the $5 million amount in
controversy requirement is met. The Court agrees on all counts.

Because the Plaintiff fails to identify any legal error in the
Court's Jan. 3, 2019 Order and Reasons, Judge Feldman holds that
the Plaintiff fails to persuade him to reconsider the Court's
ruling.  He finds that (i) the Plaintiff patently fails to persuade
him to reconsider its determination that remand is improper; (ii)
the Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, DuPont is a citizen of
Delaware, and thus, for purposes of CAFA, minimal diversity is met;
(iii) the state agencies' presence has no bearing on CAFA's
jurisdictional analysis, given that minimal diversity exists
between the Plaintiff and DuPont; and (iv) the Plaintiff offers
nothing that would persuade him to disturb the Court's finding that
it is facially apparent that the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million and fulfills the amount in controversy
requirement under CAFA.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Feldman denied the
Plaintiff's Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider the Court's order
denying motion for remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/NC3Xzr from Leagle.com.

Juanea L Butler, Individually and as representative of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Danny Dustin Russell
-- danny@dannyrusselllaw.com -- Russell Law Firm, LLC.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Brett S.
Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco --
jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff --
mchernekoff@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea --
mrhea@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by
Deborah DeRoche Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Weiner, LLC, Bradley H. Weidenhammer --
bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua Doguet -- jdoguet@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Weiner, LLC, Kaitlyn L. Coverstone, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin T. Van Wart -- kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca C. Fitzpatrick --
rebecca.fitzpatrick@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac
vice, Sarah E. Iiams -- siiams@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C. & Stanley M. Wash --
stan.wash@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice.

Louisiana State, Through the Department of Environmental Quality,
Defendant, represented by Lawrence Edward Marino, Oats & Marino &
Patrick B. McIntire, Oats & Marino.

Louisiana State, Through the Department of Health; Incorrectly
named as Louisiana State Through the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Defendant, represented by Timothy Wayne Hardy, Roedel,
Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Christina Berthelot
Peck, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister &
Willard L. West, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff &
McCollister.


DENONE LLC: Andrus Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Andrus, individually, and on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v.
Denone, LLC, Denmar Restaurant Group, LLC, Northern Ohio Restaurant
Group, LLC and Erick Martinez, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00259,
(N.D. Ohio, February 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and all allowable damages, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

Defendants operate 23 Denny's restaurants in the Cleveland area
where Andrus worked as a general manager for the Denny's restaurant
located at 34725 Euclid Avenue, Willoughby, Ohio 44095. He
regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours per week but was
never paid overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


DJM L: Employees Denied of Overtime Pay, Marquez Says
-----------------------------------------------------
ERIC MARQUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
Plaintiffs, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, the Plaintiff, v. DJM L OGISTICS,
LLC D/B/A MOLO SOLUTIONS , AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
ANDREW SILVER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND MATTHEW V OGRICH, INDIVIDUALLY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01264 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Plaintiff is a former employee who performed clerical and
account representative duties, including sales and other related
duties, for Defendants under the direction of Defendants'
management, and who was compensated a salary-exempt employee and
denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. The total amount of hours worked by the Plaintiff, and
therefore the total number of overtime hours for which additional
compensation is owed. The Plaintiff performed clerical duties for
Defendants, but was not compensated at a rate of time and one-half
his regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over 40.
Rather, the Plaintiff was compensated on an improper salary basis
while he performed non-exempt clerical work, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides logistics and transportation services to
clients.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and members of the the Plaintiff Class,
known and unknown:

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

EL IMPERIO: Puig Seeks Overtime Wages for Turner Mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ PUIG, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. EL
IMPERIO DEL COMPRESOR, INC., and GERAD RONDON, Case No.
1:19-cv-20738-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks double damages
and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, for all overtime
wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment period with
Defendants or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act
along with court costs, interest, and any other relief that this
Court finds reasonable under the circumstances.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff -- i.e. many
differing employees, at least 16, who worked in differing roles
including but not limited to an accountant helper, packers,
washers, and mechanics -- who have not been paid overtime and/or
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from
the filing of this complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a turner mechanic who worked
on rebuilt compressors for cars from on or about July 13, 2017
through on or about February 22, 2019.  Plaintiff's duties included
but were not limited to being a machine operator.  The Plaintiff's
job duties required him  to use goods and materials such as gloves,
eye protectors, ear protectors, and special knives to cut iron, and
blades, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

ELI LILLY: Must Diabetics' Insulin Price-Gouging Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Business Journal reports that Indianapolis-based Eli
Lilly and Co. and two other insulin makers must face claims they
gouged diabetes patients through deceptive price lists for their
life-saving drugs.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti in New Jersey on Feb. 15
allowed a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by 67 diabetics
against Lilly, Novo Nordisk A/S and the U.S. unit of French
drugmaker Sanofi to proceed on consumer-fraud allegations tied to
skyrocketing insulin prices. The judge threw out the plaintiffs'
racketeering claims.

The ruling comes as a growing number of cases targeting insulin
makers' price hikes have been filed in Judge Martinotti's court and
gathered before the judge for pretrial information exchanges.
Plaintiffs contend companies are illegally raising insulin prices
to provide rebates for pharmacy-benefit managers who decide which
drugs get on preferred insurance lists.

"This ruling blows the insulin racket wide open," said Steve
Berman, a plaintiffs' lawyer who is one of the leaders of the
potential class-action case. The ruling "clears the way for us to
begin obtaining discovery from the manufacturers and PBMs so we can
shine the light on exactly what has driven insulin prices
sky-high," he said.

"We're pleased with the court's dismissal of the RICO claims and
numerous state law claims, and will continue to defend the company
against any remaining claims," Ken Inchausti, a U.S.-based
spokesman for Bagsvaerd, Denmark-based Novo, the world's biggest
maker of insulin, said in an email.

Ashleigh Koss, a spokeswoman for Paris-based Sanofi, said while the
allegations in the suit are meritless, the company couldn't comment
on Judge Martinotti's ruling because the case was ongoing. Gregory
Kueterman, a Lilly spokesman, said while the company would continue
to defend itself from the insulin allegations, he couldn't comment
on the judge's decision.

The suit accuses the companies of raising insulin sticker prices by
more than 150 percent over five years, forcing diabetics to forgo
the drug, take less insulin than needed or use expired versions.
The complaint notes some patients intentionally failed to take
proper amounts of insulin to wind up in emergency rooms, where they
could get free samples of the drug.

The crux of the suit targets the companies' allegedly deceptive
pricing practices. Diabetics say insulin manufacturers' sticker
prices are different from the prices insurers pay after discounts
are awarded to pharmacy-benefit managers. The patients contend the
rebates amount to kickbacks for benefit managers, who recommend
which drugs should be covered by insurers. Higher list prices mean
larger-percentage rebates out of which PBMs take a slice.

The judge found patients could press ahead with claims that the
rebate system violated consumer-protection laws in states such as
New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Tennessee and New Hampshire,
according to court filings.

While Judge Martinotti agreed with the companies' arguments that
patients couldn't make a proper racketeering claim over the
rebates, he gave plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their suit to
address defects in the claim. [GN]


EMBLEMHEALTH INC: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Abernethy ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Abernethy, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum and order dated January 15, 2019, and judgment dated
January 16, 2019, entered in their lawsuit titled Abernethy, et al.
v. EmblemHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-7814, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The lawsuit asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on October 11, 2017.

EmblemHealth is one of the United States' largest nonprofit health
plans.

The appellate case is captioned as Abernethy, et al. v.
EmblemHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-422, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants David Abernethy, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals, Fred Blickman, Dominic
D'Adamo, Marilyn DeQuatro, Thomas Dwyer, Michael Fullwood, Philip
Gandolfo, Michael Herbert, Steven Kessler, Dennis Liotta, Daniel
McGowan, Ronald Platt, Aran Ron, Vincent Scicchitano, John Steber,
Leslie Strassberg, Pedro Villalba, Anthony Watson and Marc Wolfert
are represented by:

          Bryan Arbeit, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          E-mail: barbeit@wigdorlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees EmblemHealth, Inc., EmblemHealth Services
Company, LLC, and ConnectiCare, Inc., are represented by:

          Edward Meehan, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 861-0620
          E-mail: emeehan@groom.com


EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Kay Company's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
EQT Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company and other
defendants have reached a tentative settlement agreement with the
class representatives in the case, Kay Company, LLC, et al. v. EQT
Production Company, et al., United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia.

On January 16, 2013, several royalty owners who had entered into
leases with EQT Production Company, a subsidiary of the Company,
filed a gas royalty class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Doddridge County, West Virginia. The suit alleged that EQT
Production Company and a number of related companies, including the
Company, EQT Energy, LLC, EQT Investments Holdings, LLC, EQM (the
Company's former midstream affiliate) and Equitrans Gathering
Holdings, LLC (formerly known as EQT Gathering Holdings, LLC, and a
former subsidiary of the Company), failed to pay royalties on the
fair value of the gas produced from the leases and took improper
post-production deductions from the royalties paid.

The plaintiffs sought more than $100 million (according to expert
reports) in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other
relief. On May 31, 2013, the defendants removed the lawsuit to
federal court. On September 6, 2017, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, finding that EQT Production Company
and its marketing affiliate EQT Energy, LLC are alter egos of one
another. The defendants sought immediate appeal of the class
certification. On November 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals declined
the request for an immediate review.

On February 13, 2019, the Company announced that it and the other
defendants reached a tentative settlement agreement with the class
representatives.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, the
Company agreed to pay $53.5 million into a settlement fund that
will be established to disburse payments to class participants, and
stop taking future post production deductions on leases that are
determined by the Court to not permit deductions.

The Company and the class representatives also agreed that future
royalty payments will be based on a clearly defined index pricing
methodology. The tentative settlement agreement is subject to Court
approval and achieving a threshold minimum percentage of
participation by the class members. Each class member will have the
opportunity to opt out of the settlement.

EQT said, "If approved, the settlement will resolve the royalty
claims for the class period, which spans from 2009 through 2017."

EQT Corporation operates as a natural gas production company in the
United States. It produces natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs),
and crude oil. The company was founded in 1925 and is headquartered
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


ESTEE LAUDER: Akana Overtime Row Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Akana, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Estee Lauder, Inc. and ELC
Beauty, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09157, (Calif. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 27, 2018), is removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on February
1, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00806

Akana seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements and failure to timely pay
all final wages.

Akana's claim exceeds $5,000,000, thus justifying its removal.
[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

Estee Lauder is represented by:

      Frank M. Liberatore, Esq.
      Jaclyn Floryan, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
      Los Angeles, California 90017-5408
      Telephone: (213) 689-0404
      Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
      Email: Frank.liberatore@jacksonlewis.com
             Jaclyn.floryan@jacksonlewis.com


FELIDIA: Former Employees File Wage Theft Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Tuder, writing for New York Eater, reports that two former
employees of Lidia Bastianich's Felidia are suing the Midtown
Italian restaurant for wage theft. The workers claim they spent
over 20 percent of each shift performing non-tipped duties, but
were paid at tipped wage levels. They're alleging that they worked
more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay and had to pay for
family meal that they didn't consume. The employees are seeking
unspecified damages; the full suit is below. This isn't the first
wage suit to hit Felidia -- the restaurant, along with four others
owned by Mario Batali and Joe Bastianich, agreed to pay out $2.2
million in 2018 after a former busser at Felidia filed a class
action suit against them. [GN]


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Ramirez Sues over Credit Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND
SERVICES CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00482-CEH-TGW (M.D.
Fla., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to recover actual, statutory and
punitive damages, cost and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant deprives consumers of
their rights under the FCRA by willfully failing to provide them
with complete and truthful information it sells about them to
employers. The Plaintiff in this case lost a job opportunity with
Federal Express because the Defendant supplied FedEx with a
consumer report on Plaintiff falsely attributing to him a 2013
petty theft conviction, despite the fact that Plaintiff did not
arrive in this country until 2015 and therefore could not have
committed that offense.

When the Plaintiff attempted to investigate the problem by
requesting his FCRA file disclosure from Defendant, the Defendant
violated the FCRA by falsely reporting to him that it searched
court and law enforcement records to obtain the inaccurate
criminal-history information contained in his report when, in fact,
it actually relied upon Experian Public Records for that
information.

Experian Public Records qualifies as a "source" of information
under Section 1681g(a)(2) yet, despite the statutory duty to do so
Defendant does not reveal Experian Public Records as the source.
Instead Defendant reveals the source of the inaccurate record as
the "Florida Department of Law Enforcement." Through this
purposeful deception, the Defendant deprives consumers of rights
afforded to them by the FCRA to obtain a copy of and review the
information that the Defendant sells about them and to dispute, and
to have corrected, any inaccurate or incomplete information that
the Defendant is reporting. Consumers cannot exercise that right,
however, because Defendant eliminates the likely source of the
inaccuracy -- Experian Public Records -- and leaves consumers
believing that the records came straight from a government source
when they did not.

As a result of the incorrect information falsely reported by the
Defendant as coming from either law enforcement or judicial
sources, Plaintiff and the putative class members suffered injury,
including deprivation of their statutory rights, informational
injuries, erroneous consumer reports containing false and
misleading information, and lost job opportunities, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency. The Defendant is in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information
concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1681(d) to third
parties.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON C ABASSA , P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com

FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Appeal in Duarte Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
Juan Duarte, Betsy Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural
Guardians Juan Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty
Nobles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. United States Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc. and Amax Realty Development, Inc., appeals the court
decision in denying their reques to amend complaint to rejoin
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) as a defendant.

From 1920 until 1986, United States Metals Refining Company (USMR),
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX),
owned and operated a copper smelter and refinery in the Borough of
Carteret, New Jersey. Since the early 1980s, the site has been the
subject of environmental investigation and remediation, under the
direction and supervision of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.

On January 30, 2017, a class action titled Juan Duarte, Betsy
Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians Juan
Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty Nobles, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States
Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and
Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey against USMR, FCX, and Amax Realty
Development, Inc. The defendants removed this litigation to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it
remains pending.

In December 2017, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and FCX
was dismissed as a defendant and Freeport Minerals Corporation
(FMC) was added as a defendant to the lawsuit. The suit alleges
that USMR generated and disposed of smelter waste at the site and
allegedly released contaminants onsite and offsite through
discharges to surface water and air emissions over a period of
decades and seeks unspecified damages for economic losses,
including loss of property value, medical monitoring, punitive
damages and other damages.

In October 2018, the magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' July
2018 request to amend the complaint to rejoin FCX as a defendant,
and the plaintiffs have appealed that decision.

FCX continues to vigorously defend this matter.

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in North America, South America, and Indonesia. The company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas. The company was formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and changed its name to
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in July 2014. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit
entitled, David Garcia v. Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC, is still
stayed.

Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G LLC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX), is a defendant in
a purported class action titled David Garcia v. Freeport-McMoRan
Oil & Gas LLC filed on April 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Barbara (Case No.
16CV01305) and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (the District Court).

The plaintiff, a former FM O&G LLC employee who worked on offshore
production platforms in federal waters, alleged violations of
various California wage and hour laws and sought relief for past
wages, overtime, penalties, interest and attorney's fees.

The case was dismissed by the District Court on the basis that
federal law, not state law, applied, and the complaint alleged no
violations of federal law. The dismissal was appealed by the
plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where
the case is currently stayed in deference to the ongoing appeal of
a similar case.

Freeport-McMoRan said, "Based on recent developments, FCX has
concluded that its exposure in the Garcia case is not material to
its consolidated financial statements."

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in North America, South America, and Indonesia. The company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas. The company was formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and changed its name to
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in July 2014. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Birnbaum Hits Stock Drop from Alstom Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra Birnbaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. General Electric Company (GE) and H.
Lawrence Culp, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01013, (S.D. N.Y.,
February 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of
federal securities laws as well as other remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

General Electric provides products and services related to energy
production to customers worldwide. It acquired Alstom Energy for
$10.6 billion. Alstom is a French company that manufactures
coal-fueled turbines used by power plants. Alstom had liabilities
of $23.2 billion, including $10.7 billion attributable to its
expected costs needed to fulfill existing contracts with its
customers. At the time GE acquired Alstom, it had a negative book
value of approximately $7.2 billion, accounting for minority
interests that were left in some of the operations. GE decided to
write-off almost all the remaining $23.2 billion, a move that is
under investigation by the SEC and Department of Justice.

