CAR_Public/190319.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 19, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 56

                            Headlines

1568 BROADWAY: Faces Lixing Suit in New York State Court
363 GOWANUS: Olsen Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
AARON'S INC: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Judge Likely to Pare Down Suit vs County Jail
ALLERGAN PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action

ALTA MESA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
AMC DETROIT: Cross Renews Bid for Class Certification Under FLSA
AMTRAK: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in Chen Suit
APPLE INC: Emerson Sues Over iPhone Charger Defect
ARDENE USA: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY

ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: March 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
AT&T INC: Faces Hoffman Class Action in New York

BANK OF AMERICA: Will Pay $22MM to Class for Uber Overdrafts
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
BAUSCH HEALTH: Defending Securities Suits by 31 Investor Groups
BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties Agree to Stay New Jersey Securities Suit

BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties in Lens Suit Ask Court to Reschedule Trial
BREMERTON, WA: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Karl Suit
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Debt Collection Note Violates FDCPA, Reed Says
CAPITAL ONE: Settlement with Monetary Damages Class Okayed
CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: Karikari Sues over Biometric Data Collection

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Uschold Seeks Class, Sub-class Certification
CEDAR SHAKE: Liebo Sues Over Cedar Shake and Shingle Price-fixing
CELGENE CORP.: Rowinski Balks at Merger Deal withc Bristol-Myers
CELGENE CORP: Gerold Seeks to Halt Merger with Bristol-Myers
CELGENE CORP: Lawsuit Says Shareholder Sells Too Cheaply

CERTIFIED FLOORING: Couch Seek to Certify Carpet Installers Class
CLEANING DEPOT: Sued by Sarabia for Not Paying OT Under FLSA/NYLL
COBB ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tayian Suit Alleges
CONAGRA FOODS: Allen Moves to Certify Consumer Class & Subclasses
CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Court Partly Grants Ostrander Suit Settlement

CVR REFINING: Stafford Suit Asserts Stock Manipulation
DEVON ENERGY: 5th Cir. Flips Class Certification in Seeligson Suit
DONALD J. TRUMP: Johnson Sues over Sexually Predatory Conduct
DYCK ONEAL: Robbins Discovery Stayed Pending Dispositive Bid Ruling
EDGE FITNESS: Settlement in McArthur FLSA Suit Has Final Approval

ELON MUSK: Tesla Shareholders Want Musk Cut Off From Twitter
ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Monteverde & Associates Probes Acquisition
FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss IntegrityMessageBoards.com Suit Denied
FACEBOOK INC: Fights Multibillion-Dollar Privacy Class Action
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Alvarado Suit Removed to C.D. California

FERROGLOBE PLC: March 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FLEETCOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Class Action Lawsuit
FLORIDA BC: Court Adopts Magistrate's Class Cert Recommendation
FLORIDA: John Does Seek Certification of Sexual Offenders Class
FORT 250: New York Sup. Grants Leave to Amend Gould Suit

G & R MARINE: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
GARDEN STATE: Bishop Suit Alleges ADA Violation
GEICO: New Class Actions Pile Up in Wake of Stacking Ruling
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Keller Lenkner Files Class Action Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Rossi Sues After GTD Product Almost Killed Him

GEORGIA POWER: Suit over Municipal Franchise Fees Shelved
HIGHMARK INC: Cole's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: ASCs Win $4MM Settlement for Underpayments
HOWARD LEE SCHIFF: Truglio Moves to Certify Class Under FDCPA
INDEPENDENT HOME: Final Approval of Mitchell Settlement Recommended

IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tate Suit Claims
J. TAPPER & CO. INC: Guzman Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
J.P. MORGAN: Miramontes Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
JC 97 INC: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Yuan Claims
JELD-WEN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Olea-Cisneros Alleges

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens Suit Wins Class Certification
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R)-Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend XARELTO(R)-Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial This Month in Illinois AWP Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Walling Says Financial Report Misleading

LEMAN USA: Conditional Class Certification of Malicki Class Denied
LEPAGE BAKERIES: Bakery Drivers' Lawsuit Will Become Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in Pennsylvania
LINCOLN NATIONAL: EFG Bank Insurance Litig. Ongoing in E.D. Pa.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit by TVPX ARS

LIVE NATION CONCERTS: Fischler Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
LUXOR LIMO: Denied Drivers Overtime Pay, Reimbursements, Says Suit
LYONS DOUGHTY: Jacobs Asserts Breach Under FDCPA
MASTER FLOW: Luna Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
MDL 2492: Brown v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Caviggia v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Conn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Cuevas v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Harris v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Jackson v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: King v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Medley v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Mileto v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Oliver v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Page v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Schroeder v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Thorne v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3606 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3621 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3768 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied

MDL 2741: Cloutier Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Colombara Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
MDL 2741: Hans Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Martin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: McCrae Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: McCrae Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Salamone Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
MDL 2741: Stewart Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2875: Cacaccio Suit v. Mylan over Tainted Valsartan Moved
MDL 2875: Nelson Suit v. Teva over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated

MDL 2878: Castillo Suit v. Ranbaxy over Generic Drugs Consolidated
MDL 2878: UFCW Suit v. Ranbaxy over Generic Drugs Consolidated
MERRILL LYNCH: Asks Court to Toss Class-Action
MINDBODY INC: Kumar Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Vista
MOLSON COORS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

MOLSON COORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dubourgs Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Everett Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Furnas Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Howard Sues over Sale of Roundup Products

MOVIEPASS: Hit With Class-Action Suit
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in Gadime Suit
NATIONAL GRID: Brian Cunha Talks Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Mitchell Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Continues to Probe Officers & Directors

NCAA: Pacchioni Sues over Safety of Wilkes Student-Athletes
NCAA: Phipps Sues over Health & Safety of Baylor Student-Athletes
NEW BALANCE: Notice Procedure in Dashnaw Suit Partly Modified
NEW YORK CITY: Hill Seeks Redefinition of Section 1981 Class
NISSAN NORTH: Briefing Sched for Bashaw Suit Dismissal Bid Modified

NOBLES COUNTY, MN: ACLU Suit Granted Class-Action Status
NUNEZ GROUP: Mediate Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid Wages
OFFICINA PROFUMO: Olsen Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Offers Counseling to Alleged Victims
PARK CAKE: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Ruiz Says

PAX VENTURES: Pimental Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PB&J CONWAY: Underpays Red Robin Staff, Wilson & Watson Claim
PESSCO LLC: Valdez Moves to Certify Class of Welders and Foremen
PHOENIX INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Says
PITNEY BOWES: City of Livonia Retiree Plan's Suit Remains Pending

POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES: Porras Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
PROSHARES SHORT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
PROVIDENCE PLANTATION: Nickerson to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
PUBLIC STORAGE: Battles $100M Class-Action Lawsuit in California
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit

REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
ROYAL CREDIT: Streitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA
SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Grants Leave to Amend J.L. Mourning Suit
SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Partial Summ. Judgment Bid in Armendariz Nixed
SERVICE CORP: Appeal Underway in Moulton Class Action

SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Class Action Ongoing
SETERUS INC: Leak Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Georgia
SITEL OPERATING: Foster Asks to Certify Call-Center Workers Class
SMITH INT'L: Drobish Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands
SMITH INT'L: Myers Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands

SMITH INT'L: Story Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands
SOUTHERN POWER: Monroe County Employees' Retirement Suit Ongoing
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Copper Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SPEEDWAY LLC: Removes Howe Case to Northern District of Illinois
STILLMAN LAW: Cole Sues over Debt Collection Practices

SUNSET MESA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Installers Hit Misclassification, Seek OT Pay
TABLE FOR EIGHT: Lin et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
TELLTALE GAMES: Class-Action Suit Over Layoffs Dismissed
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Removes Johnson Case to Western Dist. of Washington

UNITED STATES: Galvez Files Suit v. Homeland Security Officers
UNITED STATES: Judge Tosses Tupac Stepdad's Suit
US GOVERNMENT: Eckes' Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
UXIN LIMITED: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
VALE SA: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

VALE SA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
VALE SA: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
WELBILT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
WINNEBAGO, IL: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Ford Suit

                            *********

1568 BROADWAY: Faces Lixing Suit in New York State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
1568 Broadway Funding 100, LLC has been named as a defendant in a
class action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
securities fraud, unclean hands. The case seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment and monetary damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.

The case is captioned as LIXING YAN A/K/A YAN LIXING, JOHN DOE 1-1
and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 1568 BROADWAY
FUNDING 100, LLC, 1568 BROADWAY FUNDING 100 GP; U.S. IMMIGRATION
FUND-NY, LLC, and NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI, the Defendants, Case No.
651143/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 25, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

363 GOWANUS: Olsen Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
363 Gowanus Developers, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 363 Gowanus Developers, LLC doing
business as: 363 Bond, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01292 (E.D.
N.Y., March 5, 2019).

363 Gowanus Developers LLC operates as a real estate investment
trust (REIT). The Company serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARON'S INC: Murphy Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Michael G.
Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aaron's, Inc., a Georgie corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00601 (D. Colo., March 1, 2019).

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 also engages in the sale, lease ownership,
and specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, home
appliances, and accessories. As of December 31, 2018, it operated
through 1,689 Aaron's stores, including 1,312 company-operated
stores in 42 states and Canada; and 377 independently-owned
franchised stores in 37 states, Canada, and Puerto Rico, as well as
its e-commerce platform, aarons.com. The company was founded in
1955 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin James Sweet, Esq.
   Sweet Law Firm PC
   186 Mohawk Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15228
   Tel: (412) 742-0631
   Email: ben@sweetlawpc.com



ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Judge Likely to Pare Down Suit vs County Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge said on Feb. 6 she will likely toss part of an
Oakland woman's proposed class action alleging her constitutional
rights were violated when she was put in an Alameda County jail
cell stained with feces and blood and refused menstrual pads.

In a hearing in downtown Oakland, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis
Westmore said allegations that lead plaintiff Cynthia Turano will
again be arrested on trumped-up domestic violence charges leveled
by her ex-husband and subjected to filthy conditions at Santa Rita
Jail were too speculative to warrant an injunction ordering the
sheriff's office to clean up the jail.  

In August 2016, the Alameda County Sheriff signed onto a federal
settlement agreement in Weills v. Gregory J. Ahern over filthy
conditions at Santa Rita similar to those described by Turano, in
which it agreed to strict requirements for keeping jail cells clean
and to give inmates easy access to menstrual pads. Turano was
arrested four months later, in December, and claims sheriffs'
officials failed to keep their end of the bargain.

"I just note that this happened in 2016 and this is now 2019,"
Westmore said on Feb. 7. "I don't see any sort of pattern of
[Turano's ex-husband] repeatedly calling the police to have her
arrested that would make her concern one that would satisfy the
standard the courts would look at in deciding imminent harm or
whether the threat is speculative."

Turano sued Oakland and its police department, and Alameda County
and its sheriff's office, in December 2017 over her incarceration
at Santa Rita in Dublin, 25 miles east of Oakland, for allegedly
violating a restraining order obtained by her then-husband.

According to a second amended complaint, the holding cell at Santa
Rita in which Turano was placed had dried, bloody hand prints on
the wall and feces and mucous smeared over the walls and a bench.
"Medical pads" with human hair on them were also stuck to the
wall.

A second holding cell was filled with garbage, rotting food and
used toilet paper piled next to the toilet, Turano says, and had
"stains of dried fluids on the walls and benches," the identity of
which "was not ascertainable."

Turano also claims her multiple requests for a menstrual pad were
ignored, causing her to bleed through her pants and onto a concrete
bench. When she was released the next morning, she says she was
forced to take public transportation "dressed in wet, visibly
blood-stained clothing."

On Feb. 7, Turano's attorney Yolanda Huang, Esq. --
yhuang.law@gmail.com -- insisted the possibility that Turano will
again be arrested and subjected to filthy conditions at Santa Rita
isn't speculative. Westmore last June dismissed the Oakland
defendants from the suit on the grounds that responding officers
are required to make an arrest when there is a complaint of a
violation of a domestic violence restraining order, even if the
officers didn't witness the alleged violation. Therefore, Huang
said on Feb. 7, Turano is subject to future arrest based on her
ex-husband's potentially "baseless" allegations.

Huang said there was no probable cause for Turano's 2016 arrest and
noted Turano wasn't charged with a crime. In the complaint, Huang
characterizes the allegations by Turano's ex-husband as "bald and
perhaps baseless," leveled by a "disgruntled ex-spouse during the
course of a divorce proceeding."

"There's a Damocles sword over her head – the police have to obey
the order," Huang told Westmore. "If there's a dispute between her
and her husband -- picking up her daughter, [child] custody -- then
she's back" where she was. "The same situation exists now [at Santa
Rita Jail] as back at her arrest. So it's not hypothetical."

Without going into detail, Huang said Turano's divorce had been
"exceedingly contentious," forcing her to change jobs twice due to
"harassment."

"That's the reason she believes she is subject to being
reincarcerated under very similar conditions," Huang explained.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen attorney Temitayo Peters, Esq. --
tpeters@bwslaw.com -- who represents the Alameda County defendants,
countered Turano makes no allegations in her newest complaint that
current conditions at Santa Rita match those Turano alleges were
present in December 2016. Westmore did not address this argument.

Outside court, Peters declined to comment on current conditions at
Santa Rita. Huang said she hasn't monitored conditions there in the
last six months -- doing so requires interviewing people recently
incarcerated there. But she said the jail is notorious for failing
to enforce court-ordered policy changes.

Before the close of arguments, Westmore indicated she will advance
Turano's negligence claim against Alameda County Sheriff Gregory
Ahern and four other sheriffs' employees because they aren't
entitled to statutory immunity. Negligence claims against the
county and the sheriff's office will be dismissed.

Turano's equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment claims
weren't challenged on Feb. 7 and will also proceed. Peters,
however, said the defendants may file a motion for reconsideration
of Westmore's June 2018 equal protection ruling based on a recent
decision from the Ninth Circuit.[GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN)

Class Period: February 24, 2017 - December 19, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019

Join the action: https://tinyurl.com/y39w8xch

The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, Allergan plc
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) textured breast implants manufactured by
Allergan were linked to ALCL; (ii) the foregoing link to cancer,
when revealed, would foreseeably force Allergan to recall those
textured breast implants from the market; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the Allergan plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


ALTA MESA: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. f/k/a Silver Run Acquisition
Corporation (NASDAQ: AMR). Our investigation concerns whether Alta
Mesa has violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in
other unlawful business practices.

In August 2017, Silver Run II disclosedd that it had entered into
an agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge with two
privately held companies, Alta Mesa Holdings, LP ("Alta Mesa") and
Kingfisher Midstream LLC ("Kingfisher"), in a deal initially valued
at $3.8 billion.

According to a complaint filed on January 30, 2019, Silver Run II
issued a materially false and misleading Definitive Merger Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") that recommended shareholders vote in favor
of an acquisition. As a result of the false and misleading Proxy,
Silver Run II shareholders were unable to make an informed decision
on whether or not to redeem their shares and voted in favor of the
acquisition on February 6, 2018. The complaint further alleges that
subsequent to, and due to the approval of the acquisition, the
value of Silver Run II Class A common shares has significantly
declined.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alta Mesa shares, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this disclosedment or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


AMC DETROIT: Cross Renews Bid for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MONIQUE CROSS and AMERICA
THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. AMC DETROIT, INC., a Michigan
for-profit corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-11968-NGE-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), file with the Court their amended renewed motion for
conditional collective action certification and court supervised
notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) conditionally
certify a collective action for unpaid wages under Section 216(b)
of the FLSA; (2) issue their proposed order attached as Exhibit A;
(3) approve the proposed court-supervised notice, attached as
Exhibit B, to be sent to the putative class members; (4) appoint
the Law Offices of Bryan Yaldou, PLLC, as class counsel; (5)
require the Defendant to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs by
promptly providing the Plaintiffs with an updated computer-readable
data file containing contact information for all potential opt-in
plaintiffs within 10 days of entry of the order; (6) approve an
opt-in period of 90 days; (7) allow the Plaintiffs to send notice
to similarly situated individuals via e-mail in addition to regular
mail; and (8) require the proposed Notice to be posted in the
Defendant's workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
place for its employees to view).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com
                  elaina@yaldoulaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrey T. Tomkiw, Esq.
          J. Travis Mihelick, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 300
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 647-6000
          Facsimile: (248) 647-5210
          E-mail: andrey.tomkiw@dinsmore.com
                  travis.mihelick@dinsmore.com


AMTRAK: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in Chen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JENNY CHEN AND BRIAN JORDAN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMTRAK
and RWC, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03617-JS (E.D. Pa.), move for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Jenny Chen and Brian Jordan also ask the Court to appoint their
counsel as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah Axler, Esq.
          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust St., Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534-7400
          Facsimile: (267) 534-7407
          E-mail: naxler@axgolaw.com
                  mgoldich@axgolaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
          E-mail: gwilliams@williamscedar.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


APPLE INC: Emerson Sues Over iPhone Charger Defect
--------------------------------------------------
Monica Emerson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00829, (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2019) seeks redress for
violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Apple is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of cell
phones and related equipment and services throughout the world with
a large share of its business done in California.

Emerson is an Apple iPhone owner who claims that her phone stopped
recognizing and accepting chargers that had been manufactured by
Apple compatible with the Apple iPhone before September 13, 2016,
forcing consumers to either purchase new iPhones or new chargers,
which cost approximately twice as much. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


ARDENE USA: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY
-------------------------------------------------
Ardene USA Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ardene USA Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01293 (E.D. N.Y., March 5, 2019).

Ardene USA Inc. is a women's clothing wholesaler with shoes,
costume jewelry and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: March 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019
Class Period: Investors who purchased shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the August 3, 2018 Initial Public
Offering

Get additional information about ARLO:
https://tinyurl.com/yyhftxkv

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 2, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Astec Industries, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: ASTE), if they purchased the Company's shares between
July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Astec and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-aste/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 2, 2019.

                          About the Lawsuit

Astec and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 23, 2018, the Company disclosed a wide range of
disappointing financial results for 3Q2018 including a decrease in
domestic sales of 1.2% and a 28.1% decline in domestic backlog and
for 2018, core revenue growth forecast slashed from 7%-12% to 1%-3%
as well as revenue and earnings per share well below analysts'
expectations.

On this news, the price of Astec's shares plummeted.

The case is City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v.
Astec Industries, Inc., et al., 19-cv-0002.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Astec Industries, Inc. ("Astec" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ASTE) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of Astec between July 26, 2016 and
October 22, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding Astec's business, operations and
prospects, including that its wood pellet plants suffered from
significant and costly problems that prevented them from running at
their promised production capacity, posing a threat to the
Company's pellet plant business, its overall financial performance,
and its financial outlook.

In a partial disclosure of material issues, on July 24, 2018,
Defendants announced unresolved issues with the Company's Arkansas
wood pellet plant customer and their decision to pay $68 million
and forgive about $7 million in receivables in exchange for the
customer's release of Astec from its contractual obligations. That
day, the price of Astec shares fell about 20%, to close at $48.21.
Then, on October 23, 2018, Defendants revealed that Astec could end
up owning another pellet plant in Georgia. In contrast, Defendants
previously stated Astec would focus on supplying equipment to the
pellet plant industry. This news drove the price of Astec shares
down 25% to close at $35.51 that day.

Subsequent to the end of the Class Period, on January 22, 2019, the
Company announced that effective immediately, Benjamin G. Brock had
resigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 2, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please;

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/astec/-- disclosed that a class
action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of
purchasers of Astec Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASTE) stock during the
period between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee and is captioned City of Taylor General Employees
Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., No.
19-cv-00024.

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

The complaint charges Astec and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Astec designs, engineers, manufactures, markets, and finances
equipment and components, including aggregate crushers, pavers,
asphalt plants, wood pellet plants, and related components. The
Company comprises three segments: the Infrastructure Group; the
Aggregate and Mining Group; and the Energy Group.

The Company's Infrastructure Group has been involved in the wood
pellet plant business since approximately 2013, when Astec began
commercial production and marketing of wood pellet plants to
potential customers that supply wood pellets to the utility and
home-use industries. Prior to the start of the Class Period, the
Company disclosed the sale of two wood pellet plants, one in
partnership with Highland Pellets, LLC, located in Arkansas, and
one to Hazlehurst Pellets, located in Georgia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Astec's business, operations and prospects,
including that its wood pellet plants suffered from significant and
costly problems that prevented them from running at their promised
production capacity, posing a threat to the Company's pellet plant
business, its overall financial performance, and its financial
outlook. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, the price of Astec stock was artificially inflated to a
high of nearly $70 per share during the Class Period.

News regarding the problems with Astec's pellet plant projects
reached the market through several partial disclosures. On July 25,
2017, defendants revealed "lower than expected" margins for Astec's
wood pellet plant due to underestimated installation costs, but
Astec refused to disclose the amount of the underestimated cost,
causing the price of Astec stock to decline by approximately 8%. On
July 24, 2018, defendants reported disappointing financial results
for Astec's second quarter of 2018 and disclosed that the Company
would substantially limit its wood pellet business, that it was
giving up on its plans to engineer and develop the Highland wood
pellet plant in Arkansas, and that it was limiting its
participation in the development of other new pellet plants. In
response to these disclosures, the price of Astec stock fell
significantly, dropping 20%, or $12.59 per share, to close at
$48.21 per share on July 24, 2018.

Then, before the market opened on October 23, 2018, the Company
reported third quarter 2018 results that fell well short of the low
end of the Company's guidance and the market's expectations. The
Company reported a 1.2% decrease in domestic sales and a 20.2%
decrease in backlog, with domestic backlog contracting by 28.1%,
which was being dragged down by the Company's pellet business. For
2018, the Company cut its core revenue growth forecast to 1% to 3%,
down substantially from 7% to 12%. The Company also reported
earnings per share of $0.30 for the quarter, widely missing the
consensus estimate of $0.59. Revenue came in light as well, with
Astec reporting $256.6 million, below analysts' expectations of
$276.8 million. On this news, the price of Astec stock fell $11.76
per share, or nearly 25%, to close at $35.51 per share on October
23, 2018.

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

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800/449-4900
                    619/231-1058
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


AT&T INC: Faces Hoffman Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. 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 has been
named as defendant in a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
in relation to statements made in the registration statement and
prospectus on Form S-4 (S-4), filed by AT&T with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with its acquisition of Time
Warner Inc.

The action, Hoffman v. Stephenson et al. (the "Hoffman Complaint"),
filed on February 7, 2019 in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by AT&T
and certain of AT&T's current officers and directors based on
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the S-4 relating to
trends in its then Entertainment Group segment and in particular
with respect to the number of subscribers to our DIRECTV NOW
service.

The plaintiff in the Hoffman Complaint seeks damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, rescission, disgorgement and other and further
relief.

AT&T said, "We believe the claims in the Hoffman Complaint are
without merit and will vigorously defend our legal position in
court."

AT&T Inc. provides telecommunication, media, and technology
services worldwide. The company operates through four segments:
Communications, WarnerMedia, Latin America, and Xandr. The company
was formerly known as SBC Communications Inc. and changed its name
to AT&T Inc. in November 2005. AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
based in Dallas, Texas.


BANK OF AMERICA: Will Pay $22MM to Class for Uber Overdrafts
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Bank of
America will put up $22 million to resolve a class action by
customers alleging it improperly charged overdraft fees on debit
card transactions made with Uber Technologies Inc.

Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval to the settlement Jan.
31.

Nicoletta Pantelyat sued Bank of America for breaching its
contractual obligations to consumers by charging overdraft fees on
non-recurring debit card transactions made with Uber.[GN]


BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Timber Hill
LLC remains pending.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.  This action,
captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246) ("Timber
Hill"), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658).

On January 14, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on
February 13, 2019.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 itself against several class action lawsuits in
Canada.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case
No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November
17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP)
(Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn
et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O'Brien v. Valeant et al.
(CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30,
2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015);
and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27,
2015).

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same
matters in the US Securities Litigation.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court
by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that the consolidated action is stayed in
favor of the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26,
2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating
Class Proceedings.

A timetable for certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action
has been set and the notice of certification has been disseminated
to class members. Among other things, the timetable established a
deadline of June 19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right
to opt-out of the class.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company.