After disclosing the said investigation, GE's stock price fell
sharply from a closing price of $11.16 on October 29, 2018, to a
closing price of $10.18, on October 30, 2018 on trading of almost
345 million shares. GE shares traded as low as $9.87 on October 30,
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     1330 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: (212) 653-9715
     Email: so@kellerlenkner.com

            - and -

     Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
     Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
     Marquel P. Reddish, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, Illinois, 60606
     Tel: (312) 741-5222
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
            sam@kellerlenkner.com
            mpr@kellerlenkner.com


GOPRO INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has not yet
issued an order on the motion to dismiss in the shareholder class
action lawsuit before the Northern District of California.

Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder Class
Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman
and Mr. McGee.

Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24,
2018. On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018,
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018.

The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant
(together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee ("Defendants")),
and purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), asserts claims under Section 20A of
the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 17, 2018 and the
hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on November 5, 2018.

The Court has not yet issued an order on the motion to dismiss.

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Andrade-Heymsfield Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Evlyn Andrade-Heymsfield on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00433-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal., March 5, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as other fraud
filed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Hain Celestial Group is an American food company whose main
focus is foods and personal care products. Their products range
from herbal teas, offered through their Celestial Seasonings brand,
to chickens from the FreeBird brand. They also provide whole grain
foods through Arrowhead Mills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
   The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC
   4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 309
   San Diego, CA 92110
   Tel: (619) 767-0356
   Fax: (619) 331-2943
   Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com



HAWAIIUSA FEDERAL: Faces Obo Suit in Oahu Court
-----------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Hawaii USA Federal Credit
Union. The case is captioned as JOSEPH SOONG OBO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAII USA
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1CC191000261 (Haw. Cir.,
Oahu Island, Feb. 13, 2019).

Hawaii USA Federal Credit Union provides financial services to its
members. The company offers personal banking services, such as
online and mobile banking, cards, checking and savings accounts,
certificates, mortgages and HELOCs, auto loans, personal loans and
lines of credit, student loans, and credit cards. HawaiiUSA Federal
Credit Union was formerly known as Oahu Educational Employees
Federal Credit Union and changed its name to HawaiiUSA Federal
Credit Union in July 2000. The company was founded in 1936 and is
based in Honolulu, Hawaii with branches in Aiea, Honolulu, Ewa
Beach, Kahului, Kaneohe, Kapolei, Kihei, Mililani, Pearl City, and
Waipahu, Hawaii. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          841 Bishop St., Suite 1000
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2300


HCP INC: HCRMC & Officers Dropped from Pension Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
HCP, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that HCR ManorCare, Inc.
(HCRMC) and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.
lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being refiled.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May
21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018.

Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were
voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without
prejudice to such claims being refiled.

HCP said, "The Company believes the suit to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it."

HCP, Inc. is a fully integrated real estate investment trust (REIT)
that invests in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the
United States. The company is based in Irvine, California.


HILL'S PET: Navarrete Sues over Tainted Dog Food
------------------------------------------------
JOHN NAVARRETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00767-DMR (N.D Cal., Feb. 12, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant's canned dog food products were not fit for canine
consumption as contrary to its advertisement.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's caninie products
contained excessive amounts of vitamin D. Canine consumption of
excessive amounts of vitamin D can lead to serious health issues,
including vomiting, loss of appetite, increased thirst, increased
urination, excessive drooling, weight loss, and joint issues.
Prolonged and high exposure can lead to calcification of soft
tissues such as kidneys, renal dysfunction, and cause death.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The
company offers cat and dog food/care products. Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc. was formerly known as Hill Packing Company. The
company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas.
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Colgate-Palmolive Co. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn Schubert, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  wjonckheer@sjk.law
                  kschubert@sjk.law


HYATT HOTELS: Faces TravelPass Group Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is
defending against a class action suit in federal court in Texas
filed by TravelPass Group, LLC.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable
relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas for an alleged
violation of federal antitrust laws arising from similar conduct
alleged in the Illinois case and seeking an unspecified amount of
monetary damages.

The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will
defend its interests vigorously.

Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPAC Management and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


I.Q. DATA: Pennamacoor Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pennamacoor, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. I.Q. Data International, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00493 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2019),
contends that the Defendant utilizes an automatic telephone dialing
system to place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number,
without her consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a company based in
Bothell, Washington. The Defendant provides debt collection
services to the apartment industry. The Defendant states on its
website: "Please understand that this is a communication from a
debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any
information will be used for that purpose." The Defendant touts
that it uses "cutting edge technology" as part of its collection
efforts.

During calls with the Defendant, the Defendant’s representative
asked for a person named Liam. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiff
informed the Defendant that she was not Liam and did not know that
person. During at least one such conversation, the Plaintiff spoke
with a representative named "Nick Ferguson," who was argumentative
with her. The Plaintiff informed Mr. Ferguson that she did not know
Liam and to stop calling.  However, the Defendant's calls to the
Plaintiff ’s cellular telephone number continued, the lawsuit
says.

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the proposed class

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312.283.3814
          Facsimile: 773.496.8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

I3 VERTICALS: To Fund Expert Auto Repair Case Settlement in April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
i3 Verticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the Company intends
to fund the settlement in the class action lawsuit initiated by
Expert Auto Repair, Inc., in April 2019.

On June 14, 2016, Expert Auto Repair, Inc., for itself and on
behalf of a class of additional plaintiffs, and Jeff Straight
initiated a class action lawsuit against the Company, as alleged
successor to Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court of California, seeking damages, restitution
and declaratory and injunctive relief (the "Expert Auto
Litigation").

The plaintiffs alleged that Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, the
Company's alleged predecessor, engaged in unfair business practices
in the merchant services sector including unfairly inducing
merchants to obtain credit and debit card processing services and
thereafter assessing them with improper fees.

Subject to final court approval, the Company has entered into a
settlement agreement to settle the plaintiffs' claims for $995. On
April 10, 2018, the Court granted conditional class certification
and preliminary approval of the agreed settlement and scheduled the
final fairness hearing and final approval of the settlement in
December 2018. Notice was provided to all class members and they
were given an opportunity to either file a claim, opt-out, file an
objection or do nothing (in which case they would be included in
the class settlement). The deadline for class members to take one
of these four actions was November 8, 2018. No class member opted
out or filed an objection to the settlement before that deadline.

The hearing on final approval by the Court of the class settlement
was held on December 14, 2018, at which time the Court gave final
class certification and approval of the agreed settlement. The
Court then filed the applicable final judgment and order on January
23, 2019, and the Company intends to fund the settlement in April
2019.

i3 Verticals said, "The reserved amount is reflected in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities as of December 31, 2018. The
amount was included in general and administrative expenses in the
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended September
30, 2017.

i3 Verticals, Inc. provides integrated payment and software
solutions to small- and medium-sized businesses and organizations
in education, non-profit, public sector, property management, and
healthcare markets in the United States. The company was founded in
2012 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Glucose Test Strips Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company has retained
liability involving the LifeScan business prior to the closing of
that unit's divestiture.

In May 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against LifeScan Inc., Johnson & Johnson, other diabetes test strip
manufacturers and certain Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs).

The complaint alleges that consumers paid inflated prices for
glucose monitor test strips as a consequence of undisclosed rebates
and other incentives paid by manufacturers to PBMs.

The complaint includes RICO, ERISA, and state consumer protection
claims. The complaint seeks equitable relief and damages. In
November 2017, the case was ordered transferred to United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The LifeScan business was divested in October 2018 and Johnson &
Johnson retained liability that may result from these claims prior
to the closing of the divestiture.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over McNeil Over-the-Counter Products Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that a settlement has been
reached in the putative class action suit related to the various
McNeil PPC, Inc.(now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.)
over-the-counter products  and the matter has been dismissed.

In April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson &
Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and
McNeil PPC, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) in
New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who
reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil
over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present.

The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act. Following the grant of a motion to dismiss and the filing of
an amended complaint, in May 2017, the court denied a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In December 2018, a settlement was reached and the matter has been
dismissed.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talc-Related Class Suit Underway in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of New Jersey, involving talc contained in
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of
state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged
health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby
Powder and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold
by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages;
neither includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the
district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI's motion to
dismiss one of the cases. In September 2018, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed this dismissal.

In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily
dismissed their complaint. In March 2018, the plaintiff in the
second case refiled in Illinois State Court.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Suit Still Ongoing in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit in Louisiana involving
XARELTO(R) drug.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain
Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed
and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks. The complaint seeks damages.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Kirby Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindred Healthcare
Operating, LLC. The case is captioned as MICHAEL KIRBY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC; and KND 52, L.L.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01116-DSF-MRW (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13,
2019). The case is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer and referred
to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.

Kindred Healthcare, LLC, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare services company in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Kindred Healthcare, Inc. and changed its name to
Kindred Healthcare, LLC in July 2018. Kindred Healthcare, LLC is
based in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody R Padgett, Esq.
          Tarek H Zohdy, Esq.
          Trisha Kathlee Monesi, Esq.
          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com
                  Mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com


LG&E & KU: Asks Court to Remand Talen Retirement Plan Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
LG&E and KU Energy LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL
Corporation et al., moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action
back to state court and dismissed without prejudice all current and
former PPL Corporation directors from the case.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.  The action was
filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana,
Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and
current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class
Action).

The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment.   They are seeking avoidance of the
purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other
relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. The
parties are proceeding with limited jurisdictional discovery in
connection with the motion to remand.

LG&E and KU Energy LLC, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity. It
generates electricity through coal, gas, hydro, and solar energy
sources.  LG&E and KU Energy LLC is a subsidiary of PPL
Corporation.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit entitled,
In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL
and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a unit of
the company continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit
entitled, Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL) on June 8, 2016.


Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned
policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  The court ordered that plaintiff  had until February
26, 2019, to file a motion seeking leave to amend.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Suit Against Unit, Voya Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a unit of
the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York
("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("Voya").

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served
on LLANY on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LOGITECH: Arbitration Clause No Help to Manufacturer in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for Law.com, reports that an effort to
use Amazon's arbitration provision to dispense with class claims
against the maker of a digital home video system, which sold the
product on Amazon but wasn't party to the contract, has failed.

Though the manufacturer prevailed in part on other grounds, U.S.
District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey said in
Shapiro v. Logitech that "accepting Defendant's reading of the
Conditions of Use could have serious, wide-ranging, and unintended
implications."

"In fact, if accepted, Defendant's interpretation, here, would go
further than even the scenarios envisioned" by courts in similar
cases, Wolfson wrote in the Jan. 31 decision.

"Taking Defendant's position to its logical conclusion would mean
that any person or company with any connection whatsoever to the
transaction could demand arbitration for any claim tangentially
related to the transaction," she said, adding that "a private mail
delivery service could demand arbitration via Amazon's Conditions
of Use if its delivery man committed a tort while delivering an
Amazon package."

According to the decision, named plaintiff Ed Shapiro purchased a
digital home video surveillance system made by defendant Logitech
Inc. through Amazon. His suit alleges that the system, ultimately
discontinued, malfunctioned in various ways, and Logitech didn't
sufficiently respond to consumer complaints. The suit brought
consumer fraud and other claims, and sought certification of a
nationwide class.

California-based Logitech moved to compel arbitration of the claims
based on a provision in Amazon's conditions of use agreement, which
Shapiro executed. It provided that any "dispute or claim relating
in any way to your use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or
services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com will
be resolved by binding arbitration." Logitech contended that the
provision applied to it because the language didn't limit the
disputes only to those involving Amazon only, while Shapiro argued
that sellers who weren't party to the agreement couldn't benefit
from it.

Wolfson, in denying the motion, said the provision's language is
broad but "does not clearly and unambiguously convey that the
contracting parties -- Plaintiff and Amazon -- intended that the
benefit of arbitration should be conferred to third-parties, like
Logitech, who sell their products through the website."

She acknowledged ambiguity in the language, but said, "At their
outset, the Conditions of Use state that Amazon provides its
'Amazon Services' to 'you' (the customer) 'subject to the following
conditions.'" And "Reading the contract as whole, then 'any
dispute,' refers to any dispute between Amazon and the customer,"
she said.

That's "the same conclusion reached," Wolfson said, in a similar
decision from 2017, also involving Logitech and the Amazon
contract, from the Northern District of Illinois: Anderson v.
Logitech. She also pointed to Main v. Gateway Genomics, a 2016
decision from the Southern District of California.

Wolfson did grant Logitech's partial motion to dismiss, dismissing
"all claims, besides those brought by Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of a putative class of New Jersey residents under New Jersey
law." Shapiro had sought to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide
class under California law, though Wolfson found New Jersey law
applicable in the case.

William Pinilis, Esq. -- wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- of
Pinilis Halpern in Morristown, for Shapiro, didn't return a call.
Neither did Suna Lee, Esq. of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker in Florham Park, for Logitech.[GN]


LULAROE: Faces Class Action in Alaska Over Sales Taxes
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for Alaska Public Media, reports that LuLaRoe
clothing is known for soft, stretch knit items like leggings and
skirts. It's also a multi-level marketing company, like Mary Kay or
Herbalife, and customers can buy clothing from their friends who
are LuLaRoe representatives or from online sellers outside Alaska.

A lawsuit has been filed in Alaska claiming that the company
unfairly collected sales taxes. But LuLaRoe doesn't believe the
lawsuit will go anywhere.

One of Karena Perry's favorite pairs of LuLaRoe leggings features a
cool, red-and-black triangle design. The Juneau resident also owns
several other pairs that feature octopus, fish and other abstract
designs.

Ms. Perry said the texture was a big selling point.

"That's how they market them. Buttery soft, actually," Perry said
while laughing.

Ms. Perry recalls that LuLaRoe leggings were a huge craze a few
years ago. A lot of people sought out the limited designs to the
point of making them collector's items, like designer sunglasses or
Air Jordan sneakers.

"More than anything, it became a little competitive to get certain
patterns," Ms. Perry remembered.

Perry bought four pairs from a LuLaRoe seller in Juneau. She wasn't
charged local sales tax for those.

She also bought two pairs from an Anchorage seller who added a
total of $2.80 for sales and shipping taxes. Perry assumed those
taxes went to Juneau, but she didn't know for sure. The receipt
didn't specify who was collecting that tax.

And she's not the only one who's confused about LuLaRoe's
inconsistent sales tax collection policy. Other Alaskans suspect
they were charged sales tax, even though Alaska doesn't have a
statewide sales tax. And lots of cities in Alaska, including
Anchorage, don't have one either.

Anchorage resident Katie Van was charged sales taxes on clothing
she bought from outside of Alaska. She's now the plaintiff in a
potential class action lawsuit.

"The defendant knew what it was doing was illegal, but didn't take
any steps to remedy it," said James Davis Jr., an attorney with the
Northern Justice Project, a public interest law firm in Anchorage
which filed a lawsuit against LuLaRoe on behalf of Van. "Our rough
calculations are that the amount of illegal sales tax collected by
the defendant (was) in the millions of dollars. So there's a lot of
money that the defendant stole or illegally took from thousands of
Alaska consumers by way of this purported Alaska statewide sales
tax."

Mr. Davis said they are alleging that LuLaRoe engaged in unfair or
deceptive practices and misappropriated all the sales taxes they
collected.

They want refunds of all unfairly collected taxes. They also want
LuLaRoe to pay damages of $500 to each Alaska buyer for each
instance they were overcharged sales tax.

LuLaRoe admits some customers were overcharged. They say a previous
version of their sales tax automation software had trouble keeping
track of 20,000 different taxing jurisdictions nationwide.

But Steven Graham, an attorney representing the company, said they
fixed that.

"All that money is held in a segregated tax account. It's not
profit. It's not money earned by LuLaRoe," Mr. Graham said.
"LuLaRoe acts as an agent for all of these different state taxing
jurisdictions."