These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case
No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December
2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP)
(Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual
allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to
those outlined above. The Company has been advised that the
plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions.

In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12,
2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in
the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors.

This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada
Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar
to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. That
application has been scheduled to be heard on May 14, 2019.

On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating
application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same
defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect
of the same alleged misrepresentations.

The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci
class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018
deadline.

On February 15, 2019, one of the entities who exercised their
opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the Quebec
Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or
former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor.

That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers' Retirement
System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No.
500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar
to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in
the BlackRock opt out proceedings. On that same date, California
State Teachers' Retirement System also served the Company with
proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same
defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect
of the same alleged misrepresentations.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Defending Securities Suits by 31 Investor Groups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 31 groups
of individual investors in the Company's stock and debt securities
have chosen to opt out of the consolidated putative class action
and filed securities actions pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current
or former officers and directors.

These actions are captioned: T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc.
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
16-cv-5034); Equity Trustees Limited as Responsible Entity for T.
Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127); Principal Funds, Inc. v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128);
BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212); Discovery Global
Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD Torchlight Partners,
L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7328); Incline
Global Master LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7496); Janus Aspen Series v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497)
("Janus Aspen"); Okumus Opportunistic Value Fund, LTD v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6513)
("Okumus"); Lord Abbett Investment Trust- Lord Abbett Short
Duration Income Fund, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6365) ("Lord Abbett"); Pentwater Equity
Opportunities Master Fund LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al. (Case No. 17-cv-7552) ("Pentwater");
Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-7625)
("Mississippi"); The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plans
Master Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., et al.,
(Case No. 17-cv-7636) ("Boeing"); State Board of Administration of
Florida v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No.
17-cv-12808); The Regents of the University of California v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-13488);
GMO Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
18-cv-0089); Första AP Fonden v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12088); New York City
Employees' Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0032) ("NYCERS"); Hound
Partners Offshore Fund, LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-08705) ("Hound Partners");
Blackrock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0343) ("Blackrock"); Colonial
First State Investments Limited As Responsible Entity for
Commonwealth Global Shares Fund 1 v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0383); Bharat Ahuja v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0846); Brahman
Capital Corp. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (Case
No. 18-cv-0893); The Prudential Insurance Company of America v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
3:18-cv-01223) ("Prudential"); Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286)
("Senzar"); 2012 Dynasty UC LLC v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08595) ("2012 Dynasty");
Catalyst Dynamic Alpha Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-12673) ("Catalyst");
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-15286) ("Northwestern Mutual");
and Bahaa Aly, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc., (Case No. 18-cv-17393) ("Aly").

These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections
10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation under state law, based on alleged purchases of
Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between
January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016.

Plaintiffs in the Lord Abbett, Boeing, Mississippi, NYCERS, Hound
Partners, Blackrock, Catalyst, 2012 Dynasty cases and Northwestern
Mutual additionally assert claims under the New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by
plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss have
been filed in many of these individual actions.

To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New
Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common
law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain
cases.

Bausch Health said, "The Company believes the individual complaints
and the consolidated putative class action are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously."

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties Agree to Stay New Jersey Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 parties
in the case entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, have agreed to stay the lawsuit.

In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658.
On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain current or
former officers and directors, and certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and
stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the Court
dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private
placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss.

On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and
affiliated entities. On October 31, 2018, ValueAct filed a motion
to dismiss and the parties then agreed that the action was stayed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties in Lens Suit Ask Court to Reschedule Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 parties
in the case, In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation,
have requested the Court to reschedule the May 2019 trial date.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.

The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where
applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages, including
attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") centralized the suits in the Middle District of
Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District
Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

After the class plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class
action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved
to dismiss those complaints. On June 16, 2016, the Court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought
under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act,
Section 1 and other state laws.

On December 4, 2018, the Court certified six classes, four of which
relate to B&L Inc. On December 18, 2018, the defendants filed
petitions seeking leave from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
to file an immediate appeal of the class certification order (the
"Petitions").

On August 20, 2018, B&L Inc. individually and jointly with
defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Court indicated
that resolution of the motions for summary judgment may require the
trial (currently set for May 2019) to be rescheduled for a later
date.

On January 29, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs
addressing whether the litigation should be stayed pending a ruling
on the Petitions. On February 12, 2019, defendants requested that
the Court enter a stay until resolution of the Petitions, including
the ensuing appeal should the Petitions be granted. Plaintiffs
oppose a stay of the litigation, but both parties requested the
Court reschedule the May 2019 trial date.

Bausch Health said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend this
matter."

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BREMERTON, WA: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Karl Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE KARL, REBECCA ANN, and a class of similarly
situated individuals, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. CITY OF
BREMERTON, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 50228-3-II (Wash.
App.), Judge Rich Melnick of the Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division Two, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Karl's
claims.

Karl sued the City of Bremerton both personally and on behalf of a
class alleging that they received invalid parking citations.  Karl
argues the City's parking signs, which had a blue background with
white lettering, violated state law.  He also argues that the
City's use of private contractors to enforce parking regulations
violated numerous state statutory provisions.

In August 2014, Karl received a parking ticket issued by an Impark
employee.  A Bremerton blue parking sign gave notice.  Karl
contested his ticket in Bremerton Municipal Court.  At the hearing,
Karl argued that the City could not lawfully fine him because the
blue signs did not comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways (Manual), which he argued
had been adopted as state law.  Karl did not argue that the ticket
was unenforceable because it was issued by an Impark employee. The
municipal court found the infraction committed and upheld the fine.
Karl did not appeal to superior court.

In March 2015, Karl filed a class action against the City in Kitsap
County Superior Court, proposing to represent a class of
individuals who received tickets pursuant to the City's blue
parking signs and/or individuals who received parking tickets
issued by third-party private contractors.  Karl sought declaratory
relief that the City's use of the blue parking signs and private
contractors were both unlawful.  He sought injunctive relief
requiring the City to remove the blue signs and replace them with
Manual-compliant signs, and stopping the City from using private
contractors.  He prayed for monetary relief that required the City
to refund amounts paid pursuant to tickets received under blue
signs and/or tickets enforced by the private contractors.

The City moved to dismiss the complaint on all claims pursuant to
CR 12(b)(6).  The trial court granted the motion as to Karl's
monetary relief in the form of a refund because any request to
recover the fines assessed was already litigated under the same
defense and should have been appealed to the Superior Court.  The
court denied the City's motion to dismiss the declaratory and
injunctive relief claims because the Municipal Court could not, as
a matter of law, decide the issues of injunctive and declaratory
relief.

Karl then moved to certify the class.  The trial court granted the
request and certified a class under CR 23(b)(2).  The court defined
the class as those individuals who were ticketed or will be
ticketed as a consequence of the City's issuance of citations in
areas containing blue parking signs and the City's use of a private
contractor to issue parking citations.  The class period begins
March 12, 2012 and continues to the completion of the action.

Karl and the City then brought cross-motions for summary judgment.
The court ruled that Washington had adopted the Manual and that the
blue signs did not substantially comply with the Manual.  But it
did not decide whether the City's noncompliance established a cause
of action.  The court asked for supplemental briefing on whether
Karl had a cause of action for either injunctive or declaratory
relief regarding the City's blue signs.  The court also ruled that
the City's use of private employees to enforce parking violations
did not conflict with any state statutes.  It granted the City's
motion on that issue.

Karl and the City again brought cross-motions for summary judgment.
Karl argued that monetary relief flowed from the court's previous
order that the blue signs did not substantially comply with state
law, that a cause of action existed, and that the City owed
restitution damages to the class.  Karl also sought an injunction
preventing the City from collecting unpaid fines and penalties from
class members.  He never amended his complaint to reflect this new
injunctive relief.

The City argued that no cause of action existed and that Karl was
attempting to circumvent the court's previous ruling dismissing his
monetary relief claim as res judicata by relabeling his damages
sought.  It also argued that Karl's claim for injunctive relief was
moot because it was removing the signs.  The City then replaced all
of its blue signs with standardized parking signs, which had white
backgrounds with either red or green text.

In its final order, the trial court first clarified its rulings up
to that point.  It had dismissed Karl's claim for monetary relief
based on res judicata, but it had not dismissed Karl's claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief.  It then found that because the
City had removed all of its blue signs, the parties had agreed at
oral argument that the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was
now moot and dismissed that claim.  Finally, it court ruled that
Karl had not established that a cause of action existed for
declaratory relief by which he could challenge the City's use of
non-compliant parking signage," and it dismissed that claim.  Karl
appeals.

Karl argues that the City's blue parking signs violated state law
and that parking citations issued pursuant to the blue signs were
invalid.  He also argues that the City's use of private contractors
violated state law and that parking citations issued by private
contractors were invalid.  Accordingly, he argues that he is
entitled to a refund for all unlawful parking citations.  He also
argues that he is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief.

Judge Melnick disagrees.  He finds that Karl does not allege the
type of constitutional claims that were at issue in Orwick.  Nor
has Karl shown any other cause of action that enables him to seek
restitution for his allegedly invalid parking ticket directly in
superior court.  Furthermore, specific procedures govern the
contesting of traffic infraction fines, and Karl failed to follow
those procedures.  His exclusive remedy was to file a CRLJ 60(b)
motion.  The Judge concludes that the superior court properly
dismissed Karl's claims for all forms of monetary relief because
Karl's exclusive remedies were to appeal through the IRLJs or to
file a motion to vacate in municipal court.

Next, Karl argues that the trial court erred in finding that his
request for injunctive relief was moot.  He argues that he never
agreed his injunctive relief claim was moot and that his claim is
not moot because he is seeking to prevent the City from collecting
on all outstanding fines and fees.  He also claims that the City
should be enjoined from using private contractors to issue parking
citations.

Again, Judge Melnick disagrees.  He finds that (i) the parties
agree that the City has removed the blue parking signs; (ii) there
is no evidence in the record that such outstanding fines and fees
do exist; and (iii) Karl does not have standing to seek an
injunction preventing the City from using private contractors to
enforce its parking regulations.

The Judge is unclear whether Karl seeks additional redress in the
form of declaratory relief.  To the extent Karl argues that he
still maintains a declaratory relief claim, he does not have
standing to bring such a claim.  Because no monetary or injunctive
relief is available to Karl, he lacks standing to assert any
remaining claims for declaratory relief.  Any further allegations
concerning the City's blue signs or private contractors are not
part of an actual controversy between parties with a genuine claim
for relief.

For these reasons, Judge Melnick affirmed.

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

Stephen Kirk Festor, Attorney at Law, 66 S Hanford St Ste 300,
Seattle, WA, 98134-1867.

Alexander Strong -- astrong@bs-s.com -- Bendich Stobaugh & Strong
P.C., 126 Nw Canal St Ste 100, Seattle, WA, 98107-4970, Counsel for
Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

David P Horton -- dhorton@kitsaplawgroup.com -- Templeton Horton
Weibel & Broughton PLLC, 3212 Nw Byron St Ste 104, Silverdale, WA,
98383-9154.

Kylie J Purves, Templeton, Horton, Weibel & Broughton, 3212 Nw
Byron St Ste 104, Silverdale, WA, 98383-9154.

Kenneth Wendell Masters, Masters Law Group PLLC, 241 Madison Ave N,
Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110-1811, Counsel for
Respondent/Cross-Appellant.


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Debt Collection Note Violates FDCPA, Reed Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tinita Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Alliance Solutions, Inc., a New York
corporation and Rocky Mountain Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00348-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
February 27, 2019), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act for a finding that the Defendants' form debt
collection letter violated the FDCPA.

Capital Alliance Solutions, Inc., is a New York corporation, that
acts as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA, because it
regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or
attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts.

Rocky Mountain Capital Management, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company that acts as a debt collector, as defined by the
FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to
collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts that it
did not originate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, REESE & SHINN, P.C.
          15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 802-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 870-3698
          E-mail: bbotes@bondnbotes.com


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement with Monetary Damages Class Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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
trial court has preliminarily approved the settlement of the
monetary damages class in the antitrust lawsuit by retail
merchants.

In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks,
including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary
damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of
interchange fees.  Other merchants have asserted similar claims in
separate lawsuits, and while these separate cases did not name any
issuing banks, Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One,
have entered settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating
the liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all
interchange-related cases.

The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was invalidated by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June
2016, and the suit was separated into separate class actions
seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively.

In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement and have pursued their own claims. The claims by the
injunctive relief class have not been resolved, but the parties
reached a new settlement agreement with the monetary damages class
in August 2018, whereby the class would receive up to approximately
$6.2 billion collectively from the defendants in exchange for a
release of their claims, depending on the percentage of class
plaintiffs who opt out.

The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in January
2019. Visa and MasterCard have also settled several of the opt-out
cases, which required non-material payments from issuing banks,
including Capital One. Visa created a litigation escrow account
following its IPO of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for its
member banks, and any settlements related to MasterCard-allocated
losses have either already been paid or are reflected in Capital
One’s reserves.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: Karikari Sues over Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA KARIKARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2019L00168 (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.

Carnagio Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois.[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


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Uschold Seeks Class, Sub-class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM USCHOLD, JOSE
ALAMENDAREZ, TON SAECHAO, and TIANA NAPLES, each individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. CARRIAGE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-04424-JSW (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify
these Class and Sub-classes:

   * Class:

     All former and current sales employees ("Class Members")
     employed by Defendants within the State of California within
     four years of the filing of this Complaint until the entry
     of judgment after trial, that were not reimbursed for
     reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in relationship
     to the use of personal property while performing their job
     duties as required by California Labor Code Section 2802;

   * Sub-classes consisting of:

     (1) all Class Members that were not reimbursed for use of
         their personal cell phone as required by California law
         ("Cell phone sub-class"); and

     (2) all Class Members that were not reimbursed for use of
         their personal vehicles as required by California law;
         specifically gas and mileage ("Vehicle sub-class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, to appoint their counsel to serve as counsel to
the class, and to authorize Notice to the Class of the pending
action and its members' rights to opt-out under Rule 23(c)(2)(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 28, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
          Allyssa Villanueva, Esq.
          BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1290 B Street, Suite 314 Hayward, CA 94541
          Telephone: (510) 897-9966
          Facsimile: (510) 439-2632
          E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com
                  allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com


CEDAR SHAKE: Liebo Sues Over Cedar Shake and Shingle Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK L. LIEBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU, a Washington nonprofit
corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS, LTD, a British Columbia
corporation; and ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a British Columbia
corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00288 (W.D. Wash., February 27,
2019), alleges that some members of the CSSB, including the
Manufacturer-Defendants, colluded to fix prices on cedar shake and
shingles.

Headquartered in Mission, British Columbia, and maintains an office
in Sumas, Washington, the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau is a
Washington nonprofit corporation that is the only trade association
serving the shake and shingle industry in the United States and
Canada.  The CSSB Board of Directors comprises several of the
largest manufacturers of cedar shakes and shingles, including
Defendants Waldun and Anbrook, the Manufacturer-Defendants.

CSSB owns the trademark to "Certi-Label" shakes and shingles, which
include the Certi-Grade, Certi-Sawn, Certi-Split, and Certi-Ridge
registered trademark labels.  CSSB Certi-Labeled shakes and
shingles account for an estimated 95% of the high-end cedar shake
and shingles utilized in the United States product market.  All
CSSB members participate in and sell the vast majority of their
high-end cedar shake and shingle products in the United States.

Anbrook Industries Ltd. is a British Columbia corporation with its
principal place of business in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia.
Anbrook is a member of the CSSB and owns and operates a cedar shake
and shingle manufacturing facility in Pitt Meadows, British
Columbia.

Waldun Forest Products Ltd. is a British Columbia corporation with
its principal place of business in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.
Waldun is "the largest company in the world manufacturing such a
selection of cedar products."  Waldun is a member of the CSSB and
owns and operates a cedar shake and shingle manufacturer in Maple
Ridge, British Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  erodette@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
                  aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                  msrodoski@hjlawfirm.com


CELGENE CORP.: Rowinski Balks at Merger Deal withc Bristol-Myers
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT ROWINSKI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES,
RICHARD W. BARKER, HANS E. BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL D.
CASEY, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, JULIA A. HALLER,
PATRICIA A. HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES J. LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, and
JOHN H. WEILAND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00382-UNA (D.
Del., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Celgene will be acquired by
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company through Bristol-Myers Squibb's wholly
owned subsidiary Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Celgene
Corporation against Celgene and the members of Celgene's Board of
Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On January 3, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene issued a joint
press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated January 2, 2019 to sell Celgene to
Bristol-Myers Squibb. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
Celgene stockholder will be entitled to receive $50.00 in cash, one
share of Bristol-Myers Squibb common stock and one contingent value
right ("CVR") for each share of Celgene common stock they own.
Based on the closing price of Bristol-Myers Squibb common stock on
January 31, 2019, the cash and stock components of the Merger
Consideration, excluding the CVR, have an implied value of $99.37
per Celgene share.

Each holder of a CVR is entitled to receive $9.00 per CVR if the
CVR milestone is achieved. The CVR milestone means the satisfaction
of all of the following: (i) the bb2121 milestone 1 has occurred on
or prior to March 31, 2021; (ii) the JCAR017 milestone has occurred
on or prior to December 31, 2020; and (iii) the Ozanimod milestone
has occurred on or prior to December 31, 2020. Upon consummation of
the Proposed Transaction, Bristol-Myers Squibb stockholders are
expected to own approximately 69% of the company, and Celgene
stockholders are expected to own approximately 31%. The Proposed
Transaction has an equity value of approximately $74 billion.

On February 22, 2019, Celgene filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Celgene stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Celgene's and Bristol-Myers Squibb's financial
projections utilized by the Company's financial advisors J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in
connection with their evaluation of the Proposed Transaction; (ii)
the valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan and Citigroup in
connection with the rendering of their fairness opinions; and (iii)
Celgene insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
Celgene stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal.

In short, unless remedied, Celgene's public stockholders will be
forced to make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction without full disclosure of all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to them, 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:

          George Pazuniak, Esq.
          PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1201 Orange Street 7th Floor, Suite 7114
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
          Telephone: (302) 478-4230
          E-mail: gp@del-iplaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

CELGENE CORP: Gerold Seeks to Halt Merger with Bristol-Myers
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam B. Gerold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Celgene Corporation, Mark J. Alles, Richard
W. 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,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00233 (D. Del., February 4, 2019), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Celgene by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc. will merge with and into Celgene, with
Celgene surviving the merger and becoming its wholly-owned
subsidiary.

Gerold claims that the merger documents omitted the valuation
analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. in support of their fairness opinion,
specifically earnings per share estimates for Celgene for 2019 and
revenue, EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow projections.
[BN]

Celgene is a biotechnology company that specializes in the
discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com

             - and -

      Justin Kuehn, Esq.
      MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
      30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Phone: (212) 709-8245
      Email: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com


CELGENE CORP: Lawsuit Says Shareholder Sells Too Cheaply
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
shareholders say directors are selling Celgene Corp. too cheaply
through an unfair process to Bristol-Myers Squibb, for $50 a share
plus a 1-for-1 share swap, a $74 billion merger. Bristol-Myers
Squibb is not a party to the complaint.


CERTIFIED FLOORING: Couch Seek to Certify Carpet Installers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY COUCH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, for themselves, and all others similarly situated v.
CERTIFIED FLOORING INSTALLATION, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00059-TSB
(S.D. Ohio), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, seek entry
of an order:

    (i) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA class; and

   (ii) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
        Plaintiffs' FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all
        potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The group of similarly-situated Carpet Installers includes all
current and former employees of Defendant who have worked as carpet
installers, and who worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning
January 24, 2016 through the present and were not paid time and a
half for the hours they worked over 40.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
          Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
          GIBSON LAW, LLC
          9200 Montgomery, Road, Suite 11A
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 834-8254
          Facsimile: (513) 834-8253
          E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
                  brian@gibsonemploymentlaw.com


CLEANING DEPOT: Sued by Sarabia for Not Paying OT Under FLSA/NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS M. SARABIA, DIGNA MARINA ARIAS, RAUL MENA ROBLES, ALFONSO
CAMPOS, GUADALUPE RAMOS, JAIME LOPEZ LANDEROS, ALMA ADRIANA JIGUAN,
MARLENE CECILIA CHICAIZA CUZO, and TOMASATIROS, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated v. THE CLEANING DEPOT OF
ROCKLAND COUNTY, INC., and JOEL FULOP a/k/a YOEL FULOP, and GOLDA
H. FULOP, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-01163 (E.D.N.Y., February
27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiffs lawfully earned overtime compensation,
in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

The Cleaning Depot of Rockland County, Inc., is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York,
operating a cleaning company doing business in Spring Valley, New
York.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors
and/or managing agents of the Corporate Defendant.

The Cleaning Depot offers services to the public in the cleaning
and maintenance industry.  Its customers include offices,
apartments and other living spaces, and businesses, such as
supermarkets and restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


COBB ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tayian Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA TAYIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. COBB ENTERPRISES INC.; HI-TECH
HOME; JAY COBB; and DOES 1- 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00534
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Feb. 11, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Tayian was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Hi-Tech Home is Central California's leading technology integration
provider, specializing in the design, sales, and installation of
entertainment, security, and energy management services. We provide
services to a vast number of homeowners, homebuilders, businesses,
commercial developers, architects, and interior designers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: 424-355-8335
          E-mail: justin@worklawyers.com
                  kyle@worklawyers.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Allen Moves to Certify Consumer Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ERIN ALLEN, TYOKA
BRUMFIELD, OFELIA FRECHETTE, SHELLEY HARDER, DEANA MARR, TAMMIE
SHAWLEY, BRIAN SMITH, AND BETTY VAZQUEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. CONAGRA FOODS INC. a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-01279-WHO (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court
to certify these class and subclasses:

   -- Class:

      All natural persons who purchased Parkay Spray in the
      United States, at any time from January 1, 2008 to the
      present and subject to the applicable statutes of
      limitations (the "Class Period").1 The Class will pursue
      common law unjust enrichment claims; and

   -- Subclasses:

      * Subclass #1: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut,
        Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
        South Carolina, and Wisconsin, subject to the applicable
        statutes of limitations. Subclass #1 will pursue claims
        arising under the following consumer protection statutes:
        Ala. Code Section 8-19-5(27); Alaska Stat. Section
        45.50.471(a); Conn. Gen. Stat.Section 42-110b(a); Del
        Code Ann. tit. 6, Section 2532(a); 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.
        Ann. Section 505/2; Minn. Stat. Section 325D.44(13);
        Miss. Code Section 75-24-5(1); S.C. Code Section
        39-5-20(a); and Wis. Stat. Section 100.18;

      * Subclass #2: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware,
        Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio,
        subject to the applicable statutes of limitations.
        Subclass #2 will pursue claims arising under the
        following consumer protection statutes: Ala. Code Section
        8-19-5(27); Alaska Stat. Section 45.50.471(a); Del Code
        Ann. tit. 6, Section 2532(a); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
        Section 445.903(c), (e), (g); Minn. Stat. Section
        325D.44(5), (7), (10); Miss. Code Section 75-24-5(2)(e),
        (g), (i); and Ohio Rev. Code Section 4165.02(A)(7), (9),
        (11);

      * Subclass #3: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: District of Columbia, Florida,
        Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New
        Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,
        Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, subject to the
        applicable statutes of limitations.  Subclass #3 will
        pursue claims arising under the following consumer
        protection statutes: D.C. Code Section 28-3904; Fla.
        Stat. Ann. Section 501.204; Iowa Code Section 714H.3(1);
        La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 51:1405(A); Mo. Rev. Stat.
        Section 407.020(1); Mont. Code Section 30-14-103; N.H.
        Rev. Stat. Section 358-A; N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-2;
        N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-2; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
        Section 349(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1(a); Or.
        Rev. Stat. Section 646.608(1)(u); R.I. Gen. Laws Section
        6-13.1-1(6)(xiii), 6-13.1-2; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9,
        Section 2453(a); and Wash. Rev. Code Section 19.86.020;