LuLaRoe also said they refunded $8.4 million of over-collected
sales tax to all their customers. That included $255,483.35 that
was returned just to Alaskans.

Largely because of those measures, Graham said a Pennsylvania judge
already dismissed an identical lawsuit filed against LuLaRoe.

"With the refund program that had been in place and, at that time,
fully developed, fully paid out with everyone getting back
literally 100 percent of their money without having to do anything,
that was found to be a superior remedy," Graham said.

LuLaRoe said Ms. Van was already refunded $531.25, and they're
asking U.S. District Court Judge H. Russel Holland to dismiss her
case.

Ms. Van's lawyer said she received "small, unauthorized deposits,"
but she's not sure if she got everything she was owed. She also
didn't receive any interest or compensation for damages.

The next hearing in the case was Feb. 28. If it moves ahead, then
it could become a class action lawsuit in which all similarly
affected Alaska buyers of LuLaRoe clothing would essentially become
plaintiffs in the case. [GN]


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Sued Over Handling of AmTrust Portfolio Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hollmer, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Maiden
Holdings Ltd. is named in a class action investor lawsuit alleging
that it failed to adequately address and reveal portfolio risks
involving AmTrust Financial Services, its largest customer.

The complaint alleges that Maiden didn't disclose material
information, and the company is alleged to have misrepresented the
quality and nature of its underwriting and risk management
policies/practices, as well as the risks for its reinsurance
portfolio.

Maiden is alleged to have avoided the use of audits, independent
reviews, analyses and other tactics at its disposal to make sure
that its AmTrust Reinsurance Segment priced policies commensurate
with the risk. The lawsuit alleges by not doing so, Maiden, and its
investors by default, were exposed to a high risk of financial
losses and reserve charges.

In November, Maiden disclosed 2018 third-quarter financial results
that included a $308.8 million net loss versus a $63.6 million net
loss the year before. The big factor behind the results: adverse
prior-year loss development of $201.4 million in the AmTrust
Reinsurance segment versus $61.1 million of adverse prior-year loss
development for the same period in 2017.

In January, Maiden announced an amendment to its quota share
agreement with AmTrust for the cut-off of the ongoing and unearned
premium of AmTrust's Small Commercial Business and U.S. Extended
Warranty and Specialty Risk as of Dec. 31, 2018 (with the remainder
of the Maiden Quota Share Agreement remaining in place). The
amendment calls for Maiden returning approximately $700 million in
gross unearned premium to AmTrust, which will net to approximately
$480 million after consideration of ceding commission and
brokerage.

AmTrust, whose finances and accounting practices have been under
scrutiny in the recent past, completed a nearly $3 billion
privatization plan at the end of November.

The class action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey, is on behalf of Maiden investors who purchased securities
between March 2014 and Nov. 9, 2018. It invites investors to join
the lawsuit before an April 12, 2019 deadline.

A number of law offices are seeking investor plaintiffs to join the
suit, including Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., The Schall Law Firm,
Rosen Law Firm, and Bronstein, Gewirtz, & Grossman LLC. [GN]


MAPLE LEAF: SCOC to Hear Food Recall Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Aleksandra Sagan, writing for Financial Post, reports that The
Supreme Court of Canada will hear a case on whether a distributor
is responsible for a franchisee's losses during a food recall.

The top court has granted an application for leave to appeal by a
class-action lawsuit representing Mr. Submarine Inc. franchisees
against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and Maple Leaf Consumer Foods Inc.

"We're very pleased that the Supreme Court will hear the case,"
said Peter Kryworuk, Esq. -- pkryworuk@lerners.ca -- a partner at
Lerners LLP, who represents the franchisees.

"The appeal involves matters of importance not only to the parties,
but … to the business community and certainly to franchisees
across the country."

The case started after a 2008 recall when Toronto-based Maple Leaf
pulled roughly 200 products due to a deadly listeria outbreak
caused by contamination at one of its plants.

The franchisees say that they were bound by an exclusive supply
arrangement to purchase ready-to-eat meats through Maple Leaf from
a distributor.

Maple Leaf voluntarily recalled two of the ready-to-eat meats,
roast beef and corned beef, supplied to the franchisees, according
to court documents, and media reports linked Maple Leaf to various
food sellers, including Mr. Sub and McDonald's.

The franchisees claim suffered a six- to eight-week product
shortage, and that being the sole sub-sandwich retailer the media
identified as selling sandwiches with Maple Leaf meats hurt their
reputations and gave their competitors a significant advantage.

The first judge to hear the case ruled that Maple Leaf owed a duty
of care to the franchisees to supply a product fit for human
consumption.

Maple Leaf appealed that decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal
ruled in its favour in April 2018 that the duty is to the customers
and not the franchisees.

The franchisees then sought to have the Supreme Court hear the
case.

"The duty of care owed by a producer of food or really anybody who
supplies a product to a franchisee is a really important issue and
one that the Supreme Court has not previously addressed," Kryworuk
said.

He expects the top court will hear the case later this year, but no
date has been set yet.

The counsel listed for Maple Leaf Foods did not immediately
responded to a request for comment.[GN]


MARU RESTAURANT: Settlement in Daoust FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELSEY DAOUST, on behalf of herself and those
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. MARU RESTAURANT, LLC, MARU
DETROIT, LLC, MARU EAST LANSING, LLC, MARU GRAND RAPIDS, LLC, MARU
KALAMAZOO, LLC, MARU MIDLAND, LLC and MARU HOSPITALITY, LLC,
Domestic Limited Liability Companies, and ROBERT SONG,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-13879 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Berg Court concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement
is within the range of possible final settlement approval, such
that notice to the class is appropriate.  He approved the Proposed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, and directed its
distribution to the Class.

The Judge adopted the following settlement procedure:

     a. Within 14 calendar days after the Preliminary Approval
Date, the Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator,
Simpluris, Inc., with the Class Data in an electronic format
acceptable to the Settlement Administrator, and the Defendants will
confirm to the Class Counsel when the information has been provided
to the Settlement Administrator;

     b. Within 15 calendar days of receiving the Class Members'
information, the Settlement Administrator will send a Notice of
Settlement to each Class Member's most recent known address via
First-Class United States mail.  For any Notice of Settlement that
is returned as undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator will
perform a utility database search and re-mail the Notice of
Settlement to the new address obtained for the Class Member, if
any, within 15 calendar days of the date that the Notices of
Settlement were originally mailed.  If a re-mailed notice is then
returned as undeliverable for a second time no later than 15 days'
before the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing, the person to whom
the notice is addressed will not be a Participating Class Member;

     c. No later than 30 calendar days after the original date of
the Settlement Administrator's mailing of the Notice of Settlement
or within 30 calendar days of the re-mailing the undeliverable
Notices of Settlement: The Class Members' Requests for Exclusion
must be postmarked;

     d. Within 60 calendar days of mailing the Notice of Settlement
(or within 60 calendar days of any re-mailing of an undeliverable
Notice of Settlement): The Class Members must file any objections
to the settlement in accordance with the Notice of Settlement; and

     e. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on June 19,
2019 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qOoJlE from Leagle.com.

Kelsey Daoust, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, P.A. & Michael N.
Hanna -- mhanna@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, P.A.

Maru Restaurant, LLC, MARU DETROIT, LLC, MARU EAST LANSING, LLC,
MARU GRAND RAPIDS, LLC, MARU KALAMAZOO, LLC, MARU MIDLAND, LLC,
MARU HOSPITALITY, LLC & Robert Song, Defendants, represented by
Robert J. Muchnick -- rmuchnick@honigman.com -- Honigman LLC & Sean
F. Crotty -- scrotty@honigman.com -- Honigman LLP.


MDL 2492: Davis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JOSHUA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Lane College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00330 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01009 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Ferrara v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Robert Ferrara, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00307 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 20, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00984 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Foley v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case,Adam Foley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Fordham University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00313 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00990 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Geist v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Adam Geist, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Fordham University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00308 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00985 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Hearn v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Quentis Hearn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Knoxville College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00334 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01014 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Helu v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Soma Helu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00310 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 20, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00987 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Kaaekuahiwi Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JOSEPH KAAEKUAHIWI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00292 (Filed
Jan. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00972 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Lacy Suit v. NCAA over WIU Student-Athletes' Safety Moved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, CALVIN LACY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-263 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00954 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Lumpkin v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jed Lumpkin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Millsaps College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00326 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01005 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Martin v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, David Martin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Northwood University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00318 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00996 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Moon Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Marvin Moon, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00299 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00978 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Pfeifer v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Phil Pfeifer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Cornell College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00332 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00333 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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




MDL 2492: Pledger v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Joshua Pledger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Virginia Union University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00331 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01010 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Rickenbach v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Edward Rickenbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Wabash College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00323 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01001 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2492: Sawyer v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, RHONDELL SAWYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00306 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 20, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00983 to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2741: Aldison Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAMES T. ALDISON III and KATHY
ALDISON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00121 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00930-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant 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 (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Aldison case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Anthony Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DAVID ANTHONY and MARY M. ANTHONY,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00124 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00931-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant 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 (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Anthony case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Bingham Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled OSCAR BINGHAM and CAROLYN BINGHAM,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00059 (Filed Jan. 15, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00927-VC to the
proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant 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 (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Bingham case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile: 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MDL 2741: Brown Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAUL ALLEN BROWN, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00130 (Filed
Jan. 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00935-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant 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 (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Brown case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile: 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MDL 2741: Peetz Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES I. PEETZ and LINDA G.
PEETZ,, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00129 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00934-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Peetz case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Raygoza Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ARTURO RAYGOZA AND CHARLENE
RAYGOZA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00088 (Filed Jan. 23, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00929-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Raygoza case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MEDNAX INC: Suit Related to Anesthesiology Business Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mednax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is still
defending a securities class action lawsuit related to the
company's anesthesiology business.

In July 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain of its officers and one of its directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the defendants
primarily concerning the company's anesthesiology business.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

Mednax said, "We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it. The lawsuit is in the very
early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us."

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

Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric
cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979
and is based in Sunrise, Florida.


MEKRUTH INC: Sued over Unlawful Rounding Down of Employee Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwame Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Mekruth Inc. d/b/a Amy Ruth's
Restaurant, Mitchell Mekles, David Mekles, in their official and
individual capacity, and Does 1–50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01566 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to
represent a collective made up of all persons who are or have been
employed by the Defendants as Dishwashers, Line Cooks, and Prep
Cooks, and other similar non-exempt jobs, in New York from three
years prior to this action's filing date through the date of the
final disposition of this action.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff and the New York Class minimum wage for every hour worked
up to 40 hours in a given workweek or the applicable overtime
premium pay rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, failed to pay spread of hours pay, and failed to furnish
compliant and accurate wage notices and compliant and accurate wage
statements as required by the New York Labor Law.  Rather, the
Defendants engaged in a common policy and practice of unlawfully
rounding down each hour worked by all non-exempt employees
depriving each non-exempt employee from being paid for every hour
worked and their full, correct and complete overtime compensation
for every overtime hour worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Collective and
Class:

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

MONARCH RECOVERY: Copper Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Laquita Copper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00790-JD (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 25, 2019), relates that some time prior to July 25, 2018,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Willington Savings Fund
Society arising out of a transaction in which money, property,
insurance or services were the subject of the transactions.  On
July 25, 2018, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial contact
notice regarding the alleged deby owed.

According to the lawsuit, the Letter is misleading because it fails
to advise the Plaintiff of the proper method for exercising her
dispute and validation rights under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff sustained an information injury as
she was not fully apprised of her rights and responsibilities
necessary to properly exercise her options under section 1692g. As
a result of the  Defendants' false statements, the Plaintiff
effectively waived her rights to this statutorily available
information because she was not properly informed of the G-notice
requirements set forth in the FDCPA, the lawsuit says.

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., is an accounts receivable
management company that provides financial recovery solutions.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICIES PC
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326 9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Carriger Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. CARRIGER, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case 4:19-cv-00254 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2019), alleges
unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES J. DANGEL and CHERYL DANGEL, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case 4:19-cv-00250 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto
Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Drews Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
---------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY C. DREW JR. and NARUMOL DREW, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00251 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto
Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Elmer Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
JASON T. ELMER, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00260-HEA (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES E. EVANS and JANET EVANS, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00261 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto
Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MURRAY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Count II in Mitchell Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JETSON MITCHELL and SHERMAN RIDER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MURRAY
ENERGY CORPORATION, and AMERICAN COAL COMPANY, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-444-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First
Amended Complaint.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Mitchell and Rider allege
that the Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification ("WARN") Act when they failed to provide their
employees with proper 60-day termination notices.

According to the First Amended Complaint, filed on Oct. 17, 2018,
the Defendants previously operated two mines in Galatia, Illinois.
In April 2017, the Defendants decided to close the mines, and on
April 22, 2017, they terminated approximately 122 employees without
notice.

On April 24, 2017, the Defendants sent letters to its approximately
200 remaining employees to inform them of an impending layoff.  The
letter stated, in part, that they're writing to inform them that
there will be a mass layoff on July 21, 2017, or within the two
weeks there following.  The mass layoff is expected to be
permanent.

On June 20, 2017, they sent another letter to the same 200
employees, informing them that delays in closing the mines would
postpone the layoff until Aug. 6, 2017, or within the two weeks
there followin.  Subsequent internal emails indicate the Defendants
concluded that a layoff would not be possible by those dates.

Around Aug. 18, 2017, the Defendants terminated approximately 100
employees.  Almost a month later, on Sept. 23, 2017, they
terminated approximately 25 more employees.  Around Oct. 3, 2017,
the Defendants terminated another 14 employees, including Plaintiff
Rider.  It appears the Defendants terminated the last Galatia
employee on Nov. 11, 2017.

The First Amended Complaint seeks to certify two classes and sets
forth two corresponding counts: (1) all Galatia employees
terminated on or within 90 days of April 22, 2017, who did not
receive proper notice within 60 days of their termination; and (2)
all Galatia employees who were terminated after Aug. 20, 2017, and
did not receive notices of the postponement of the layoff.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Count II is
time-barred and fails to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs filed a
timely response in opposition to the motion.  The Court heard
arguments from the counsel on Feb. 11, 2019.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that the Defendants have not identified an
alternative statute of limitation to apply.  Accordingly, she will
adopt Plaintiff Rider's position and apply Illinois' five-year
statute of limitations for written contracts or 10-year statute of
limitations for unwritten contracts.  Because Count II would be
timely under either limitations period, it is unnecessary to
determine which one is applicable.  Count II is not time-barred.

The Defendants argue that even if Count II is timely, it fails to
state a claim.  Count II alleges the Defendants violated the WARN
Act by not providing additional notices to employees after
postponement of the layoff.  The Judge finds that because 20 C.F.R.
Section 639.10(a) is interpretative, and simply applies the WARN
Act, Count II alleges a cause of action.

The Defendants next argue Count II should be dismissed because the
First Amended Complaint lacks factual allegations necessary to
establish a violation under the Regulation.  The Judge finds that
the First Amended Complaint sets forth sufficient factual
allegations to establish a plausible claim for relief under the
Regulation.

Finally, the Defendants argue Count II fails to state a claim
because Plaintiff Rider has not sustained any damages under the
WARN Act.  Even after adopting the Defendants' interpretation of
the statute, the Judge finds that Plaintiff Rider has plausibly
alleged damages.  When drawing all possible inferences in favor of
Plaintiff Rider, Count II states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

For the reasons set forth, Judge Rosenstengel denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II of the First Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/DBfDnf from Leagle.com.

Jetson Mitchell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Sherman Rider, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas J. Lech --
tlech@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC, Thomas P.
Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC,
Thomas C. Horscroft, Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC & Kevin P.
Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC.

Murray Energy Corporation & American Coal Company, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by R. Lance Witcher --
lance.witcher@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al, Harrison C.
Kuntz -- harrison.kuntz@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Joseph T. Charron, Jr., Smith Amundsen, LLC,
& Sarah Jean Kuehnel, Ogletree Deakins et al.


NATIONAL COMMERCE: Parshall Balks at Merger with CenterState Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COMMERCE CORPORATION, JOEL S.
AROGETI, BOBBY BRADLEY, THOMAS H. COLEY, MARK L. DREW, BRIAN C.
HAMILTON, R. HOLMAN HEAD, JOHN H. HOLCOMB, III, WILLIAM E.
MATTHEWS, V, C. PHILLIP MCWANE, RICHARD MURRAY, IV, G. RUFFNER
PAGE, JR., STEPHEN A. SEVIGNY, W. STANCIL STARNES, TEMPLE W.
TUTWILER, III, and RUSSELL H. VANDEVELDE, IV, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00379-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 25, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proxy statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on November
26, 2018, pursuant to which National Commerce Corporation will be
acquired by CenterState Bank Corporation ("CenterState").  On
November 23, 2018, NCC's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with CenterState.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, NCC's stockholders
will receive 1.65 shares of CenterState common stock for each share
of NCC they own.

On January 28, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint contends that the
Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's
and CenterState's financial projections and the analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.:

-- With respect to KBW's CenterState Selected Companies Analysis,
the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the individual multiples
and financial metrics for the companies observed by KBW in the
analysis; and (ii) the earnings per share estimates for
CenterState.

-- With respect to KBW's NCC Selected Companies Analysis, the
Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the individual multiples and
financial metrics for the companies observed by KBW in the
analysis; and (ii) the earnings per share estimates for NCC.

-- With respect to KBW's Selected Transactions Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples and financial
metrics for the transactions observed by KBW in the analysis.

-- With respect to KBW's Financial Impact Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) the "pro forma assumptions"; (ii)
the extent to which the Proposed Transaction could be dilutive to
CenterState's estimated 2019 earnings per share; (iii) the extent
to which the Proposed Transaction could be accretive to
CenterState's estimated 2020 earnings per share; and (iv) the
extent to which the Proposed Transaction could be dilutive to
CenterState's estimated tangible book value per share as of March
31, 2019.

-- With respect to KBW's CenterState Discounted Cash Flow
Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the individual
inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from
9.0% to 13.0%; (ii) the estimated excess cash flows for CenterState
as used by KBW in the analysis and all underlying line items; (iii)
CenterState's implied terminal value; and (iv) KBW's basis for
applying a range of 10.0x to 14.0x estimated 2023 earnings.

-- With respect to KBW's NCC's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the
Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the individual inputs and
assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 10.0% to
14.0%; (ii) the estimated excess cash flows for NCC as used by KBW
in the analysis and all underlying line items; (iii) NCC's implied
terminal value; and (iv) KBW's basis for applying a range of 10.0x
to 14.0x estimated 2023 earnings.

The disclosure of projected financial information is material
because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. Moreover,
when a banker's endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is
touted to shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at
that opinion as well as the key inputs and range of ultimate values
generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed.

NCC is a financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham,
Alabama. The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, National Bank of
Commerce, provides a broad array of financial services for
commercial and consumer customers through seven full-service
banking offices in Alabama, 25 full-service banking offices in
Florida, and five full-service banking offices in the Atlanta,
Georgia metro area. National Bank of Commerce conducts business
under a number of trade names unique to its local markets,
including United Legacy Bank, Reunion Bank of Florida, Private
Bank
of Buckhead, Private Bank of Decatur, PrivatePlus Mortgage, Patriot
Bank, FirstAtlantic Bank, Premier Community Bank of Florida and
First Landmark Bank. Additionally, National Bank of Commerce owns a
majority stake in Corporate Billing, LLC, a transaction-based
finance company headquartered in Decatur, Alabama that provides
factoring, invoicing, collection and accounts receivable management
services to transportation companies and automotive parts and
service providers throughout the United States and parts of
Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

NCAA: Disregards Safety of BGSU Student-Athletes, Glaud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GLAUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-00807-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of Bowling Green State University student-athletes.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Faces Gray Suit Over Butler Student-Athletes' Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and BUTLER
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00812-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., February 25,
2019), seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result
of the Defendants' alleged reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of Butler student-athletes.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms, the Plaintiff alleges.

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

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

Butler University is a private university located at 4600 Sunset
Avenue, in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Garay Sues Over ETBU Student-Athletes' Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GARAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-00805-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of East Texas Baptist University ("ETBU") student-athletes.

Over time, Mr. Garay contends, 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, he
adds.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NESTLE WATERS: Removes Mendel Case to Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Waters North America Inc. removes case LOUIS "DUKE" MENDEL,
the Plaintiff, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 19-CA-778 (Jan. 22, 2019), from the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00489-SDM-AEP to the proceeding. Nestle
Waters North America Inc. was incorrectly named as Nestle Waters
North America, Inc.

On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and allegedly
on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced this civil action
by filing a complaint against Nestle Waters in the Circuit Court of
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida. The Plaintiff named Nestle Waters as the sole defendant in
the Complaint.

The Plaintiff brought this action on his own behalf and allegedly
on behalf of all persons and entities in Florida who have paid and
will have paid Nestle Waters a delivery fuel surcharge fee through
the date that class notice is given, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Anthony Garcia, Esq.
          AG LAW, P.A.
          742 S. Village Circle
          Tampa, FL 33606

NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Declared Bankruptcy, Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Brooks, writing for Concord Monitor, reports that a regional
trucking firm with a terminal in Concord has declared bankruptcy,
shaking up what is known as the "less-than-truckload" freight
industry.

New England Motor Freight, based in New Jersey, filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy, citing two years of losses from clients as big as
Amazon. Filing Chapter 11 usually means that the company plans to
keep going in some form but New England Motor Freight said it would
use the bankruptcy "to facilitate an orderly wind-down of its
operations."

New England Motor Freight specializes in moving relatively small
loads, with multiple customers in each trip. Such systems are more
complex and often have higher operating costs than trucking firms
that stick to larger loads.

The bankruptcy filing came as a surprise to employees, according to
news reports. A class-action lawsuit is being prepared, claiming
that the shutdown did not meet federal guidelines for warning
employees that the company was shutting down, and that the firm has
not paid full wages including vacation time.

New England Motor Freight lists 39 trucking terminals in 16
Northeast states, including a terminal at 118 Hall St., near Exit
12 of I-93, in Concord.

New England Motor Freight is owned by the parents of Nancy Shevell,
who is married to ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. She is a vice president
of the company. The company was founded in 1977. [GN]


NEW YORK TRANSIT: Robinson et al. Sue over Default Judgment Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL ROBINSON; and DAVID EVANS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY; FERNANDO FERRER, in his official capacity as Acting
Chairman of the New York City Transit Authority; and ANDY BYFORD,
in his official capacity as President of the New York City Transit
Authority, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01404-AT (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
13, 2019) challenges the lack of due process afforded individuals
by the Defendants in connection with default judgments for alleged
violations of transit rules of conduct.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to provide adequate notice of default judgments to the Plaintiffs
and of the class. Because the Defendants failed and refused to
provide the Plaintiff and the class the basic information
concerning the alleged violations, including copies of any relevant
notice of violation, the Plaintiff and the class cannot effectively
contest the default judgments and the seizures of their tax
refunds.

New York City Transit Authority is a transit authority based in the
City of New York in the State of New York. The Authority accounts
for the operations of the New York City Bus, New York City Subway,
and the Staten Island Railway. New York City Transit is responsible
for 210 bus lines and 24 subway lines that are owned by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clay J. Pierce, Esq.
          Andrew L. Van Houter, Esq.
          Justin M. Ginter, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 248-3140
          E-mail: Clay.Pierce@dbr.com
                  Andrew.VanHouter@dbr.com
                  Justin.Ginter@dbr.com

               - and –

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
          Caludia Wilner, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW
          AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC.
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967

               - and -

          Susan Shin, Esq.
          Raul Carrillo, Esq.
          NEW ECONOMY PROJECT
          121 W. 27th St., Suite 804
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 680-5100

               - and –

          Gerald S. Hartman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S. HARTMAN
          3607 Whispering Lane
          Falls Church, VA 22041
          Telephone: (703) 919-0423


NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: Averts Class Action Over Strip Search Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska, writing for The Buffalo News, reports that
fourteen years ago, then-Niagara Falls City Judge Robert M.
Restaino had 46 people arrested after he said he heard a cellphone
ring in his courtroom.

One piece of litigation from that incident is still working its way
through the courts.

Dedrick G. Williams, one of those jailed that day, sued Niagara
County in U.S. District Court, claiming he was strip searched at
the Niagara County Jail, which he called a civil rights violation.

In depositions, Sheriff's Office officials denied Williams was
strip searched during his arrest and said he has changed his story
about the incident.

During his deposition in 2007, Mr. Williams at first said he didn't
remember being strip searched.

After his lawyer asked for a break and conferred with Williams
outside the deposition room, Mr. Williams said he did remember
being strip searched.

That lawyer, Elmer R. Keach III of Amsterdam, did not return a call
seeking comment on Feb. 18.

The Niagara County Sheriff's Office has a policy to strip search
all inmates brought from city lockups, including Niagara Falls.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that jailhouse strip searches
are almost always legal. Last year, relying on that decision, U.S.
District Judge Richard J. Arcara threw out a lawsuit against Erie
County over its strip search policy.

On Jan. 3, Judge Arcara also threw out lawsuits filed by two
Niagara Falls women who were strip searched at the Niagara County
Jail after arrests on minor charges, one in 2004 and the other in
2006.

But Judge Arcara said there should be a jury trial to determine the
facts in the Williams case. If the verdict comes back that he was
not strip searched, that disposes of his case.

But if the jury finds he was strip searched, Williams might have a
valid claim over whether such a search was reasonable, Judge Arcara
said. The federal judge noted the unusual circumstances of the mass
arrests because of the ringing phone in Judge Restaino's courtroom
on March 11, 2005.

Court papers filed on Feb. 15 indicate the sides will talk April 4
about holding a settlement conference with U.S. Magistrate Hugh B.
Scott.

"I have very little interest, because I don't think (Williams) has
a valid case," County Attorney Claude A. Joerg said.

Judge Arcara previously squelched what Joerg thought was the
biggest potential threat to the county's finances resulting from
the matter.

In February 2018, Judge Arcara disallowed an attempt to bring a
class-action suit against the county over the strip search policy
on behalf of everyone who had been jailed for a misdemeanor or
violation in Niagara County since 2003. That would have been more
than 8,000 people.

Mr. Joerg said the plaintiffs' attorneys, mostly from New York City
and Washington, at first demanded an $8 million settlement from the
county. Mr. Joerg said they later reduced that demand to $6
million.

"I said, 'I'm not paying on that,' " said Mr. Joerg.

Mr. Restaino's arrest order led to his removal from the bench from
the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in November 2007.

Today, Mr. Restaino serves as president of the Niagara Falls Board
of Education and is running for mayor. [GN]


NIANTIC: May Have to Remove Pokemon Go POI Near Residential Areas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qishin Tariq, writing for The Star Online, reports that a lawsuit
against studio Niantic may require it to remove Pokéstops and gyms
in Pokémon Go that are too close to residential areas.

In a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit filed in a
California court, Niantic has to offer several settlement reliefs
but will not have to pay any fines.

Pokéstops and gyms are points of interest (POI) in the monster
catching game -- players have to interact with them to get items
and battle Pokémon.

According to the 47 page settlement, Niantic will have to provide a
form on its website so homeowners can complain if a POI infringes
or encourages players to intrude on their single-family property. A
single-family property is defined as a landed, detached home.

Niantic will also have to maintain a database of complaints for a
minimum of one year from the date of the complaint to ensure that a
new POI is not placed within 40m of the single-family property.

And its POI submission forms for players must remind them not to
request a POI in a location that will inconvenience home owners.

A significant percent of POI submissions will also need to be
manually reviewed by a Niantic employee.

Park owners, on the other hand, can request that a POI complies
with the operating hours of their parks.

Under the proposed settlement, Niantic will have to resolve
complaints within 15 days for 95% of cases each year.

In terms of gameplay, Raid battles that involve more than 10
players will have to issue a message to participants, reminding
them to be mindful of others and their real-world surroundings.

The company will also be required to include a new warning in
addition to the current "do not trespass while playing Pokémon Go"
and "do not play Pokémon Go while driving", which states "be
courteous to members of real-world communities as you play Pokémon
Go" or something similar.

The lawsuit started in late 2016 when the game first started
becoming popular, with plaintiffs accusing Niantic of violating
state trespass and nuisance laws by encouraging players to enter
private properties to access virtual game locations. [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Furth Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Locations
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Shulem Furth, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Northstar Locations Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01291 (E.D. N.Y., March 5, 2019).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRT WEST: Claim under UCL in Chinitz Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part NRT's motion to dismiss the case, RONALD CHINITZ,
Plaintiff, v. NRT WEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06100-NC
(N.D. Cal.).

On May 17, 2017, Chinitz listed his home for sale on an online real
estate listing portal.  The listing stated that he did not wish to
be contacted directly.   After the listing expired, Chinitz began
receiving calls from NRT.  During its first call, Chinitz requested
that NRT no longer call him because he was not interested in their
services.

NRT continued to call Chinitz using a prerecorded message.  The
message claimed that there was a bad connection and the person
would call Chinitz back.  After the prerecorded message ended,
Chintiz would receive a call from a live person calling on behalf
of NRT.  The individual would then ask Chinitz if he wished to be
connected with a regional NRT office.  According to Chinitz, the
purpose of the prerecorded call was to determine whether someone
would answer the phone.

Chinitz eventually lodged a complaint with Realogy Holdings Corp.,
NRT's parent company.  After receiving his complaint, Realogy
contacted Chinitz to take responsibility for the calls.  Realogy
admitted that NRT's agents were reaching out to Chinitz because
they were low on inventory and needed to "generate business."

On Oct. 4, 2018, Chinitz initiated the class action.  He amended
his complaint on Dec. 14, 2018, alleging putative class claims for
(1) calling individuals on the national do-not-call registry; (2)
calling individuals on its internal do-not-call registry; (3) using
a non-exempt artificial or prerecorded message; and (4) violating
the California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

On Jan. 9, 2019, NRT moved to dismiss Chinitz's putative class
claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and
the UCL, his third and fourth claims, respectively.  Chinitz does
not oppose dismissal of his fourth claim.  The Court held a hearing
on Jan. 30, 2019.

NRT argues that the Court should limit its purpose-of-the-call
analysis to the call itself.  Magistrate Judge Cousins disagrees.
He holds that in its implementing regulations, the FCC clarified
that the TCPA reached prerecorded messages that includes or
introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing.  This
language makes clear that the TCPA reaches prerecorded messages
that do not constitute advertisements or telemarketing themselves.
Rather, the entire context of the robocall, including messages
conveyed after the robocall, must be considered.  In the case,
there is no dispute that the live follow-up call by NRT constitutes
telemarketing.  Because the prerecorded message always precedes the
live follow-up call, it "introduces" the telemarketing call and is
prohibited under the TCPA.

Moreover, common sense dictates that NRT's robocall falls within
the purview of the TCPA.  The prerecorded message is designed to
determine whether someone would answer the phone.  The sole purpose
of such a message is to allow NRT to pitch its brokerage services
to the called party.  Thus, the prerecorded message was made for
the purpose of encouraging the purchase of NRT's brokerage
services.

Accordingly, he denied NRT's motion to dismiss Chinitz's third
claim under the TCPA.  Because Chinitz does not oppose NRT's motion
to dismiss his UCL claim, he granted NRT's motion to dismiss
Chinitz's fourth claim under the UCL.  In light of the foregoing,
the Magistrate granted in part and denied in part NRT's motion to
dismiss.  Chinitz's fourth claim under the UCL is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8ZP4Cm from Leagle.com.

Ronald Chinitz, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Sabita J. Soneji --
ssoneji@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, George Volney Granade,
Reese LLP, Michael Robert Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP
& Tanya Susan Koshy -- tkoshy@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei
LLP.

NRT West, Inc., doing business as, Defendant, represented by Aaron
Paul Rudin -- arudin@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


ORACLE AMERICA: Takes Anti-Arbitration Stance in Pay Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Hill, writing for The Register, reports that it is ironic
that Oracle, which normally tries to make class-action suits
"disappear into arbitration", is now taking an anti-arbitration
stance in a pay dispute, a judge in San Francisco said.