      * Subclass #4: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: California, Georgia, Hawaii,
        Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, and West Virginia,
        subject to the applicable statutes of limitations.
        Subclass #4 will pursue claims arising under the
        following consumer protection statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof.
        Code Section 17200; Ga. Code. Ann. Section 10-1-393(a),
        (b); Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 480A-3(12); Md. Code Com.
        Law Section 13-301(1); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A, Section
        2(a); Va. Code Section 59.1-200(A)(14); and W. Va. Code
        Sections 46A-6-102(7), 46A-6-104;

      * Subclass #5: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: California, Georgia, Hawaii,
        Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, subject to the
        applicable statutes of limitations. Subclass #5 will
        pursue claims arising under the under the following
        consumer protection statutes: Cal. Civil Code Section
        1770(a)(5), (7), (9); Ga. Code. Ann. Section
        10-1-393(b)(5), (7), (9); Haw. Rev. Stat. Section
        480A-3(a)(5), (7), (9); Md. Code Com. Law Section
        13-301(1); Va. Code Section 59.1-200(A)(5), (6), (8); and
        W. Va. Code Section 46A-6-102(7)(E), (G), (I);

      * Subclass #6: All class members who purchased the product
        in the following states: Arkansas, Indiana, and Wyoming,
        subject to the applicable statutes of limitations.
        Subclass #6 will pursue claims arising under the
        following consumer protection statutes: Ark. Code Section
        4-88-107(a); Section 4-88-108(a)(1), (3), (10); Ind. Code
        Section 24-5-0.5-3(a); Ind. Code Section
        24-5-0.5-3(b)(1), (2), (11); Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section
        40-12-105(a)(xv); and Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section
        40-12-105(a)(i), (iii), (x);

      * California Subclass: All class members who purchased the
        product in California at any time from March 21, 2009 to
        the present.  The California Subclass will pursue claims
        arising under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair
        Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.)
        and California's False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code
        Section 17500 et seq.), and as well as common law claims
        of fraud, breach of express warranty, and
        misrepresentation.

In addition to the California Subclass, if the Court denies any
Multi-State Subclass, the Plaintiffs propose additional subclasses
for those states in which a named plaintiff has purchased the
product (i.e., Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
and Wisconsin (collectively, the "State Subclasses")).  Each State
Subclass shall include all class members who purchased the product
in that respective state, subject to the applicable statutes of
limitations.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendant; the officers, directors
or employees of the Defendant; any entity in which the Defendant
has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal
representative, heir or assign of the Defendant; also excluded are
any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial
officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her
immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to this
action and those claiming that they have suffered any personal
injury as a result of consuming Defendant's misbranded products,
and purchases of the product for purposes of resale.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the representatives of
Class and Subclasses as follows: Plaintiffs Erin Allen (Class;
Subclasses #4 and 5; California Subclass); Ofelia Frechette (Class;
Subclasses #1, 2, 6); Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan Subclasses);
Deana Marr (Class; Subclasses #4 and 5; Georgia Subclass), Shelley
Harder (Class; Subclass #6; Indiana Subclass;), Tammie Shawley
(Class; Subclass # 2 and 3; Florida and Ohio Subclasses), Brian
Smith (Class; Subclass #2; Michigan Subclass), and Betty Vazquez
(Class; Subclass #1; Illinois and Wisconsin Subclasses).

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to Court appoint Gutride
Safier LLP and The Eureka Law Firm as lead class counsel.  The
Plaintiffs finally request the Court to order the parties to meet
and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order
granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified
class.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 15, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Anthony Patek, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  anthony@gutridesafier.com
                  kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Ureka E. Idstrom, Esq.
          THE EUREKA LAW FIRM
          5605 Belinder Road
          Fairway, KS 66205
          Telephone: (816) 665-3515
          E-mail: uidstrom@eurekalaw.com


CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Court Partly Grants Ostrander Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT OSTRANDER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CUSTOMER ENGINEERING
SERVICES, LLC, JAMES N. FOX, and MARY FOX, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 15-cv-01476-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed Unopposed Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Approval of Settlement.

On July 13, 2015, Ostrander filed the action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a technical service
representative ("TSR") from November 2011 to September 2014. He
alleges that the Defendants classified him as a non-exempt employee
under the FLSA and paid him an hourly rate.  He further asserts
that defendants failed to compensate him and members of the
putative class for all overtime hours worked by encouraging him and
the class members to work before and after their scheduled shifts,
and by automatically deducting a half hour of pay for meal breaks
each day, regardless of whether breaks were actually taken.

On Jan. 19, 2016, the Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify the
action as a collective action under the FLSA.  The Court granted
the motion on Sept. 14, 2016, conditionally certifying a class of
all individuals who were employed, or are currently employed, by
the defendants, including subsidiaries or affiliated companies, as
technical service representatives, tech support representatives,
TSRs or any other similarly titled position at any time from three
years prior to July 13, 2015 to the entry of judgment in the action
who give their consent, in writing, to become party Plaintiffs.
The Court further approved the Plaintiff's proposed Notice of
Collective Action.

Following receipt of the court-authorized notice, 68 individuals
joined the collective action as opt-in Plaintiffs.  Of those 68
individuals, 47 had claims arising within the statutory period.
The parties began settlement negotiations on April 11, 2017 before
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty.  On April 19, 2017, the
parties reached a settlem ent on all claims.  

On June 5, 2017, the parties jointly moved for a court order
approving the settlement agreement and dismissing the action
without prejudice, pending the Defendants' remittance of the
settlement funds.  The Court denied the motion without prejudice on
March 5, 2018, finding that the parties had failed to (1) request
collective action certification; (2) provide any evidence that the
47 opt-in members of the collective action were given notice of the
proposed settlement agreement and an opportunity to object; and (3)
provide sufficient information to support plaintiffs' counsel's
requested fee award.  The Plaintiffs filed a renewed, unopposed
motion for final settlement approval on June 4, 2018.

The Plaintiff contends that the requirements for final collective
action certification are satisfied because (1) the opt-in
Plaintiffs all worked as TSRs for the Defendants, performing the
same job duties; (2) the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs under the
same allegedly unlawful payment scheme; and (3) the Defendants'
defenses apply equally to all the Plaintiffs.

Judge Brimmer agrees that the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly
situated for purposes of final certification.  Given the uniform
application of the Defendants' compensation policies, he finds that
the Defendants' principal defenses also apply equally to all
members of the putative collective.  Finally, fairness and
procedural considerations support final certification.

The Judge also finds that all the members of the putative
collective have been provided with adequate notice of the
settlement and an opportunity to object.  In his renewed motion,
the Plaintiff states that the counsel sent notice of the proposed
settlement and a copy of the agreement to all 48 opt-in plaintiffs
via email and U.S. mail on April 2, 2018.  The counsel received
signed consent forms from each of the 48 opt-in Plaintiffs, which
have been submitted to the Court.

As to the proposed settlement, the Judge finds that (1) the
agreement is the result of a bona fide dispute; (2) the proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties involved; and (3)
the proposed settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys'
fees and costs.  

The Plaintiff's counsel seeks approval of a $152,500 fee award
consisting of $135,500 in attorney's fees and $17,000 in actual and
anticipated costs.  Considering the Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express,
Inc.factors, the Judge agrees that a combined award of attorney's
fees and costs equaling one third of the gross settlement amount --
or $100,000 -- is appropriate.  While counsel has extensive
experience litigating FLSA actions and obtained favorable results
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the counsel has not shown that the
case involved particularly novel or difficult legal issues, or that
the time and labor required justifies a higher award.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed Unopposed Motion and Memorandum in
Support of Approval of Settlement.  The Plaintiff's counsel is
entitled to an award of $100,000 in attorney's fees and costs.

The Judge dismissed the case without prejudice.  Without 15 days of
the Order, the parties will notify the Court whether the settlement
has been funded pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.
Once the settlement is funded, the Court will enter an order
dismissing the case with prejudice.  The Court retains jurisdiction
over the case for the limited purpose of enforcing the parties'
settlement agreement until the settlement is funded and the case is
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Kip0ER from Leagle.com.

Robert Ostrander, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Haley R. Jenkins,
Stephan Zouras, LLP, Ryan F. Stephan -- RStephan@stephanzouras.com
-- Stephan Zouras, LLP & Brian David Gonzales --
BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC.

Customer Engineering Services, LLC, James N. Fox & Mary Fox,
Defendants, represented by Barbara Ann Grandjean --
barbara.grandjean@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & Jamie
H. Steiner -- jamie.steiner@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell
LLP.


CVR REFINING: Stafford Suit Asserts Stock Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stafford, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
unitholders of CVR Refining (CVRR), LP, Plaintiff, v. CVR Energy,
Inc., CVR Refining, LP, CVR Refining GP, LLC, CVR Refining
Holdings, LLC and Icahn Enterprises, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
2019-0080, (Del. Ch., February 4, 2019), seeks redress for breach
of contract, tortious interference and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing for alleged depression of
trading prices of the Partnership's units and acquisition of all
minority units at an artificially deflated price in violation of
the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership.

CVRR is an independent downstream energy limited partnership with
refining and related logistics assets that operates in the
mid-continent region.

General Partner and its affiliates manipulated CVRR's common unit
price by disclosing that it was considering exercising its purchase
right, causing the Partnership's unit price to decline, asserts the
complaint.

Stafford held CVRR common units that were seized for grossly
inadequate value. He had owned CVRR common units continuously since
2013. [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.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 741-5222
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com

             - and -

     Ned Weinberger, Esq.
     Thomas Curry, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 573-2540


DEVON ENERGY: 5th Cir. Flips Class Certification in Seeligson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY SEELIGSON; JOHN M. SEELIGSON; SUZANNE SEELIGSON
NASH; SHERRI PILCHER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEVON ENERGY
PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-10320
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the district court's class certification decision, and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees in the class action case are royalty
owners who allege that the Defendant-Appellant, DEPCO, breached its
royalty obligations by violating the duty to market implied in the
class members' mineral leases.  According to the Plaintiffs, DEPCO
breached the duty by selling the raw, unprocessed gas to its
corporate affiliate at the wellheads at a price artificially
reduced by an unreasonably high processing fee.  The Plaintiffs
aver that DEPCO then passed this processing fee on to the royalty
owners.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprising royalty owners
who claim that their royalty payments were reduced by DEPCO's
pricing scheme.  The district court held an evidentiary hearing,
then certified the Class as all person or entities who, between
Jan. 1, 2008 and Feb. 28, 2014, (i) are or were royalty owners in
Texas wells producing natural gas that was processed through the
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant by Devon Gas Services, LP ("DGS");
(ii) received royalties from DEPCO on such gas; and (iii) had oil
and gas leases that were on one of the specific forms.

DEPCO now appeals the district court's certification decision.  It
insists that the district court abused its discretion when it
determined that each of the Class Leases imposed the same marketing
duty without reviewing every individual lease and any "ancillary
documents" that might have modified DEPCO's duty to market the gas.


Based on the evidence the district court did have, the Appellate
Court finds that it is possible that the Plaintiffs could
demonstrate that DEPCO breached its implied duty to market by
basing its price on a higher processing fee than the fee that a
"reasonably prudent operator would have received at the wellhead."
If so, this issue is precisely the type of common question that
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is
central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.
However, the Court remains open as to whether damages can be
ascertained on a classwide basis.  It therefore remands for further
consideration whether additional specific evidence supports the
conclusion that the breach of the duty to market and damages from
any breach can be evaluated classwide or if a well-by-well analysis
is required.

Next, DEPCO insists that neither the Class Leases nor the implied
duty to market imposed a duty to recoup downstream profits; and the
Plaintiffs do not address this alleged duty in their brief.

The Court finds that despite the potential for individual questions
based on DEPCO's statute of limitations defense, the district court
did not mention the role, if any, the tolling or limitations issues
would play in the class action litigation.  To establish
predominance, the district court must identify the substantive
issues that will control the outcome, assess which issues will
predominate, and then determine whether the issues are common to
the class.  Absent this analysis, it is impossible for the court to
know whether the common issues would be a 'significant' portion of
the individual trials much less whether the common issues
predominate.  The district court did not consider the statute of
limitations and tolling questions in its predominance analysis, so
it abused its discretion when it determined that common questions
would predominate over individual issues and certified the class.