The case dates back to 2017, when former Oracle staffer Marcella
Johnson sued Big Red, saying it "systematically denies" its sales
reps their commissions. She asked a California court to force
Oracle to participate in arbitration over wage claims -- which the
Ninth Court did.

However, Oracle appealed against the decision in December that
year, arguing that the Ninth Court failed to carry out the first in
the two-step process to compel arbitration.

This is that the court must first determine if there is a valid
arbitration agreement and only then determine if the dispute at
issue is within scope of the arbitrator.

The problem in this case is that there have been two arbitration
agreements drawn up, and the parties disagree over which should be
used.

The first does not include a class-action waiver, while the second
does -- meaning Johnson would have to enter arbitration alone.
Unsurprisingly, Oracle favours the former and Johnson's team
favours the latter.

The Ninth Court effectively delegated this decision to the
arbitrator in the case -- but Oracle argues that in doing so, it
"[put] the cart before the horse", as it hadn't determined that
there was a (and the firm is putting great emphasis here on the
singular) valid, existing agreement.

In a hearing held on Feb. 15 in front of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the panel quizzed Oracle's counsel
Brendan Dolan on this argument.

In particular, Judge Robert Lasnik said the idea that Oracle was
taking an anti-arbitration stance lent a "man bites dog" aspect to
the case.

"Usually, you're the big corporation, the ones imposing arbitration
on people . . . You're the one who ends up paying JAMS [Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Services] for both sides  . . . because
the plaintiff doesn't want to be there," he said. "You're the ones
who make these class actions disappear into arbitration."

Judge Lasnik added that Oracle had "got all the power", in that it
sends out sales agreements and determines how long someone has to
sign it. "When the corporation has all the power, doesn't that
enter into our analysis a bit here?"

In response, Mr. Dolan said it didn't enter into it "at this
juncture", but might in the consideration of the second in the
two-step process under discussion.

Referencing this exchange, plaintiff's counsel Michael Palmer said
Oracle knew what the agreements said when it drafted them.

"Oracle has to face the facts that these are the documents they
wrote and they must be required to actually abide by it," he said.

The fact the firm "keeps on trying to fight this out in the courts"
is "so ironic", Palmer said, given that they usually go to "intense
effort to have everything resolved in arbitration".

For his main argument against Oracle's appeal, Mr. Palmer pointed
to the court's statement in the decision, which said: "There's no
question that there's an arbitration agreement, the question is
which of the two apply."

Mr. Dolan countered this, saying that the Federal Arbitration Act
"does not use the plural" in its reference to agreements, and that
the court had effectively shifted responsibility to the
arbitrator.

"It kind of said, well there's two agreements, there's a dispute
between the parties . . . I can't decide, I'm gonna throw up my
hands and I'm gonna kick it to the arbitrator," he said.

However, Judge Johnnie Blakeney repeatedly asked Dolan if his team
had done enough to bring this specific question to the attention of
the District Court at the time, calling on him to specify exactly
where this was raised during the case.

Mr. Dolan struggled to suggest a single, specific instance, rather
saying that it had been referred to "repeatedly" -- and added that,
"in fairness" to the court, the Federal Arbitration Act is a
"quagmire".

Judge Blakeney picked up on this, saying: "Don't you think the
district court should be appraised of what the issues are that the
parties are asking the District Court to determine in this
quagmire?"

She went on to say that there is an obligation for counsel and the
courts to cooperate on such matters, which Dolan accepted. But he
added that he believed his team did articulate where it felt the
court's focus should be and that the court was obligated to "apply
the right law".

The panel of judges are now to consider the appeal from Oracle,
with Rawlinson saying it was a "challenging" case.

The case is Marcella Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc, case number:
17-17489 [GN]


PETER THOMAS: Removes Miller et al. Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KARI MILLER; and SAMANTHA PAULSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH DESIGNS,
LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH GLOBAL, LLC; and PETER THOMAS ROTH LABS LLC,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No.
RG18933751) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 7, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00698-WHA. The
case is assigned to Judge William Alsup.

Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC engages in the research and development
of skin care products. Its products include cleansers, scrubs,
tonics, masques/peels, moisturizers and hydrators, treatment
serums, products for men, eye and lip care products, wrinkle
fighting products, sun care products, brighteners, hair and body
care products, resurfacers, anti-aging products, moisturizers, body
wash products, body lotions, shampoos, conditioners, acne care
products, shaving products, and gifts and fragrances. The company
sells its products online. Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC was founded
in 1993 and is based in Moonachie, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Adam Gutride, Esq.
          Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  adam@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Todd M Kennedy, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: todd@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel J. Herling, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
          GLOVSKY & POPEO P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 432-6103
          Facsimile: (415) 432-6001
          E-mail: djherling@mintz.com

              - and -

          Nicole V. Ozeran, Esq.
          Nada I. Shamonki
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
          GLOVSKY & POPEO P.C.
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-3200
          E-mail: NVOzeran@mintz.com
                  nshamonki@mintz.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Fact Discovery in Broiler Chicken Due Oct. 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that fact discovery in
the case entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, is
expected to be completed by October 14, 2019.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pilgrims Pride Corporation (PPC) and 13 other producers by
and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair
competition laws.

The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.

Between December 2017 and January 2019, eighteen individual direct
action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v.
Tyson Foods Inc., et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v.
Tyson Foods Inc., et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat
Distributors, Inc. et al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South,
Inc. et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616;
The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for
Central Grocers, Inc. et al v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers
& Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry
Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club,
Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United
Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018,
following Defendants' successful motion to transfer); Shamrock
Foods Company and United Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v.
Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods,
LLC, f/k/a Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-00354), and Hooters of America,
LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00390 (N.D. Ill.)
were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints.

Substantial completion of document discovery for most Defendants,
including PPC, occurred on July 18, 2018. The Court's scheduling
order currently requires completion of fact discovery on October
14, 2019; class certification briefing and expert reports
proceeding from November 12, 2019 to July 14, 2020; and summary
judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for
class certification.

The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the
direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Class Action Still Ongoing in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continus to defend a putative class action suit filed by Patrick
Hogan.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October
6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) the Company
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class
period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting.

The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.
On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.

On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17,
2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12,
2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC
and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file
a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a
response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.

On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. As of January 18, 2019, plaintiff has not yet
filed a Second Amended Complaint.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company remains a
party to two putative class actions pending against Polaris in the
U.S.

One putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations
that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards
allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the
consolidation of the three putative class actions we reported in
our April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed between
April 5-10, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018.

The second putative class action is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges
excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks
damages for alleged personal injury and economic loss: Riley
Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William
Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4,
2016.

With respect to both class action lawsuits, the Company is unable
to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of
possible loss.

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide. It operates in five
segments: ORV/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets,
Aftermarket, and Boats. The company was founded in 1954 and is
headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a Court
of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal from a decision in the
Trojan Investment Recovery litigation.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). In 1995, the
OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery
of, and a rate of return on, 87 percent of its remaining investment
in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v.
Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The
class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling
ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC
concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what,
if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price
reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan
investment that the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010.
Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of
Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit
Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement on the class action
proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company's motion for
Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a
general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016,
the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of
Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision
remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above.
However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in
the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Securities Suit Certified as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
This Notice is directed to: All persons and entities, other than
Excluded Persons, who purchased Pretium Resources, Inc.s (Pretium)
common shares listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), and all
Canadian-resident persons and entities who purchased Pretiums
common shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange, during the
period from July 23, 2013, to and including October 21, 2013, and
who held some or all of those securities at the close of trading on
October 8, 2013; or October 21, 2013 (the Class and Class
Member(s)) 1Excluded Person means Pretium Resources Inc. and Robert
A. Quartermain, and Pretiums past and present subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, and any member of Quartermains
family.

This lawsuit alleges that Pretium and Quartermain released
documents containing misrepresentations about the Companys business
and operations at its Brucejack Mine. The lawsuit further alleges
that when the Company issued statements correcting these
misrepresentations on October 9, and 22, 2013, the price of
Pretiums stock declined to reflect the true state of events,
thereby harming Class Members.

On January 23, 2019, the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified the action: Wong v. Pretium
Resources, Court File No.: CV-13-00491800-CP (the Class Action) as
a class proceeding against Pretium and Quartermain on consent, and
appointed David Wong as the representative plaintiff. The substance
of the litigation (i.e. that the Defendants made misrepresentations
in their public disclosure documents in 2013) has not been
adjudicated by the Court. The Defendants deny the allegations.

YOUR TWO OPTIONS:

1. Do Nothing and Remain in the Class Action: Class Members are
automatically included in the action once certified if they do not
opt-out. You do not need to do anything at this time to stay in the
Class Action. If a settlement or any recovery or benefits are
achieved for the Class and approved by the Court, you will be
notified about how to ask for the portion to which you are
entitled. You will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of
the Court, and you will not be able to sue the Defendants on your
own regarding the legal claims made in this case. You will NOT be
required to pay any costs in the event that this Class Action is
unsuccessful.

2. Opt-Out of the Class Action: All Class Members will be bound by
all orders and judgments of the Court and any settlement reached
unless they opt-out of the action. If you wish to pursue your own
action or do not want to be bound by the outcome of the Class
Action, YOU MUST OPT-OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION.

If you want to opt-out of the Class Action, you must fill out an
Opt-Out Form (available at www.morgantico.com) and send it BEFORE
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2019 AT 5:00 PM E.S.T., by email to
paul@trilogyclassactions.ca or by regular mail or courier to Paul
Battaglia at:

Trilogy Class Action Services c/o Pretium Class Action Settlement
177 Queen Street,P.O. Box 1000, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON L0S 1J0

A copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the
certification and your right to opt-out of the action is available
at http://www.morgantico.com.

Class members who seek the advice or guidance of their personal
lawyers do so at their own expense.

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. Questions about this notice should NOT
be directed to the Court.

         Hadi Davarinia, Esq.
         Lawyer
         MORGANTI & CO., P.C.
         21 St.Clair Avenue East, Suite 1102
         Toronto, ON Canada M4T 1L9
         Telephone: (647) 344-1900 ext. 5
         Email: hdavarinia@morgantilegal.com [GN]


PROSHARES SHORT: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class who purchased ProShares
Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (NYSE: SVXY) ("ProShares")
pursuant to the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement and/or between
May 15, 2017 and February 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation
have until April 1, 2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in ProShares during the Class Period.  Members of the
Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen
by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by
virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose in connection with
the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement and during the Class Period
that due to a low-volatility trading environment, liquidity risks,
and systemic design flaws, SVXY was susceptible to suffering
calamitous losses.

According to the complaint, following February 5, 2018
materializations of the latent risks in the SVXY and other inverse
and leveraged ETPs, which exposed fatal design flaws that made the
products far riskier, the value of the SVXY declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in ProShares during the class period and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you please;
         
         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement in Huffman Granted Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court in the
case, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America,
issued an order granting preliminary approval of plaintiffs'
proposed Settlement and Distribution Plan.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")-governed employee
welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of
retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle
death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive
relief and disgorgement of profits.

In July 2011, Prudential Insurance's motion for judgment on the
pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify the class. In April 2012, the court stayed the case
pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is
before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2014, the
court lifted the stay, and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking leave to amend the complaint.

In July 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' amended complaint added two new
class representatives, a new common law breach of fiduciary duty
claim, and a prohibited transactions claim under Section
406(a)(1)(C) of ERISA. In August 2015, Prudential Insurance filed
its answer to the first amended complaint. In February 2016,
plaintiffs filed a class certification motion.

In September 2016, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied, and in October 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration. In December 2016, the motion for reconsideration
was denied. In February 2017, all parties filed motions for summary
judgment. In December 2017, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment as to their breach of fiduciary duty claims
under ERISA, dismissed plaintiffs' state law claim, and denied the
motions for summary judgment on the prohibited transaction claim.

In December 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
prior orders denying class certification. In January 2018, the
court denied in part, and granted in part, plaintiffs' class
certification motion and certified a class limited to participants
in the two employer plans involving the named plaintiffs. In
February 2018, Prudential Insurance filed a petition with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class
certification decision.

In April 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Prudential
Insurance’s request for leave to appeal the class certification
decision.

In November 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of plaintiffs' proposed Settlement and Distribution Plan.

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


RADY CHILDREN'S: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court has entered a judgment approving the
class action settlement reached with defendant Rady Children's
Hospital-San Diego on behalf of a class of approximately 14,100
patients who were admitted in-patient to one of its hospital,
satellite or urgent care locations between July 1, 2012, and June
30, 2013, in a class action case (Santana, et al. v. Rady
Children's Hospital-San Diego, Case No.
37-2014-00022411-CU-MT-CTL). Keegan, an accomplished
Californiaemployment law attorney, was appointed co-lead class
counsel for the plaintiff class.

According to court documents, a hospital employee emailed the
patients' medical information to four individuals, which included
patients' names, dates of birth, primary diagnoses, admit/discharge
dates, medical record numbers, and other information including
insurance carrier and claim information.

Court documents further state that the hospital's release of
patients' medical information was negligent and a violation of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Civil Code §§ 56 et
seq., ("CMIA"). However, according to court documents, the
defendant denies any violation of the CMIA, and any alleged damages
suffered by the patients.

           About Patrick Keegan, Keegan & Baker, LLP

Patrick Keegan represents employees in a wide range of employment
matters. He also brings class action lawsuits on behalf of
employees in instances where employer misconduct negatively impacts
a large number of workers. For more information, please call
760-929-9329, or visit https://www.keeganbaker.com/. Keegan &
Baker, LLP is located at 2292 Faraday Ave., Suite 100, Carlsbad CA
92008.


RBJ RESTAURANT: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers, Boldt Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Boldt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RBJ Restaurant Group and Rodney Robinson,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00167 (E.D. Wisc.,
February 1, 2019), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime as well
as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants own and operate numerous Papa John's franchise stores in
Wisconsin where Boldt worked as a delivery driver. She used her own
vehicle to deliver pizzas and claims that the reimbursement rates
were unreasonably low thus causing their net wages to fall below
the federal minimum wage.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Haynie, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
            jay@foresterhaynie.com

             - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Telephone: (615) 254-8801
     Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
     Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
            joeyl@bsjfirm.com


READING CINEMAS: Faces Brown Labor Suit in Kern County
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed aginast
Reading Cinemas and Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. The case is
captioned as TAYLOR BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. READING CINEMAS; and
CONSOLIDATED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-100390 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 11, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge David R. Lampe.

Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. operates a group of movie theaters
in Hawaii. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. was formerly known as
Consolidated Amusement Theatres, Inc. and changed its name to
Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. in February 2008. The company was
founded in 1917 and is based in New York, New York. As of February
22, 2008, Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Reading International, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


READY CAPITAL: Faces Scarantino Class Action in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
Ready Capital Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 14, 2019, that
the company has been named as defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit entitled, Richard Scarantino v. Owens Realty Mortgage,
Inc., et al.

Ready Capital Corporation ("Ready Capital") has entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated
November 7, 2018, by and among Ready Capital, Owens Realty
Mortgage, Inc. ("ORM") and ReadyCap Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions therein, ORM
will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing
as the surviving company (the "Merger").  

On February 8, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
an individual who claims to be a stockholder of ORM. The lawsuit,
Richard Scarantino v. Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc., et al. (the
"Scarantino Lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland.  It names ORM, its directors and Ready Capital as
defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the ORM directors breached
their fiduciary duties because, according to the plaintiff, the
consideration to be received by ORM's shareholders in the Merger
"appears inadequate," some financial and other disclosures to ORM"s
stockholders regarding the Merger are deficient, and the terms of
the Merger Agreement have precluded other bidders from making
competing offers for ORM.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things: injunctive relief
preventing the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the Merger; rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages
if the Merger is consummated prior to entry of final judgment by
the court; an accounting of any damages suffered as a result of the
wrongdoing he alleges; and litigation costs (including attorneys'
and expert fees and expenses). Ready Capital and ORM believe the
claims asserted in the Scarantino Lawsuit are without merit.