Because of the limited evidence before the district court, the
Appellate Court remanded for further proceedings to determine
whether there is sufficient additional evidence to support a
finding that breach of the duty to market and damages from any
breach can be ascertained on a classwide basis.  Additionally,
because the district court failed to address whether the applicable
statute of limitations and potential tolling questions would raise
individual issues, it abused its discretion in certifying the class
as written.  The Appellate therefore reversed and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/iCqo3k from Leagle.com.

Craig A. Haynes -- Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

George L. McWilliams, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey Charles King, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Pervis Jefferson Ballew, Jr. -- Jeff.Ballew@tklaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Brad E. Seidel, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Barrett Phillips, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

David J. Drez, III -- david.drez@wickphillips.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward W. Ciolko, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Geoffrey C. Jarvis, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Elizabeth L. Tiblets, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Julie Christine Abernethy -- Julie.Abernethy@tklaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Britton Dale McClung, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joshua L. Hedrick, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald Mattson Keil -- mkeil@kglawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian L. Cramer -- brian@mroklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Tyler Shoop, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Melissa L. Troutner, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


DONALD J. TRUMP: Johnson Sues over Sexually Predatory Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ALVA JOHNSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DONALD J. TRUMP, In his
Individual Capacity and DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00475-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25,
2019), seeks to hold the President of the United States, Donald J.
Trump, accountable for alleged "sexually predatory conduct."

On October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published an article about
an "extremely lewd conversation about women" between Defendant
Trump and television host Billy Bush during a 2005 episode of
Access Hollywood. In a recording of that conversation, Mr. Trump
describes his habit of forcibly kissing and groping women without
their consent: "Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some
Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm
automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them.
It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a
star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

According to the lawsuit, this is exactly what Defendant Trump did
to Ms. Johnson, a highly accomplished African American woman who
served as a senior staffer for his presidential campaign.  Ms.
Johnson, the lawsuit claims, was an integral part of the Campaign's
success and was repeatedly recognized for her contributions. She
was the Campaign's Director of Outreach and Coalitions for the
state of Alabama, and because of her success, was chosen to serve
as a member of the exclusive National Strike Team and as Operations
Administrative Director for the battleground state of Florida
during the general election.  To Defendant Trump, however, Ms.
Johnson was nothing more than a sexual object he felt entitled to
dominate and humiliate. Like he has done with so many other women,
Defendant Trump violated norms of decency and privacy by kissing
Ms. Johnson on the lips without her consent in the middle of a
Florida work event and in front of numerous other Campaign
officials.

While forcible kissing is a serious violation of bodily autonomy
that can cause victims to experience feelings of physical alarm,
fear, shame, guilt, and helplessness, these feelings can be
exacerbated when the predator is a boss or other authority figure,
according to the lawsuit. And when the predator happens to be one
of the most powerful men in the world, the experience can be
downright terrifying.  In the moment that Defendant Trump forcibly
kissed her, Ms. Johnson felt reduced to just another object of
Defendant Trump's unwanted sexual attention. Ms. Johnson brings
this lawsuit against Defendant Trump for that humiliating
violation, which amounts to common law battery, and seeks
assistance from the Court to put a stop to his predatory conduct.

Plaintiff also alleges pay discrimination against Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc.  According to the complaint, not only did Ms.
Johnson endure forcible kissing by her boss, she experienced race
and gender discrimination as one of the few females and one of only
a handful of African American people on the Campaign payroll. Ms.
Johnson was paid less than white employees, including both staff
with similar duties and lower-ranked staff. She was also paid less
than similarly situated male employees. Indeed, the Campaign's
pattern of underpaying female staffers is well documented. [BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Janet Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158-1870
          Telephone: 352-753-8600
          Facsimile: 352-503-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 417-3667
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Tanya S. Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 250-3298
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: tkoshy@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          F. Paul Bland, Esq.
          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600

               - and -

          Jennifer Bennett, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          475 14th Street, Suite 610
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 622-8150

DYCK ONEAL: Robbins Discovery Stayed Pending Dispositive Bid Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Teresa M. James of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas stayed discovery in the case, STEPHEN ROBBINS,
Plaintiff, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
18-2623-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), pending ruling on the Defendant's
Dispositive Motion.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Court conducted a scheduling conference with
the parties in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.  During the
conference, the Defendant indicated it would file an early
dispositive motion on one issue by March 25, 2019.  The parties
also agreed to voluntarily exchange the various documents described
in their respective Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by March 7, 2019.
They agreed no other discovery was necessary to brief the initial
dispositive motion.

As a result, the Court set a deadline of March 25, 2019 for the
Defendant to file its early single-issue dispositive motion,
ordered the parties to voluntarily exchange the documents
identified in their respective Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by March
7, 2019, and raised the issue of whether further discovery should
be stayed pending ruling on the Defendant's Dispositive Motion.
After discussion, the parties seemed to agree it would be most
efficient to exchange their initial disclosure documents with an
eye toward addressing certain preliminary issues, but to otherwise
stay discovery pending ruling on the Defendant's Dispositive
Motion.

The case is a putative class action case alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Kansas Consumer
Protection Act ("KCPA").  The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
violated these acts by contacting consumers through automatic
telephone dialing systems and attempting to collect debt that was
previously reported in a 1099-C as being canceled or discharged.
It is this latter issue regarding 1099-C reporting that will be the
subject of the Defendant's Dispositive Motion.

The parties are in agreement that the facts sought through
uncompleted discovery would not affect resolution of the
Defendant's Dispositive Motion.  This factor supports staying
discovery pending ruling on the Defendants' motion.  In addition,
the parties agreed that they might know whether the Plaintiff's
TCPA claim should be dismissed in the case and brought instead in
the Michigan case, after they exchange the documents described in
their initial disclosures on March 7, 2019.  Again, it would be
potentially wasteful and burdensome for the parties to engage in
discovery at this point given some or all of the claims may be
dismissed or amended.  This factor weighs heavily in favor of
staying discovery pending ruling on the Defendant's motion.

Magistrate Judge James finds a stay of discovery, aside from
exchange of the initial disclosure documents, pending ruling on the
Defendant's Dispositive Motion is appropriate.  The discovery is
stayed pending ruling on the Defendant's Dispositive Motion, which
is to be filed by March 25, 2019.  Within 21 days after the Court's
ruling on the Defendant's Dispositive Motion, the parties will
submit a revised Report of Parties' Planning Conference.  The Court
will subsequently set this matter for another scheduling
conference.

Based on the foregoing, Magistarate Judge James directed that the
parties will exchange the documents described in their Rule
26(a)(1) initial disclosures on or before March 7, 2019.  The
Defendant will file its early single-issue (1099-C) dispositive
motion on or before March 25, 2019.  The discovery is stayed until
such time as the Court rules on the Defendant's Dispositive Motion.
Within 21 days of the Court's ruling, the parties will submit a
revised Report of Parties' Planning Conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/J1ReJl from Leagle.com.

Stephen Robbins, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Sanders --
jsanders@bktplaw.com -- Joshua Sanders, Keith N. Williston --
willistonkeith@yahoo.com -- The Williston Law Firm, LLC & Mark
Everett Parrish -- mparrish@bktplaw.com -- Boyd, Kenter, Thomas &
Parrish, LLC.

Dyck O'Neal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis J. Wade,
McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC.


EDGE FITNESS: Settlement in McArthur FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA McARTHUR, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated individuals, v. EDGE FITNESS, LLC, No. 3:17 CV
1554 (RMS) (D. Conn.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the
Proposed Order Granting Final Approval to a Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") Collective and Rule 23 Class Action Settlement.

The litigation was initiated by a complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2017
by the Named Plaintiff, McArthur, against the Defendant.  The Named
Plaintiff asserted claims for unpaid overtime compensation under
the FLSA on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative collective
group of allegedly similarly situated employees of Edge Fitness who
worked as Membership Advisors ("MAs").  She alleged that the
Defendant misclassified the MAs as exempt from overtime from Sept.
15, 2014 to Nov. 24, 2016, and by failing to pay for any overtime
hours worked, violated the FLSA and the CWA.  She further alleged
that, when the Defendant reclassified MAs as non-exempt from
overtime on Nov. 25, 2016, the Defendant undercalculated the amount
of overtime due by failing to include commissions in the wage rate
paid to employees, and thereby violated the FLSA and CWA by failing
to pay for all overtime wages due from that date up to and
including the date of final judgment.

The parties entered the Settlement Agreement following a one-day
private mediation before Joseph Garrison, a mediator experienced in
wage and hour collective and class actions, followed by a full day
settlement conference before the Court.  After a hearing on Nov. 5,
2018, the Court granted preliminary approval to the resulting
Settlement Agreement.

The parties discovered clerical errors that required modification
to distribution amounts in the interests of fairness to the class.
On Dec. 3, 2018, the Court issued the modified order granting
preliminary approval of Settlement Agreement.

For the purposes of the Settlement, the Court approved the Named
Plaintiff, Melissa McArthur, as the Class Representative; and
Richard E. Hayber of the Hayber Law Firm, LLC, 221 Main Street,
Suite 502, Hartford, CT 06106, as the Class Counsel.  As part of
the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the Modified
Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing,
pursuant to which Class members were to be provided notice of the
proposed Settlement Agreement.

The Court held a Fairness Hearing on Feb. 12, 2019.  Magistrate
Judge Spector approved the Settlement Agreement.  The Agreement
will be administered in accordance with its terms and the $566,875
Total Settlement Amount will be distributed as follows: (i) the
amount of $375,196.32 will be allocated to the class, inclusive of
service payments to the Named Plaintiff; (ii) unclaimed amounts
from the $375,196.32 will be allocated to the Wounded Warriors
Project; (iii) the amount of $188,958.33 will be allocated to
reasonable attorneys' fees; (iv) the amount of $2,720.34 will be
allocated to repayment of reasonable litigation expenses advanced
in litigation.

The Magistrate finds that the final approval of attorneys' fees in
the amount of $188,958.33 is warranted and appropriate, and the
approval of the repayment of $2,720.34 for reasonable litigation
expenses advanced in litigation is reasonable.

The Order constitutes final approval of the Agreement.  The action
is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/T56P8l from Leagle.com.

Melissa McArthur, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah L. McKenna
-- dmckenna@hayberlawfirm.com -- The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, Michael
T. Petela, Jr. -- mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com -- The Hayber Law Firm,
LLC & Richard Eugene Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- The
Hayber Law Firm, LLC.

Edge Fitness, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Adam Schwartz
-- dschwartz@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Jarad M. Lucan
-- jlucan@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin & Keegan A. Drenosky --
kdrenosky@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin.


ELON MUSK: Tesla Shareholders Want Musk Cut Off From Twitter
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Jones, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Touting a class action they brought under seal, Tesla shareholders
said on March 8 they are asking a judge to outfit Elon Musk with a
Twitter muzzle.

Filed on Marh 7 in Delaware Chancery Court, the complaint led by
the Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of
Ohio is not expected to become public until March 12. Attorneys at
the firm Grant & Eisenhofer nonetheless touted their efforts in a
press release this morning, saying the outspoken CEO must be
controlled for the benefit of the company.

The complaint follows a Feb. 19 post by Musk to Twitter of an
aerial photograph showing Tesla's loading docks.

"4000 Tesla cars loading in SF for Europe," Musk wrote. "Tesla made
0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019," he added.

Though March 8 press release does not quote the post itself, it
recalls that the SEC had to take legal action against Musk for
earlier tweets that inaccurately described Tesla's efforts to go
public and its production levels.

"Mr. Musk has continually disregarded all efforts to rein in his
material misstatements on social media," Grant & Eisenhofer
director Michael Barry, Esq.-- mbarry@gelaw.com-- said in a
statement.

"His conduct has not only cost Tesla shareholders dearly but
threatens to expose the company to even greater liability and
litigation in the future," Barry continued. "For its part, the
Board of Directors has been completely ineffective, and in fact
Tesla still identifies Mr. Musk's personal Twitter account as a
source of official disclosures by the company. It has to stop."

The shareholders are seeking a declaratory judgment that tweets
like these violate Musk and Tesla's board's fiduciary duty to
investors. They also seek injunctive relief and monetary damages.