Ready Capital Corporation operates as a real estate finance
company. The company acquires, originates, manages, services, and
finances small balance commercial (SBC) loans, small business
administration (SBA) loans, residential mortgage loans, and
mortgage backed securities collateralized primarily by SBC loans,
or other real estate-related investments. Ready Capital Corporation
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


RED HILL: Families of Slippery Parkway Victims Considering Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole O'Reilly, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that
a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Red Hill Valley Parkway crash
victims is being considered after the shocking revelation that a
study showing poor friction on parts of the roadway had been buried
in the city's public works department for five years.

The unearthed November 2013 report found the collision-prone Red
Hill had overall lower friction compared to the Lincoln M.
Alexander Parkway, with vast differences between how slippery the
road is from area to area. Some spots were measured to have "quite
low friction values," the report said.

The author of the 2013 report told The Spectator he expected his
recommendation for "remedial action" and more investigation should
have spurred a closer look at the makeup of the asphalt itself.

Yet, that testing never happened — and the report never went to
council until Feb. 6 night. The discovery led acting city manager
Mike Zegarac to issue an unprecedented apology. The city has
ordered an auditor's report into what happened and to expedite a
$15-million resurfacing to this spring.

Council also voted to cut the Red Hill's speed limit to 80 km/h
between Greenhill Avenue and the QEW as a precaution.

For Tandra Henderson, the mother of 19-year-old Jordyn Hastings who
died with her best friend Olivia Smosarski when their car crossed
the grassy median on the RHVP May 5, 2015, news of this report is
upsetting, said her lawyer Rob Hooper, Esq.--
rob@grossohooperlaw.ca --.

Henderson and Smosarski's mom Belinda Marazzato were featured in an
award-winning Spectator investigation that examined why the RHVP
had twice as many crashes than the connecting Lincoln Alexander
Parkway, despite lower traffic volumes.

Henderson is considering a lawsuit, he said.

Hooper said he is speaking with another lawyer about forming a
class-action suit.

"She's happy the truth is starting to come out and hopes they
continue to fix the road," Hooper said, adding that Henderson is
too shaken to speak on Feb. 7.

The family doesn't want another to face what they have faced.

Missie Sholer, whose brother Michael died in a crossover crash on
the Red Hill in January 2017, said she is interested in the class
action suit.

"I'm pretty sure all the kids are smiling down happy that something
is finally happening," she said, adding that she's happy the truth
about the road is finally coming to light.

"Everyone has been saying for years the road is slippery and
there's something wrong with it ... (the city) shouldn't be hiding
reports."

Public works head Dan McKinnon said the report was uncovered by
Gord McGuire, the city's new director of engineering, in September.
He was familiarizing himself with the road's file in anticipation
of the resurfacing work.

Around this time the Spectator also filed a freedom of information
request asking for friction and other testing results on the Red
Hill Valley Parkway. The Spectator has not yet received any
documents.

It's unclear exactly who would have seen the report when it was
first received in January 2014, and how widely it was circulated,
but McKinnon said he believes it would likely have gone to previous
engineering director Gary Moore.

The 18-page report was found "on our network, not in an area that a
lot of people had access to ... my sense is it was not widely
known," McKinnon said on Feb. 7.

Moore left his position as engineering director last year to join
Hamilton's light rail transit team. He was not at the Feb. 6
meeting, but will be interviewed as part of the audit.

Moore has not returned messages from the Spectator.

McKinnon said the audit is estimated to take about two months.

Moore previously told the Spectator that friction testing was
inconclusive. When the Spectator asked for the report -- he said a
formal report didn't exist, but rather it was only an email with
figures in a chart.

"All we got was an indication that we should do further work,"
Moore said in 2017. "It was moot when we decided to go ahead with
(repaving)."

He refused to share that chart with The Spectator.

"No one ever releases (that type of) information ... because it's
the first thing anybody (would use in a) lawsuit," Moore said at
the time.

When McGuire found the hidden report he notified McKinnon, Zegarac
and Edward Soldo, director of transportation operations and
maintenance, McKinnon said. Soldo recommended the city go back to
CIMA+, an engineering company that has studied the RHVP in the
past, to do a road safety audit.

When that engineering company did a safety investigation of the
parkway in 2015 it noted a high number of crashes on the road when
it was wet and suggested friction testing, among other actions. But
they did not have the 2013 friction report.

In a memo to council released on Feb. 6, CIMA+'s Brian Malone said
they would have "urged further investigation on the friction
findings" had they known.

The city asked Malone directly whether the RHVP should be closed
until the resurfacing work is complete, but he said that wasn't
necessary.

The November 2013 study was conducted by Tradewind Scientific,
using a GripTester instrument to measure friction while the road
was wet.

There are no Canadian or U.S. guidelines for continuous friction
measurement equipment, so they used the UK-based "skidding
resistance" standard, Tradewind president Leonard Taylor said on
Feb. 7 about the long-ago tests.

They measured both the Linc and the RHVP. He said the results
generally showed "acceptable risk rating and performance" on the
Linc, while the Red Hill numbers were generally below the standard
-- in some cases "well below."

"That means you had better look into it," said Taylor, whose 2013
report suggest further investigation and possible "remedial
actions." In an interview, he said he would have expected the
findings to prompt "a look at the composition of the asphalt in
detail."

"If it has lain dormant for that long, that's unfortunate . . . .
But I'm glad to hear (the city is) acting on it now."

Taylor said he filed the report as a subcontractor to Golder
Associates, which had been directly hired by the city, and did not
hear anything back until now.

The city has taken a number of steps in recent years including
enhanced speed enforcement, signage and cat's eyes reflectors, but
has not tackled bigger projects, including the request by families
to install centre-median barriers to prevent crossover crashes.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said he was notified about the discovered
report about a week before it came to council. He said he was
"dismayed" and "quite upset" it had never been brought forward and
that action wasn't taken.

"We want to get to the bottom of this, that's why we've asked the
auditor general to do a full and thorough investigation," he said,
adding that who did what, who didn't take action, why no follow up
was taken are all "open questions."

"Council is prepared to do whatever is necessary to enhance safety
on that road," Eisenberger said.

"Getting this information out there is also an opportunity for
letting people know what we now know, which is that there have been
some issues there, and they can be informed of that and they choose
to take alternate routes as they may be uncomfortable with some of
the information they've been given, they can make that choice."

Ontario NDP leader and Hamilton MPP Andrea Horwath, also a former
city councillor, tweeted that "an apology was absolutely necessary
to the people of (Hamilton), and especially for families devastated
by the loss of loved ones on the Red Hill Valley Parkway. The fact
that there was a warning report hidden all this time is shocking.
Time to get this road fixed and make it safe."

Coun. Sam Merulla, who previously dismissed "myths" about a
slippery Red Hill based on staff assurances, now says the friction
fiasco may require a "public inquiry" depending on the results of
the internal investigation by the city's auditor.

"We feel betrayed," he said. "We (councillors) are not engineers .
. . . We relied on the expert advice, the assurances of our staff.
And now we see this."

Merulla maintained he still believes speed and impairment are major
factors behind the history of deadly crashes on the Red Hill. But
he also said victims of families deserve an apology -- from
whomever buried the mystery friction report.

"They received a public apology -- as did we -- from city staff,"
he said. "But if they don't accept that apology, I can't say I
blame them. I'm not sure that I can accept it, either."

There remain a number of unknowns, not just about who and how the
report was buried, but what should happen now.

The city took samples of the road this summer to test whether the
material could be recycled when the road is resurfaced. But once it
became clear that the material couldn't be reused, the city opted
not to do complete testing of the road's makeup.

Will the city opt to do those tests now, before resurfacing this
spring? McKinnon said no decisions have been made.

"That's an unanswered question."[GN]


ROYAL DIE: Faces Graziano Suit over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA GRAZIANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL DIE AND STAMPING, LLC, doing
business as ROYAL POWER SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 2019L000169
(Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 11, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiff's and the class members' sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. An employee who
leaves the Defendant does so without any knowledge of when their
biometric identifiers will be removed from the Defendant's
databases.

Headquartered in Carol Stream, Illinois, Royal Die And Stamping,
LLC is a global supplier of high-precision, critical electrical
connectivity components for automotive and industrial applications.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAGINAW, MA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Property Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Johnson, writing for Mlive, reports that a federal appeals
court has ruled in favor of the city of Saginaw in a class-action
lawsuit brought by residents opposed to a vacant property
ordinance.

The court sided with the opinion of federal Judge Thomas Ludington.
Judge Ludington, on June 21, granted the city's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit and denied a motion for a preliminary injunction, filed
by Phillip Ellison, a Hemlock-based attorney, file a lawsuit on
March 14 in U.S. District Court.

Mr. Ellison named the city's Chief Inspector John Stemple and Clerk
Janet Santos in the lawsuit and alleged that language at the bottom
of an application to register unoccupied or vacant properties
strips property owners of their protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures by forcing them to sign them away in order to
be compliant with the city law.

Mr. Ellison alleges the language violates property owner's Fourth
Amendment rights, which protects against unreasonable searches and
seizures.

"Law presumes that the government can't just enter your property,"
Mr. Ellison said in a previous interview.

The appeals court says the city requires a hearing before finding
that a building is dangerous, so there's an opportunity for owners
to enforce their rights.

The lawsuit arose because James Benjamin, trustee of the Rebekah C.
Benjamin Trust and client of Ellison, was ticketed by the city for
two vacant or unoccupied properties he failed to register. [GN]


ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Teachers' Pay Differences
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhyan Henson, writing for 5OnYourSide, reports that public school
teachers in St. Louis say they aren't getting paid what they
deserve, and now a class-action lawsuit on their behalf is moving
forward.

An arbitrator ruled in favor of the St. Louis public schools
teachers union in their lawsuit against the Saint Louis Public
School District over pay discrepancies.

The suit alleges teachers who should be earning the same salaries
aren't, and in some cases, the difference in their pay is thousands
of dollars.

"It just seems like they are disrespecting the teachers," said math
teacher Mary Beth Chavez. "It's difficult."

She said two teachers who started at the same time she did in 2001
make $10,000 more than she does.

"I hold no ill will towards those two people," Ms. Chavez said. "I
don't even know who they are, but I want to know what the deal is.
Why am I where I am $10,000 less where they are?"

All teachers are on a pay schedule that factors in years of
experience and skills to determine pay.

To make matters worse, Ms. Chavez said teachers haven't received a
significant raise in the past seven years.

She hopes this lawsuit is resolved so she can get the pay she
deserves. She said she would like to see a bump in pay so she can
pursue her masters degree, something that will increase her salary
according to the pay schedule.

American Federation of Teachers Local 420 Union President Sally
Topping said this issue affects more than the 2,000 teachers -- and
thousands of taxpayers.

"These salary disparities involve public money," Ms. Topping said.

"Taxpayers ought to know that the State Appointed Board (SAB) is
cheating its employees. We have been asking them to stop for the
past 18 months to no avail. Finally, we are going to trial, and we
are confident of victory."

The district has targeted teachers listed on the class-action
lawsuit by withholding some pay, according to Ms. Chavez.

The trial for teachers will take place on March 5, 6, 11 and 12.
There will be another trial for non-certified employees, like
secretaries, following the teacher trial.

A spokesperson for SLPS said the district can't comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


SUNPASS: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Enormous Bills
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Quesada, writing for WPTV, reports that frustrated drivers
dealing with enormous SunPass bills want to know where they can
turn for help.

Many say they have until March 31 to pay their bills or they'll go
to collections. But, they're planning on fighting it.

Every time Richard Herrera drives to work now, he's thinking about
an outstanding bill from the Department of Transportation. "I
received this bill in the mail with a different account number
stating that I owe $768," said Mr. Herrera.

A SunPass bill dating back to June shows his car and license plate
and charges of up to $16 per toll transaction. He says he knows it
has to be wrong.

"If I total, normally when I'm going to and from work, it should
have totaled to $76.50," said Mr. Herrera.

Mr. Herrera said he only uses the turnpike from West Palm Beach to
Boca Raton to go to work and he has a transponder in his car, but
somehow was charged through toll-by-plate.

"I hope this gets resolved because, listen, we're working-class
people and we need to use the turnpike on a daily basis and
unfortunately if this was a situation that was occurring maybe they
needed to address it sooner," added Mr. Herrera.

He and other drivers fed up with the alleged overcharges say they
are looking to fight back in numbers. "I'd be part of a
class-action lawsuit," said Mr. Herrera.

But class-action litigation attorney David Rothstein in Miami says
it's not that simple. "A class action by definition means if one
person wins the case, it wins the case for everyone else similarly
situated and when the underlying claim is that you're being charged
for having driven portions of road that you didn't in fact drive,
one person proving that up doesn't necessarily prove that up for
everyone else," said Rothstein.

Mr. Rothstein says drivers should file a dispute and continue to
collect documentation to help their case and seek help from a
consumer-fraud lawyer.

"Definitely I think we need to find a solution to this problem,"
said Mr. Herrera. [GN]


SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Ward Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Sutter Valley Hospital. The case is captioned as JENNIFER WARD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITAL; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00250564-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Feb. 13, 2019).

Sutter Valley Hospital is engaged in business of providing health
care facilities and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Rd Ste 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com


SWISSPORT USA: Sandhu Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMINDER SANDHU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SWISSPORT USA, INC.,Case No.
702946/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendant has
engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage
practices, which include (a) requiring agents to perform work
without compensation during meal breaks; (b) requiring Agents to
peform work without compensation before the scheduled start of
their shift; (c) requiring agents to perform work without
compensation after the scheduled end of their shift; (d) failing to
pay agents overtime of time and one-half their regular of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a week; and (e) failing to provide
accurate wage statements, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid agents employed by the
Defendant. The Defendant employed 40 agents and systematically
failed and refused to pay them for all compensable hours worked.

Swissport USA, Inc. provides ground handling, passenger, baggage
and cargo handling, and aircraft loading and unloading services for
airlines. The company offers ground handling services, such as
station management and administration, AFP filing, flight
operations assistance, irregularity operations support, load and
station control, station representation and supervision, weather
briefing, and liaising with port authorities; and passenger
services, including airport ticketing sales desk, arrival and
transfer, check-in, gate, lost and found, and lounge services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Planintiff:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105

SYNCREON NORTH: Scott et al. Sue over Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHACARAH SCOTT; and JOSHUA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNCREON NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00164 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage
of the Plaintiffs' and the member class's biometric identifiers or
biometric information in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented without
notice to its employees an invasive timekeeping program of
capturing, collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiffs' and the
member class's fingerprints. The Plaintiffs and the class members
would not have provided their biometric data to the Defendant had
they known the same would remain with the Defendant for an
indefinite period of time.

Syncreon America Inc. provides transportation services. The Company
logistics, storage, handling, and other services. Syncreon America
operates worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Cates, Esq.
          Chad M. Mooney, Esq.
          CATES MAHONEY, LLC
          216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 277-3644
          Facsimile: (618) 277-7882
          E-mail: dcates@cateslaw.com
                  cmooney@cateslaw.com


T.A.J. FINANCIAL: Butler Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ANITRA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T.A.J. FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; HOWARD D.
LIPSTEIN; and JEROME H. ZIMMERMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05509-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., Feb. 12, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Noel L. Hillman and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.

T.A.J. Financial Services, LLC is a debt collection company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street
          Rutherford, NJ 07070, Suite 102b
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


TCAG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooke Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD COOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,Plaintiff v.TCAG, INC.;TUTTLE-CLICK, INC.; TUTTLE-CLICK
FORD, INC.; TUTTLECLICKTUSTIN, INC.;TUTTLE-CLICK'S CAPISTRANO
FORD,INC.; and DOES 1 to50,Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00007778-CU-0E-NC (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 7,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Cooke was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Tcag, Inc. was founded in 1923. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
                  justin@counselonegroup.com


TESSIE CLEVELAND: Underpays Parent Partners, Herrera Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES
CORPORATION; TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION; and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03892 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff Herrera was employed by the Defendants as parent
partner.