March 11 meanwhile is the deadline that a judge set for Musk to
explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating a 2018
settlement that requires his statements on social media to be
preapproved.

As part of those proceedings, the SEC will be seeking Musk's
possible suspension as CEO and significant fines.

Media contacts for Tesla did not immediately respond to an email
requesting comment.


ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Monteverde & Associates Probes Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

   -- Entegra Financial Corp. (ENFC) regarding its sale to
SmartFinancial, Inc. for 1.215 shares in SmartFinancial for each
share of Entegra. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/entegra-financial-corp.  It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- Kinderhook Bank Corp. (NUBK) regarding its sale to Community
Bank System, Inc. for $62 per share. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kinderhook-bank-corp.  It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- First Data Corporation (FDC) regarding its sale to Fiserv,
Inc. for 0.303 shares of Fiserv for each share of First Data. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/first-data-corporation.  It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- TCF Financial Corporation (TCF) for its sale to Chemical
Financial Corporation for 0.5081 shares in Chemical for each TCF
Financial share. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/tcf-financial-corporation.  It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- UQM Technologies, Inc. (UQM) for its sale to Danfoss Power
Solutions for $1.71 per share. Click here for more information:
https://https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/uqm-technologies-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- Versum Materials, Inc. (VSM) for its sale to Entegris, Inc.
for 1.120 shares of Entegris for each share of Versum. Click here
for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/versum-materials-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

   -- Reliance Bancshares Inc. (RLBS) regarding its merger with
Simmons First National Corporation. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/reliance-bancshares-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

If you own common stock of listed companies and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit our website or:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         Monteverde & Associates PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com  [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss IntegrityMessageBoards.com Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss in
its entirety.

Facebook's motion to dismiss came on for hearing before the Court
on Feb. 13, 2019.  Facebook provides users with an online platform
to stay connected with family and friends.  Rather than charging
users to access its platform, Facebook generates revenue by selling
advertising on its platform to businesses seeking to market their
products to Facebook users.

The Plaintiff operates Investor Village, which offers a platform to
individual "Main Street" investors to connect and communicate with
other like-minded investors concerning publicly-traded stocks.  It
operates its own website and an Investor Village Facebook page.

To promote its Facebook page, the Plaintiff started two advertising
campaigns -- the Investor Village ("IV") Campaign and the "Small
Cap Directory" ("SCD") Campaign -- that attempted to target
specific types of Facebook users.  Like all Facebook advertisers,
the Plaintiff used Facebook's "Ads Manager" to launch its
advertising campaigns.

The Plaintiff's IV Campaign began in August 2015 and targeted users
aged 45 years or older, who had graduated college, owned a home,
expressed an interest in investment, and had a household income of
over $250,000.  Its SCD Campaign began in January 2017 and targeted
nearly the same demographic as the IV Campaign, but added users
located in Canada and restricted the targeted household income to
over $500,000.

After launching the IV Campaign, the Plaintiff noticed that as of
Sept. 1, 2015, 40% of the "Likes" generated by the campaign were
from users outside the target audience.  Concerned that it may have
set up the targeting incorrectly, the Plaintiff continued the IV
Campaign only after reviewing Facebook's representations about
Facebook's targeting capabilities.  The Plaintiff ultimately paid
$1,409.69 to Facebook in connection with the IV Campaign.

The Plaintiff's SCD Campaign fared little better.  Again, after
launching and monitoring the campaign, it found that a material
percentage of the "Likes" generated by the Campaign (for which it
paid) were from users outside of its defined target audience.  The
Plaintiff paid Facebook $242.17 for "Likes" in connection with the
SCD Campaign.

Based on these, the Plaintiff alleges that contrary to Facebook's
targeting-related representations, Facebook programmatically
displays a material percentage of ads to users outside the defined
target market and displays ads to "serial Likers" outside the
defined target audience.  It allegedly relied on Facebook's
representations and Facebook's conduct allegedly harmed it because
the Plaintiff paid for all "impressions" or "Likes" generated by
its campaigns, even those programmatically displayed to users the
Plaintiff's campaign did not target.

On Aug. 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
alleging Facebook's advertising practices violate California's
Unfair Competition Law.   Facebook subsequently moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.

Judge Hamilton finds that the Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient
to survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  In short, the
Plaintiff alleges that Facebook represented that advertisers could
choose the audience who should see their ad and that Facebook would
serve the advertisements in the place the advertiser selected.  The
Plaintiff relied on those representations and was harmed when
Facebook allegedly, and contrary to its representations,
programmatically displayed the Plaintiff's advertisements to
non-targeted users.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
allegations satisfy the UCL's "reasonable consumer" test, and, if
true, state a claim against Facebook.  Accordingly, he denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety.

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

IntegrityMessageBoards.com, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela Ann
Markert -- pmarkert@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Solomon B. Cera --
scera@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, J. Elazar Fruchter --
jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com -- Wohl & Fruchter LLP, Jeffrey Alan
Klafter, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP & Seth Richard Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Nicole Charlene
Valco -- nicole.valco@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Robin Kuntz
-- robin.kuntz@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Susan E. Engel --
susan.engel@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.


FACEBOOK INC: Fights Multibillion-Dollar Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge on Feb. 1 rejected Facebook's argument that it
cannot be sued for letting third parties, such as Cambridge
Analytica, access users' private data because no "real world" harm
has resulted from the conduct.

"The injury is the disclosure of private information," U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria declared during a marathon
four-and-a-half-hour motion-to-dismiss hearing on Jan. 1.

Facebook urged Chhabria to toss out a 267-page consolidated
complaint filed in a multidistrict case seeking billions of dollars
in damages for Facebook's alleged violations of 50 state and
federal laws.

Facebook attorney Orin Snyder, Esq. -- osnyder@gibsondunn.com -- of
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher in New York, insisted that his client did
nothing unlawful because Facebook users volunteered to let third
parties harvest their personal data through their privacy
controls.

"Facebook respects the privacy of its users by honoring
scrupulously the choices they make through their privacy settings,"
Snyder told the judge.

But Chhabria found the wording Facebook used to alert users that
their data would be shared with third parties unclear and
conspicuous.

"Those disclosures are quite vague," the judge said.

The claims against Facebook stem from a series of data privacy
scandals that have rocked the social media giant over the last
year. Those scandals include revelations that Cambridge Analytica
obtained 87 million users' private data through a quiz app, that
Facebook-associated apps can obtain the personal data of a user's
friends without their express permission and that Facebook also
shared user data with device makers and business partners without
making the arrangement obvious to users.

Representing a proposed class of Facebook users, attorney Derek
Loeser, Esq. -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback in
Seattle, argued that in order to give consent, people must be
adequately informed in a way that makes the agreement lawful and
binding.

Loeser noted that between 2012 and 2014, Facebook didn't even use
the words "agree" or "agreement" when asking users if they read and
understood their terms of service. Chhabria did not appear
particularly impressed with that argument, noting that an informed
user can give "implied consent."

The plaintiffs' lawyer also cited a number of public statements
delivered by Facebook executives last year after the Cambridge
Analytica scandal started capturing headlines.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called it a "breach of trust" in a
March 2018 Facebook post, the same month the company acknowledged
in another blog post that "privacy settings and other important
tools are too hard to find."

But Chhabria did not interpret those comments as Facebook admitting
it deceived its users about data privacy.

"The real complaint here is not that Facebook said anything
misleading, but that the disclosures should have been much more
prominent and clear," Chhabria said.

Snyder protested that the plaintiffs failed to clearly identify in
their lawsuit if 34 named plaintiffs had trouble finding, reading
or understanding Facebook's data policies.

At one point, Chhabria asked if a user could sue for a privacy
violation if that user chose to make their account publicly
accessible. Plaintiffs' lawyer Lesley Weaver, Esq.
--lweaver@bfalaw.com -- of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld in Oakland,
answered there would still be privacy claims because Facebook also
made photos shared in users' private Facebook messages available to
third parties.

Before the hearing ended, Chhabria offered to let the plaintiffs
file an amended complaint within 21 days instead of following the
customary path of issuing a ruling first. Chhabria said it could
help move the litigation along more quickly instead of waiting for
a ruling. The plaintiffs agreed to take the judge up on his offer.

Weaver said her team would add new facts to the complaint about
when Facebook made its default privacy setting "friends only"
instead of "public" from 2012 to 2014, when the named plaintiffs
switched their account settings to "friends only," and other
details on how the named plaintiffs read and interpreted Facebook's
data privacy policies.

An amended complaint is due on Feb. 22.[GN]


FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Alvarado Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled LICO GIOVANNI ALVARADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.; a Corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01044455-CU-OE-CJC, was removed on
February 27, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00379-JLS-JDE to
the proceeding.

On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff Lico Giovanni Alvarado filed a
putative class action complaint in the Superior Court.  The
Complaint asserts nine causes of action for (1) failure to pay
minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to
provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5)
failure to reimburse for business expenditures and losses; (6)
failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (7) unfair business
practices; (8) failure to maintain required records; and (9) Civil
Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Proposed Class Members include "all current and former persons
employed by Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in California as non-exempt
employees at any time during the period beginning four years prior
to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as
determined by the Court."[BN]

Defendant FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., is represented by:

          Leslie L. Abbott, Esq.
          Chris A. Jalian, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: leslieabbott@paulhastings.com
                  chrisjalian@paulhastings.com


FERROGLOBE PLC: March 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Ferroglobe PLC (NASDAQ: GSM)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019
Class Period: August 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018

Get additional information about GSM: https://tinyurl.com/yywhq5xw

         Contact:
         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


FLEETCOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel disclosed that Wisconsin's Schultz
Transfer System, Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia
alleging that Fleetcor's "Fuelman" gas card was a predatory scheme
that began charging clients more than the face amount at the pump,
despite promising "deep savings. . . . for fleets of all sizes, in
all industries."

The complaint alleges that the Fuelman card was more expensive than
the price at the pump because of Fuelman's allegedly deceptive fees
and charges, often several dollars for each trip to the pump. This
was so even though Fleetcor promised its customers that they would
pay "No fees for set-up, transactions, or annual membership."

Schultz, a four-vehicle, family-owned trucking company in Franklin,
Wisconsin, was one of thousands of small businesses who took
Fleetcor's representations at face value. But in 2017, Schultz
started to notice fees tacked on to the bill: "Minimum Program
Administration Fees," "Clean Advantage Fees," and miscellaneous
"Other Charges." When pressed as to why a "no fee" program was
charging fees, Fleetcor refunded some of the fees, only to go right
back to charging them on future bills.

Jason Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP; Matthew
Wilson of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA; Sean Sweeney of Halling & Cayo
S.C.; and Jason Doss of The Doss Firm represent Schultz in the
class action lawsuit filed today in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:19-cv-558.
They say that Fleetcor should be held accountable for its
promises.

"Schultz alleges that Fleetcor preyed on numerous businesses with a
fraudulent, predatory scheme," explains Lichtman. "My clients want
to bring this fraud to light and ensure that Fleetcor pays
restitution to the many companies it defrauded."

Fleetcor became the darling of Wall Street in part because of its
ability to extract fees and other charges from its customers -- no
matter what it promised when it signed those customers up for its
Fuelman cards. Fleetcor's CEO has made $357 million in compensation
since 2010, more than what Visa and Mastercard's CEOs made combined
in the same period.  This was at the expense of small businesses
like Schultz, who were nickel-and-dimed in order to feed Fleetcor
and its CEO's excess.

The lawsuit is currently pending, and a copy of the complaint can
be viewed here. If you have been deceived or defrauded by
Fleetcor's fuel program, you can visit us online or call us at (1
800 541-7358) to get more information about the case and to learn
how you can help end Fleetcor's fraudulent and improper practices.

         Jason L. Lichtman Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10013-1413
         Telephone:(212) 355-9500
         Email: jlichtman@lchb.com

         Meyer Wilson
         Telephone: (888) 390-6491
         Website: meyerwilson.com.

         Sean or Halling & Cayo, S.C.
         Telephone: (414) 271-3400
         Website:  HallingCayo.com.

         The Doss Firm
         Telephone: (855) 436-7752
         Website: www.dossfirm.com. [GN]


FLORIDA BC: Court Adopts Magistrate's Class Cert Recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD WARD, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA BC HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-459-Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carlos
E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, adopted and confirmed Magistrate Judge
Gregory J. Kelly's Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
Court grants the Motion in part and conditionally certifies two
classes of employees, except for two subsections.