Tessie Cleveland Community Services Corporation operates as a
non-profit mental health organization. The Organization provides
day treatment, therapeutic, behavioral, counseling, outpatient,
wraparound, senior wellness, and mental health services. Tessie
Cleveland Community Services serves children and families in the
State of California. [BN]

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


TEXAS HEALTH: Williams Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------
A case, Jimmy Lee Williams, Individually and on behalf of a class,
the Plaintiff, vs. Texas Health Resources, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00158-O (N.D. Tex., Feb. 20, 2019), contends that, as part
of its hiring processes, the Defendant uses consumer reports
(commonly known as background checks) to make employment decisions.
However, the Defendant failed to first provide the Plaintiff with
a copy of the pertinent consumer report, as well as provide the
Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to respond to the information in
the report and discuss it with the Defendant. This practice
violates long-standing regulatory guidance from the Federal Trade
Commission.  The Defendant is also obliged to adhere to certain
requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The lawsuit contends that when using background reports for
employment purposes, employers must, before declining, withdrawing,
or terminating employment based in whole or in part on the contents
of the report, provide job applicants -- like the Plaintiff -- with
a copy of their respective background reports as well as a written
summary of their rights under the FCRA.

In January 2019, the Plaintiff applied for work with the Defendant.
The Defendant reviewed the Plaintiff's application and offered the
Plaintiff a job as a nurse/technician. The Plaintiff's employment
by the Defendant was contingent on a background check. The
Defendant ordered a background check on the Plaintiff from a
consumer reporting agency. The background check was completed in
January 2019.

The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff an opportunity to
dispute inaccurate information in the report or proactively discuss
negative information with the Defendant before the Defendant took
adverse action by deciding not to hire him. The Defendant did not
provide the Plaintiff with a copy of the consumer report before
taking adverse action. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff
a copy of his summary of rights before taking adverse action.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy of
suspending the employment application process and denying
employment when it discovers potentially disqualifying information
in a consumer report. Suspending the application process and
denying employment is an adverse employment action. The Defendant
takes these adverse employment actions prior to providing a copy of
the consumer report to the applicant. The policy is applied equally
and consistently to all employment applicants.

Texas Health Resources is one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit
health systems in the United States and the largest in North Texas
in terms of inpatients and outpatients served.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL: Removes Chusid Suit to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CHARD CHUSID, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWN SPORTS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a NEW YORK SPORTS CLUB, Defendant, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of New Jersey, County of Union (Case No. UNN-157-19) to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 13, 2019.
The clerk of court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-05577-MCA-LDW. The case is assigned to Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo and referred to Magistrate Leda D. Wettre.

Town Sports International, LLC, a health club company, owns and
operates fitness clubs. Town Sports International, LLC was formerly
known as TSI Club, LLC and changed its name in June 2006. The
company was founded in 1973 and is based in New York, New York. It
also operates in Basel and Zurich, Switzerland. The company has
health and fitness facilities in New York, Boston, Washington,
D.C., and Philadelphia. Town Sports International, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Town Sports International Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
         Matthew P. Gallo
         GORDON & REES LLP
         18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
         Florham Pabbrk, NJ 07932
         Telephone: (973) 549-2500
         Facsimile: (973) 377-1911


TRINET GROUP: Appeal in Welgus Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals has scheduled a hearing date for March 14, 2019 in the
Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et. al.

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group,
Inc., et. al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March
2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order on
January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening appeal
brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2018.
TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018.
Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018. The
Ninth Circuit has scheduled a hearing date for March 14, 2019.

TriNet Group, Inc. said, "We see no basis for a reversal of the
district court's decision. We are unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any,
arising from this litigation."

TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and
midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. TriNet Group,
Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Dublin,
California.


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Justice Dep't Objects to Coupon Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- writing
for Kelley Drye's Ad Law Access, reports that it's no secret that
the Justice Department and state Attorneys General don't like
coupon settlements in class actions.  Since 2007, groups of state
AGs have been objecting regularly to coupon settlements that would
force class members to pay more money to defendants accused of
consumer fraud.  On February 4, the Justice Department filed an
amicus brief in Chapman v. Tristar Products, Inc., asking the Sixth
Circuit to reverse approval of a coupon deal.

What's most notable about this Chapman objection is that even
though officials have been telling the class action bar for over a
decade how not to structure coupon settlements, parties still
occasionally poke the bear by proposing exactly the kinds of terms
that these officials have said, over and over again, they will
never condone.  Class action settlements still can work in federal
court, but settling parties have to think very carefully about how
to use them.  Restrictions like quick expiration, no ability to
transfer, and a limited universe of products just won't fly.

The plaintiffs in Chapman alleged that the defendant's pressure
cookers were defective, prone to explode if opened too quickly, and
therefore worthless.  A federal judge in Ohio certified a class in
2017, after which the case settled.  Class members could receive
warranty extensions and $72.50 coupons usable on their choice of
only three new kitchen appliances the defendant sold with
undiscounted price tags of $159 (not including shipping).  The
coupons were non-transferable, non-agreeable, and expired after 90
days.  The Justice Department also noted that Amazon.com sold the
same appliances for far less than the defendant did, thus making
the coupons "essentially worthless."  Only 13,000 people, or 0.4
percent of the 3.2 million class members, filed claims for these
coupons (the process for which, among other things, required them
to watch a safety video).

The restrictive terms and settlement hurdles alone likely would
have been enough to ensure government opposition to the settlement,
but the Chapman plaintiffs' counsel compounded the problem by
seeking a $2.3 million fee and justifying it based on what the
Justice Department termed "erroneous assumptions about the value
and redemption rate of the coupons."

So what can a class action defendant do if it wants to make coupons
a main component of a class settlement?  The Chapman brief offers a
road map.

First, offer a cash alternative to the coupons.  The amount can be
less than the coupon's face value and it can take the form of
"residual" cash value if class members don't redeem their coupons.
The key is to avoid leaving class members with no choice but to
fork over more money to the defendant if they want to obtain
benefits from a consumer fraud settlement.

Second, make the coupons as permissive as possible.  Give them the
longest expiration periods you can tolerate and allow class members
to transfer them and aggregate them.  (In other words, let Jane
give or sell her coupon to Joe and let Joe use multiple coupons
together on the same purchase and thereby perhaps get an item for
free.)  Make the coupon usable on the broadest possible range of
your products and, if possible, treat the coupons as "rebates" so
that class members can purchase the items from third-party sites
and then have you refund the coupon amount.

Importantly, some defendants simply will not be able to offer a
settlement with all of these features.  When a deal can't meet
these minimums, however, the parties have to be ready to explain to
the court in detail why they are not feasible in the particular
case.  This should be done proactively rather than waiting for
objections that would be nearly inevitable.

Then, when plaintiffs' counsel make their request for attorneys'
fees, remember that the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1712(a), means exactly what it says:  If a settlement
offers coupons, "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class
counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be
based on the value to class members of the coupons that are
redeemed," period.  Class counsel can instead seek a fee "based
upon the amount of time [they] reasonably working on the action" --
their lodestar, from which they can request a "multiplier" -- but
if they choose that route, they can never seek to justify a
multiplier based on how class members theoretically might claim and
redeem settlement coupons.

The Chapman settlement, like virtually all prior deals that drew
government objections, violated all three of these rules, without
what the government considered sufficient justification.  The Sixth
Circuit may affirm the settlement anyway.  That seems unlikely,
however, and in any event, the case has become longer and more
expensive because of governmental objections that were predictable
and avoidable. [GN]


U & E BRAND: Sanchez Seeks Wages for Cell Phone Repair Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO ANTONIO MEJIA SANCHEZ, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. U & E BRAND, INC. d/b/a STREET TALK a/d/b/a TALK
N' FIX, a Florida Corporation, YEHUDA UDI YEHEZKEL, individually,
and ELAD YEHEZKEL, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20658-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2019), contends that the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at a rate of time and one
half, when he worked more than 40 hours per week, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt retail
employee and cell phone repairer who performed his duties within
South Florida.  The Plaintiff was employed from on or about April
2016 through on or about February 25, 2018. The Plaintiff was paid
an hourly rate of $9.00 per hour, plus additional bonus
compensation, from on or about April 2016 through October 2016.
The Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $10.00 per hour, plus
additional bonus compensation, from on or about October 2016
through June 2017. The Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $12.50
per hour, plus bonus additional compensation, from on or about June
2017 through February 25, 2018.

U&E BRAND operates kiosks in various South Florida malls, including
Dadeland Mall, Sawgrass Mall and in Boca Raton, which sell cell
phone accessories and repair cell phones.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

UNITED STATES: Sued Over Trump State of Emergency Declaration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teodora Torrendo, writing for Crypto Coin Discovery, reports that
the resistance against the plans of U.S. President Donald Trump to
build a wall on the border with Mexico has expanded significantly.

On Feb. 14, a coalition of 16 US States -- among them California,
New York and New Mexico complained against the state of emergency
Declaration of Trumps, with which this money is wanted to draw for
the construction of the wall from sources other than the budget.
The lawsuit was filed in Federal court in San Francisco, said New
York's attorney General Letitia James.

"to declare A national emergency, if there is no one who is immoral
and illegal," said Ms. James in a statement from Feb. 18 evening
(local time). Funds from the major Fund to redirect usurpation,
among other things, the Power of Congress. "We will not accept this
abuse of power and will fight with every means available to us."
The class-action suit targets the fact that the step the US
government was "illegal and unconstitutional".

Trump had to call on Feb. 15 for a National state of emergency on
the southern border of the United States, his plans for the
construction of a border wall with Mexico. He justified this with a
"Invasion" of drugs, people smugglers and criminal gangs. The state
of emergency Declaration he wants to now carry money out of other
pots – especially from the defense Department to reallocate, and
so a total of eight billion dollars for the construction of border
barriers. The construction of the wall is part of the election
campaign Trumps promise.

The President had initially requested $ 5.7 billion from the US
Congress to allow a boundary wall build. The Democrats locked up
the claim. At the end of the Congress approved 1,375 billion
dollars -- so about a quarter of the required sum.

The Declaration of a state of emergency allows the President to
collect without parliamentary consent, additional money for the
project. According to the White house, the majority of more than
six billion dollars should come from the defense Department –
from funds meant for construction and for the fight against drugs.

Immediately after the signing of the decree Trump had stated that
he expected with lawsuits against the decision. A few hours later,
was filed in Federal court in Washington by three Texas landowners
and a nature Park, a first lawsuit against the state of emergency
regulation, such as the "Washington Post" reported. More lawsuits
are likely to follow. [GN]


US BANK NA: Malik Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Notices
----------------------------------------------------------
Ali Malik, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. US Bank National Association and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19civ00693, (Cal.
Super., February 1, 2019) seeks redress for failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage
statements under Unfair Business Practices statures of the
California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code
and Welfare Commission Orders.

US Bank NA provides banking services and operates retail bank
locations throughout the United States, including locations in the
State of California and in the County of San Mateo. Malik worked as
a personal banker in their Burlingame, California branch. Malik
claims to be denied off-duty 10-minute rest breaks for working 3.5
hours or more in one shift and proper payroll records. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

            - and -

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
      Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
      Kwanporn Tulyathan, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
      515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554


VALE S.A.: Mihaescu Says Financial Report Misleading
----------------------------------------------------
ROMICA MIHAESCU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VALE S.A., FABIO SCHVARTSMAN, MURILO
PINTO DE OLIVEIRA FERREIRA, and LUCIANO SIANI PIRES, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01610 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2019), is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Vale
shares between April 11, 2017 and January 28, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On November 5, 2015, Brazilian authorities reported that an
iron-ore mine operated by Samarco Mineracao SA burst, killing
dozens of people and devastating the local community. The cause of
the collapse was the failure of a tailings dam, used to hold water
and discarded minerals from the nearby iron-ore mine.  The November
dam burst resulted in Vale and BHP settling a civil suit with
Brazilian public authorities for 20 billion real (US$5.3 billion)
and additional fines to be levied in the future. Vale also agreed
to community participation in decisions related to remediation and
compensation programs and greater corporate compliance.

The Class Period begins on April 11, 2017, when Vale filed its
Annual Report on Form 20-F with the SEC, announcing the Company's
financial and operating results for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.  The 2016 20-F was signed by Defendants Ferreira and
Pires and contained signed certifications pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Ferreira and Pires
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.

According to complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Vale had failed to
adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at
its Feijao iron ore mine especially in light of its experience in
2015; (ii) Vale's programs to mitigate health and safety incidents
were inadequate; (iii) Defendants filed to disclose that Vale's
auditor was not independent, as required under Brazilian mining
law; (iv) Defendants failed to disclose that an internal report
commissioned by Vale in 2018 to assess the stability of the
tailings dam raised concerns over its drainage and monitoring
systems; (v) Defendants failed to disclose the existence of
information that the dam was at risk of "liquefaction," the same
issue that led to the 2015 collapse of the Samarco dam; and (vi) as
a result, Vale's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, the lawsuit says.

Vale, together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron ore
and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The Ferrous Minerals segment
produces and extracts iron ore and pellets, manganese, ferroalloys,
and others ferrous products and services, as well as engages in the
provision of related railroad, port, and terminal logistics
services. The Coal segment is involved in the extraction of
metallurgical and thermal coal; and provision of related
logistic services. The Base Metals segment produces and extracts
nonferrous minerals, including nickel; and its by-products, such as
ferro-nickel, cobalt, gold, silver, copper, precious metals, and
others. The Company was formerly known as Companhia Vale do Rio
Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May 2009. Vale was
founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Gordon Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GORDON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MIHAEL H. POLYMEROPOULOS,
and JAMES P. KELLY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01108 (E.D.N.Y., February 25,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vanda was
engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which the Company promoted the
off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was fraudulently
receiving drug reimbursements from the Government by abusing
Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a result of the
scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the Government; (4) Vanda's
promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and
misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration; and (5) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about Vanda's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Vanda is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters in
Washington, D.C.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Vanda, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and
commercialization of products for the treatment of central nervous
system disorders.  Vanda owns and markets two drugs, Fanapt and
Hetlioz.  Fanapt is a medication used to treat schizophrenia in
adults.  Fanapt was approved by the FDA in 2009, which at that time
was marketed by Novartis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERU INC: Class Certification Bid in Illinois Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that, that the motion for class
certification in the consolidated class action lawsuit in Illinois
remains pending.

In response to the acquisition of Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
two purported derivative and class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v.
The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and
Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488. These lawsuits
were originally filed on or about October 21, 2016 and November 7,
2016, respectively.

On January 9, 2017, these two lawsuits were consolidated. On March
31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The
consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members of our
board of directors prior to the closing of the APP Acquisition and
the members of our board of directors after the closing of the APP
Acquisition. The consolidated complaint alleged, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, or
aided and abetted such breaches, by consummating the APP
Acquisition in violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law
and NASDAQ voting requirements and by causing us to issue the
shares of our common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the
former stockholders of APP pursuant to the APP Acquisition in order
to evade the voting requirements of the Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law. The consolidated complaint also alleged that Dr.
Steiner, a director and the Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Veru and a co-founder of APP, and Dr. Fisch, a director
and Vice Chairman of Veru and a co-founder of APP, were unjustly
enriched in receiving shares of our common stock and Series 4
Preferred Stock in the APP Acquisition.

On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On August 15, 2017, the court entered an
order dismissing without prejudice the claims that the
post-acquisition directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the pre-acquisition directors and that Dr.
Steiner and Dr. Fisch were unjustly enriched.

The court did not dismiss the claims that our directors prior to
the closing of the APP Acquisition breached their fiduciary duties
and the claims that Veru consummated the APP Acquisition in
violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ
voting requirements. On November 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed an
Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint makes allegations similar to
those in the original consolidated complaint as to the claims that
were not dismissed and names as defendants Veru and the members of
the company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition. The Amended Consolidated Complaint also makes claims
against Dr. Steiner for allegedly aiding and abetting the
pre-acquisition directors' breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust
enrichment.  

Like the original consolidated complaint, the Amended Consolidated
Complaint seeks equitable relief, including rescission of the APP
Acquisition, money damages, disgorgement of the shares of the
company's common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr.
Steiner, and costs and expenses of the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.  

On December 14, 2018, the defendants filed their answer to the
Amended Consolidated Complaint wherein they denied any and all
liability and asserted additional defenses.  

On January 14, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is due on February 15, 2019.

Veru believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself.

Veru Inc. operates as an oncology and urology biopharmaceutical
company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial, and
Research and Development. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Alaska Air to Appeal $78MM Class Action Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Gates, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that Alaska
Airlines has been ordered to pay $78 million in a class action
lawsuit on behalf of approximately 1,800 flight attendants who
worked for Virgin America and sued that airline before it was
acquired by Alaska in Dec. 2016.

The lawsuit alleges that Virgin violated multiple California and
City of San Francisco labor and wage laws. A federal judge in
California entered final judgment in February, Alaska disclosed on
Feb. 15 in its year-end filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Alaska said on Feb. 15 it plans to appeal the ruling, challenging
the application of local labor laws in the airline industry, where
labor relations are typically governed by the federal Railway Labor
Act.

The suit was filed in 2015 by three flight attendants, and was
certified as a class action just a month before Alaska completed
its acquisition.

It alleges that Virgin failed to pay its flight attendants overtime
and minimum wages, and did not pay them for hours worked before,
after, and between flights, and for time spent in training, on
reserve, completing reports or taking mandatory drug tests. In
addition, it alleges that Virgin did not allow flight attendants to
take meal or rest breaks.

Alaska issued a statement on Feb. 15 saying that as an air carrier
it is bound by Federal Aviation Regulations.

"These rules are prescribed by the FAA and supersede/preempt state
law," the statement said. "We are disappointed in the judgment in
this case and plan to appeal the rulings." [GN]


VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Ana Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Virginia Home Care Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00129, (E.D. Va., February 1, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked
over forty in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Virginia Home Care Services is a home health care agency that
provides in-home health care services and related personal care
assistant services for children and adults primarily in the
Commonwealth of Virginia where Castillo worked as a Home Health
Aide until approximately January 2019. During her employment, she
often works between approximately sixty and seventy-five hours per
week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Harris, Esq.
      Robert Powers, Esq.
      Dirk McClanahan, Esq.
      Zach Miller, Esq.
      MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
      8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
      Vienna, VA 22182
      Telephone: (703) 520-1326
      Facsimile: (703) 828-0205
      Email: aharris@mcplegal.com
             rpowers@mcplegal.com
             dmcclanahan@mcplegal.com
             zmiller@mcplegal.com
             ljereen@mcplegal.com


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Antitrust Suits in US & Canada Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's subsidiary Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd., continues to defend
itself from antitrust lawsuits in the United States and Canada.

Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd. ("VPC"), a subsidiary of Vishay which was
purchased from Holy Stone Enterprises Co., Ltd. ("Holy Stone") in
June 2014, is a named defendant, among other manufacturers, in
purported antitrust class action complaints in the United States
and Canada.  

The complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, and
seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble
damages. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. and VPC are parties to
similar cases filed in Canada.

Holy Stone has agreed to indemnify Vishay and VPC for losses,
including penalties and expenses associated with the subject matter
of the litigation described above.

Vishay said, "Notwithstanding this indemnity obligation, the
Company and VPC intend to defend vigorously against the civil
complaints."

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

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. manufactures and supplies discrete
semiconductors and passive components in the United States, Europe,
and Asia. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. was founded in 1962 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


WEATHER CHANNEL: Website Not Convenient to Deaf, Suris Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
YAROSLAV SURIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE WEATHER CHANNEL, LLC; and THE WEATHER
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 11, 2019) alleges that the Defendants have denied deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided
to non-disabled individuals through its website www.weather.com.
The Defendants exclude the deaf and hard of hearing from the full
and equal participation on their Website, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with
its physical locations and is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the American with Disabilities Act.

The Weather Company, LLC provides weather forecasts, data,
insights, and stories to consumers and businesses in the United
States and internationally. The Weather Company, LLC was formerly
known as The Weather Channel, LLC and changed its name to The
Weather Company, LLC in October 2012. The company was founded in
1982 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It has locations in
Andover, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Beijing, China;
Birmingham and London, United Kingdom; Detroit, Michigan; Madison,
Wisconsin; New York, New York; and Los Angeles and San Francisco,
California. The Weather Company, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
International Business Machines Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 415-0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706-6631


WEST COVINA, CA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Franco Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA FRANCO, JOEL MARTINEZ, SYLVIA NORIEGA LUNA, MARITZA
GOLDBAUM, RENEE SCHULTZ, ELIZABETH ROMERO, PATRICIA TACHIAS,
KIMBERLY WEST, JUDY TURNER, LORI BARRON, and SEAN CARMON, on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. CITY OF
WEST COVINA, Case No. 2:19-cv-01385 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2019),
alleges that the City has not properly paid overtime to the
Plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

City of West Covina is a political subdivision of the state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dieter C. Dammeier, Esq.
          DAMMEIER LAW FIRM
          9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 240-9525
          Facsimile: (909) 912-1901
          E-mail: Dieter@DammeierLaw.com


WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Public Defenders' Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Marley and Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
report that republicans in the state Assembly came out on Feb. 18
in support of raising the pay for attorneys representing poor
defendants as the state faces a class-action lawsuit over the
issue.

Assembly Republicans said they also backed hiring 61 more assistant
district attorneys and raising pay for prosecutors, public
defenders and correctional officers.  

Their plan would cost about $50 million over two years, according
to Republican Rep. Mark Born of Beaver Dam, who sits on the
budget-writing Joint Finance Committee.

"These initiatives are tough but smart on crime," Mr. Born said at
a news conference in the state Capitol.

He did not make public many details of the plan, including how much
of a raise correctional officers and others would get.

Wisconsin pays private attorneys $40 an hour to represent criminal
defendants when the State Public Defender's office can't handle the
work. That's the lowest rate in the nation and many attorneys say
it doesn't cover their overhead costs.

The plan Born announced on Feb. 18 would raise the pay to $70 an
hour. That increase would cost taxpayers about $33 million over two
years, according to state records.

Because of the existing rate, private attorneys often refuse to
take cases, leading to delays in getting defendants
representation.

In January, six people facing charges in Ashland and Bayfield
counties sued in federal court over the issue.

The public defender's office outsources up to 40 percent of its
cases because it doesn't have enough attorneys to cover all of them
and sometimes has conflicts that prevent it from representing some
defendants.

In rural areas, it can take weeks to find private attorneys for
defendants.

So far, lawmakers have declined to put more money toward the issue.
The state Supreme Court last year declined to establish higher pay
rates for such attorneys but called the matter "an emerging
constitutional crisis."

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers plans to include similar measures in the
budget he introduces.

"It's good to hear that these provisions will have Republican
support in the Legislature," Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback said
in a statement.

Republicans control both houses of the Legislature and will spend
the coming months working on the state budget.

Republicans held simultaneous news conferences around the state on
Feb. 18 about their plan. Milwaukee criminal defense attorney John
Birdsall showed up at the one held in Waukesha.

Mr. Birdsall, who has long advocated for raising the pay for
private attorneys, asked those at the news conference why they
weren't backing raising the rate to $100 an hour or more. Wisconsin
will remain a top target for litigation if it doesn't do so, he
said.

Republican Rep. Dan Knodl or Germantown told him lawmakers were
"happy to take input from other professionals."

"So is $70 open to negotiation?" Mr.  Birdsall asked.

Mr. Knodl said lawmakers would listen.

Opponents of Wisconsin's system and the delays it causes argue the
pay rate infringes on defendants' right to a speedy trial, right to
confront accusers and right to assistance from counsel. They also
contend it leads a less-efficient court system.

The plan announced on Feb. 18 has the backing of state Supreme
Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, Public Defender Kelli
Thompson and Dodge County District Attorney Kurt Klomberg, the
president-elect of the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association.

"This legislative initiative moves Wisconsin forward," Justice
Roggensack said in a statement. "If enacted, it will support
essential constitutional guarantees."

In a later statement on behalf of the Wisconsin Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers,
Mr. Birdsall called most of the proposal admirable but said
increasing the appointment rate to $70 "largely misses the mark."

The association, he said, supports a separate bill that would
remove the function of assigned counsel from the State Public
Defender, set the pay rates at $100 to $140 and index the rates to
inflation.

The group "hopes to work with the members of the Legislature to
achieve a permanent and sustainable solution to this ever-worsening
crisis," he said.

Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this
report from Waukesha. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces Labul Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the complaint in
Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., has not yet been served.

On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the actions, Leeman v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.),
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.  

In the other action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No.
3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which remains pending, the complaint has
not yet been served.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the
allegations. The Company is unable at this time to determine the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may
incur as a result of these matters.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Funds in Leung Suit Already Distributed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the distribution of
the settlement funds Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., has already been
completed.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation (Leung
v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District
Court, Illinois ("Illinois Court")) alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated
customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that
the Company acquired.

The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the Leung case, and
the Illinois Court has approved the settlement and entered final
judgment.

The Company has accrued the full amount of the approved settlement.
Distribution of the settlement funds began in September 2018.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Last Mile Logistics Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has
reached agreements to resolve the Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party
to several putative class action litigation brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these
litigation, the contract carriers, and in some cases the contract
carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified as
employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses.

The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California:

Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald
and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), filed in March
2016;

Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc. ("Garcia"), filed in
July 2016;

Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc. ("Kramer"), filed in September
2016; and

Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc. ("Ibanez"), filed in May 2017.


The Company has reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia,
Kramer and Ibanez matters and has accrued the full amount of the
settlements. The settlements will require court approval.

XPO Logistics said, "With respect to other pending claims, the
Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential
impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably
estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of
its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims
given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by
the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


[*] Lewis Brisbois Expects Uptick in BIPA-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mayhew, writing for Biometric Update, reports that Lewis
Brisbois has formed a new BIPA sub-practice within its Labor and
Employment Practice that will focus on claims relating to the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. The new group will be
chaired by Chicago Partners Josh M. Kantrow and Mary A. Smigielski,
who have extensive experience counseling and litigating under
BIPA.

Following the January Illinois Supreme Court decision that
drastically reduced the harm threshold required for an individual
to bring suit under BIPA, the law firm expects an uptick in this
type of litigation to be brought against companies that collect or
use biometric information in Illinois.

According to a firm announcement, "Lewis Brisbois' new BIPA team is
at the cutting-edge of defense in the recent wave of class action
litigation being brought against Illinois employers and other
groups under the Act, and they recognize the difficult challenges
that the Rosenbach decision raises for organizations, both in terms
of compliance with the Act and in avoiding costly violations."

In a recent DataGuidance report Smigielski explained how the
Rosenbach decision "changes the landscape of BIPA litigation. With
this ruling, a mere technical violation of BIPA is sufficient to
have a right of action under the same." She added that "the
consequences of non-compliance [for businesses] are potentially
staggering because BIPA provides for $1,000 for each negligent
violation and $5,000 for each intentional violation."

Between the precedence setting State Supreme Court ruling, and
recent claims from an insurance company that it is not liable to
cover BIPA damages, businesses operating in Illinois would be well
advised to make sure they have met the law's statutory
requirements.

Another class action BIPA lawsuit filed

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Cook County Circuit Court
by an employee of Wound Care Solutions Inc. who alleges the medical
supply company violated workers' rights under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by requiring employees to use
their fingerprints to clock in and out of its biometric time and
attendance system, the Cook County Record reports.

Eric Zepeda filed the complaint individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals on Feb. 6.

According to the complaint, Zepeda claims the defendant required
him and the class of employees to have their hands scanned each
time they clocked in or out of work and that the defendant did not
inform him and others in writing that their biometrics were being
collected, stored, used or disseminated, nor did defendant publish
any policy specifically about how the biometric information would
be destroyed.

The plaintiff alleges he has experienced mental anguish, anxiety
and other injury when he thinks about the status of his biometrics
and who has, or could have, access to such private information. He
has requested a trial by jury and seeks judgment for injunctive and
equitable relief, award of statutory damage, attorneys' fees,
costs, pre and post-judgment interest, and such further and other
relief.

A similar class action lawsuit filed in January accused Swissport
USA of failing to meet BIPA requirements for informed consent
relating to its fingerprint time and attendance systems.

In both cases the defendants could face damages of $1,000-$5,0000
per violation, which, according to the Cook County Record report,
is considered by the law to be each time an employee used the
biometric time clock.

A recently dismissed lawsuit filed against Google under BIPA has
been given new life by the January ruling on the definition of
harm, and is being revived in both state and appellate courts.
[GN]


[*] New Mexico Homebuilders Support Mandatory New-Home Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teya Vitu, writing for Santa Fe New Mexican, reports that new homes
may come with a 10-year warranty if legislation proposed by the New
Mexico Home Builders Association finds its way to the governor's
desk.

Homebuilders want to be required to include what are known as 2-10
homebuyers warranties, which would guarantee for homeowners the
workmanship, mechanical systems and structural components on new
homes.

"There is no warranty in the state of New Mexico for new homes,"
said Lora Vassar, New Mexico Home Builders Association's president
and owner of Arch Design & Remodeling in Albuquerque. "This is to
get issues back in the hands of the builders and customers. Let
your builder come back and fix it. This keeps it out of the
courts."

The homebuilders association is eager to offer mandated warranties
to put an end to class-action lawsuits where developers and
construction companies face legal claims if numerous homes in a
development are found to be defective. Such is the case with a Jan.
11 lawsuit brought against Pulte Homes by 11 homeowners in the Las
Soleras development in Santa Fe that alleges "shoddy construction"
practices.

House Bill 632, the Home Warranty Act sponsored by Rep. Patricio
Ruiloba, D-Albuquerque, was introduced Feb. 14 and sent to the
House Commerce & Economic Development Committee. A similar Senate
bill is pending.

The warranty would come in three components, covering the first and
second years and up to 10 years of a new home, the so-called "2-10
warranty":

   -- In the first year, a new home would be free of any defect or
major structural defects caused by compliance with construction
codes.

   -- In the second year, a new home would be free of plumbing,
electrical and mechanical distribution system defects as well as
major structural defects.

   -- For the next eight years, a new home would be free of major
structural defects, including footings and foundation systems,
beams, headers, girders, lintels, columns, load-bearing walls, roof
framing systems and floor systems.

The Home Warranty Act would fall under the jurisdiction of the New
Mexico Superintendent of Insurance. The warranties would be
provided by third-party home construction warranty companies, paid
for by builders at no additional cost to homeowners.

"If passed as introduced, the New Mexico New Home Warranty Act
would be unique among the 50 states -- requiring new-home builders
to buy (and pay for) 10 years of warranty protection before they
move in," said Gary W. Moselle, a California attorney specializing
in state-specific construction contracts. "I'm not a constitutional
law expert, but I see constitutional issues with HB 632 as
proposed. A new-home builder who couldn't get warranty coverage is
essentially out of business."

Mr. Moselle questions the claim that homeowners would not bear any
warranty costs. He figures warranty costs would be incorporated
into the home price.

"Requiring all new homebuyers to purchase a warranty isn't going to
fly," Mr. Moselle said. "No question, the full cost of 10 years of
warranty coverage will be paid by the first owner, no matter who
pays the surety."

Mr. Moselle said only 10 states, including New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Maryland and Louisiana, have mandatory home warranty
acts, though all of them differ in terms and warranty time
lengths.

The New Mexico Home Builders Association believes the mandatory
warranties address construction deficiencies more concretely than
the many varying "notice and right to repair" laws or implied
warranties common in most states, Vassar said.

Mr. Moselle monitors construction warranties across the country.

"I think New Mexico is going in the right direction," Mr. Moselle
said. "I like the 'right to repair' portion of the bill. And I like
the idea of setting professional standards. I like the process of
the New Mexico law. It gives the builder the right to inspect a
defect."

Vassar said homebuilders want to fix home defects before they
become court cases. Often, Mr. Moselle said, homeowners can be so
infuriated with home defects that they will not let the original
contractor into the house.

"It's better for the state to provide some guidance,"
Mr. Moselle said.

Without a state law defining a warranty, the courts would define
resolutions on a case-by-case basis.

"That's a very expensive and protracted process," Mr. Moselle said.
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***