After a de novo review of the record, and noting that no objections
were timely filed, Judge Mendoza agrees with the Report and
Recommendation.  He therefore adopted and confirmed it and made a
part of his Order.

He granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion for Conditional Class Certification.  

The case is conditionally certified as a class action for the
following classes:

      a. All Employees of Synergy who were: (1) employed by Synergy
as Sales Coordinators during the preceding three years at any store
other than the Orlando or Daytona Beach stores; (2) were classified
as exempt from the FLSA; and (3) worked more than 40 hours in a
work week without being paid proper overtime compensation.

      b. All Employees of Synergy who: (1) are or were employed by
Synergy as Sales Coordinators since November 2016; (2) worked more
than forty hours in a work week; and (3) did not receive proper
overtime because: (a) Synergy failed to include all weekly
remuneration in Sales Coordinator's regular rate of pay when
calculating the overtime rate and (b) failed to include all hours
worked when calculating overtime.

The Judge appointed the Plaintiff's Counsel as the class counsel.
He approved the proposed Notices.  The Misclassification Class
Notice will be amended to reflect that the class is limited to
Sales Coordinators at any store other than the Orlando or Daytona
Beach stores, upon the date of the Order.

On March 10, 2019, the Defendant will provide the Plaintiff with a
list containing the names, job titles, dates of employment, last
known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses for each
individual in each class.  Within 10 days of receiving the list,
the Plaintiff will send the approved Notice and Consent Form
containing the revision with a self-addressed return envelope to
each putative class member via first class mail.  On or before
seven days from date of sending Notice deadlines, the Plaintiff
will notify the Court of the date the Notices were sent.

The Judge denied the Motion in all other respects.

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

Ronald Ward, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by N. Ryan LaBar --
rlabar@labaradams.com -- LaBar & Adams, PA & Scott C. Adams --
sadams@labaradams.com -- LaBar & Adams, PA.

Florida BC Holdings, LLC, doing business as Synergy Equipment,
Defendant, represented by Kim Bouchard-Chaimowiz --
KBouchardC@rtlaw.com -- Rogers Towers, P.A. & Rene M. Fix --
rfix@rtlaw.com -- Rogers Towers, P.A..


FLORIDA: John Does Seek Certification of Sexual Offenders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOHN DOES #1-69 individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICK SWEARINGEN,
Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Case No.
6:18-cv-01731-CEM-LRH (M.D. Fla.), seek certification these
classes:

   (1) Class One:

       All persons currently subject to registration requirements
       under FSORNA as of the date of filing of Plaintiffs'
       Complaint; and

   (2) Class Two:

       All persons who in the future will be subject to
       registration requirements under FSORNA.

John Does #1-69 are Florida residents and sexual offenders required
to be registered with the state of Florida challenging the
constitutionality of Fla. Stat. Section 943.0435 (FSORNA), which
sets forth the State's sexual offender registration and
notification requirements.  The Plaintiffs are all currently
required to register under that statute.

The Plaintiffs claim the requirements infringe on their rights to
be free from ex post facto laws, from deprivations of their
substantive and procedural due process rights, and from cruel and
unusual punishment, among other things.  As such, the Plaintiffs
contend, various provisions of FSORNA violate their constitutional
rights under the Ex Post Facto and Contracts Clauses of the United
States Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution and the First, Fifth and Eighth
Amendments to the Constitution.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terence Estes-Hightower, Esq.
          ESTES-HIGHTOWER PLLC
          16770 Imperial Valley Drive, Suite 235
          Houston, TX 77060
          Telephone: (214) 334-2260
          Facsimile: (832) 218-1447
          E-mail: teri.ehpllc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Shon Douctre, Esq.
          PRIVATE COUNSEL, LLC
          733 W. Colonial Dr.
          Orlando, FL 32804-7343
          Telephone: (407) 849-2949
          Facsimile: (407) 849-2951
          E-mail: sdouctre@gmail.com


FORT 250: New York Sup. Grants Leave to Amend Gould Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MORGAN GOULD, STEVEN ESTEVEZ, and ANNE DOHERTY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FORT 250 ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Docket No. 160190/2017,
Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Robert D. Kalish of the
Supreme Court for the New York County granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for an order granting them leave to amend the complaint.

On Dec. 14, 2018, the Court issued a decision and order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion seq. 001 for class certification.  The matter
involves the Plaintiffs and a proposed class who are all tenants in
a residential apartment building.  The Plaintiff commenced an
action against Defendant landlord on Nov. 15, 2017, alleging that
their building is rent-stabilized and that the Defendant engaged in
a scheme to evade the Rent Stabilization Law.  The Court denied the
prior motion with leave to renew based upon that the Plaintiffs'
definition of the class was overbroad and undefined as initially
pled.

In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their
complaint to address the issues raised in their motion for class
certification.  They argue that they seek to amend to clarify the
statutory period, to distill the allegations, to refine the
definition of the proposed class, and to allocate the causes of
action amongst the proposed class and subclasses.  They further
argue that the changes do not prejudice the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs have annexed to their motion a redline and clean
copy of their proposed amended class action complaint.  The
154-paragraph Proposed Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1)
declaratory relief; (2) violation of the Rent Stabilization Law
entitling the sub-class to reformed leases; (3) violation of the
Rent Stabilization Law entitling the class to damages; (4)
violation of General Business Law Section 349; and (5) legal fees.

The Defendant in its opposition papers advances a two-point
argument.  Its first point is that the motion should be denied
because it does not make the required showing of merit: an
affidavit substantiating the claims in the Proposed Complaint.  The
Defendant complain sthat the Plaintiffs do not submit any
documentation or sworn statements by a person with knowledge who
can attest to the validity of the Plaintiffs' unsubstantiated
allegations.  It argues that the failure to provide such an
evidentiary showing cannot be cured in the Plaintiffs' reply
papers.

The Defendant's second point is that each cause of action in the
Proposed Complaint lacks merit.  Specifically, it argues that the
first and second causes of action seek a "rent freeze," which it
argues is an unrecoverable penalty in a class action pursuant to
CPLR 901 (b).  The Defendant further argues that the third cause of
action seeks damages under the "default formula," which it argues
is another prohibited penalty under CPLR 901 (b).  It then argues
that the Plaintiff should not be permitted to include the fourth
cause of action in its Proposed Complaint because General Business
Law Section 349 applies to conduct directed at the public at large
not, as in the case, to private disputes between landlords and
tenants.  The Defendant last argues that an attorney's fees cause
of action is improper as a matter of law and cannot be maintained
as a separate cause of action.

The Plaintiffs argue in reply that they have sufficiently
particularized their Proposed Complaint in accordance with the
Court's decision on motion seq. 001. They then argue that they have
already annexed sufficient documentary evidence as to the merits of
their Proposed Complaint to their prior motion for class
certification.  In addition to asking for its motion for leave to
amend to be granted, they then request in the "wherefore" clause
that the Court grants class certification and appoints Grimble &
LoGuidice, LLC and the Law Offices of Jack Lester, Esq., as the
co-counsel to the class.

Judge Kalish holds that contrary to the Defendant's contentions, a
plaintiff is not required to support a motion to amend the
complaint with an affidavit of merit.  Any other case law requiring
an affidavit of merit is "older precedent" and is not to be
followed.  As such, he rejects point one of the Defendant's
two-point argument.

Turning to the Defendant's second point, the Judge finds that
neither the "rent freeze" as characterized by the Defendant in its
opposition papers nor the application of the "default formula" as
termed by the Defendant constitute a penalty prohibited in a class
action.  It was already resolved in the prior motion that the
Plaintiffs have waived any treble damages, in accordance with
Borden v 400 East 55th Street Associates, L.P.   Moreover, the
Proposed Complaint does not seek treble damages.  The Defendant's
reliance on Sperry v Crompton Corp. is misplaced, in that it also
deals specifically with "treble" damages in a class action --
there, regarding alleged antitrust violations.

The Judge rejects the Defendant's argument as to the first, second,
and third causes of action in the Proposed Complaint.  He finds
that, for the purposes of the instant motion for leave to amend,
the Plaintiff has shown that the first, second, and third causes of
action are not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit.

As to the fourth cause of action alleging violations of General
Business Law Section 349, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that
the Plaintiffs' allegations in the Proposed Complaint present only
private disputes between landlords and tenants, and not
consumer-oriented conduct aimed at the public at large, as required
by the statute.  He further that the damages alleged in the fourth
cause of action are indirect and derivative of the injuries alleged
to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs in the first, second, and
third causes of action, and are therefore barred.

As to the fifth cause of action for legal fees, he finds that a
Plaintiff may properly allege a cause of action for attorney's fees
based upon a violation of a statute.  The cases cited by the
Defendant in its opposition papers refer to the severability of an
attorney's fees provision situated in a "wherefore" clause and to
such fees as an element of contract damages.  As such, he finds
that the Plaintiff has shown for the purposes of the instant motion
that its fifth cause of action is not palpably insufficient or
clearly devoid of merit.

Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' request to deem the Proposed
Complaint interposed, that request is denied, as the Plaintiffs
must revise the Proposed Complaint in accordance with the order to
remove the fourth cause of action and renumber the paragraphs that
follow.  As to the Plaintiffs' request in its reply papers that
"the Court grants class certification and appoints Grimble &
LoGuidice, LLC and the Law Offices of Jack Lester, Esq., as the
co-counsel to the class," that request is premature.  The
Plaintiffs will move for class certification in accordance with the
CPLR.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kalish granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to the extent that the Plaintiff is granted leave to serve the
Defendant per the CPLR with an amended complaint alleging
everything in the Proposed Complaint except the proposed fourth
cause of action, provided that the Plaintiff serves a copy of the
order with notice of entry on Defendant within 10 days of the date
of the decision and order on the motion and serves the amended
complaint within 20 days of service of the order.  The foregoing
constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/XQH4hg from Leagle.com.


G & R MARINE: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
G & R Marine Unlimited, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Cedric Bishop, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G & R Marine Unlimited, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02008 (S.D. N.Y., March 4, 2019).

G & R Marine Unlimited, LLC is a Boat dealer in South Windsor,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GARDEN STATE: Bishop Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Garden State Yacht Sales, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled Cedric Bishop, individually, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Garden State Yacht Sales,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02010 (S.D. N.Y., March 4, 2019).

Garden State Yacht Sales, LLC is a marine supply store in Point
Pleasant Beach, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GEICO: New Class Actions Pile Up in Wake of Stacking Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that the same day the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the household vehicle
exclusion cannot be used to bar stacked coverage, five class action
lawsuits were filed in Philadelphia aimed at compensating those who
have had their stacking benefits denied under the exclusion.

According to the lawyers who filed the suits, the class actions
were necessary to identify anyone who has had their claim rejected
under the clause, because, depending on how the Supreme Court's
sweeping opinion will be interpreted, the claims may stretch back
to 1990.

"These people are entitled to benefits for which they paid a
premium," James Haggerty, Esq. -- jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com -- of
Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith, who filed the lawsuits,
said.

Just how far back the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 opinion in Gallagher
v. GEICO reaches is one of many new issues attorneys are now set to
begin litigating in the wake of the ruling.

Although attorneys from the plaintiffs and defense bars offered
different opinions about exactly how Gallagher should be
interpreted, nearly all attorneys who spoke with The Legal agreed
that the 13-page opinion, written by Justice Max Baer, was
sweeping.

According to Baer, a household exclusion in a policy issued by
GEICO violated the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law
because it acted as a "de facto waiver" of stacked coverage. The
ruling reversed a Superior Court decision, which had relied on two
prior Supreme Court decisions that had both failed to achieve a
majority, and, according to several attorneys, it marked a
significant departure from precedent.

A footnote in the opinion demonstrated how broadly the ruling
should be interpreted.

"As in every case, we are deciding the discrete issue before the
court and holding that the household vehicle exclusion is
unenforceable because it violates the MVFRL," Baer said.

Although Gallagher involved a man who sought benefits after being
injured in a motorcycle accident, attorneys agreed the ruling is
not limited to cases involving motorcycle policies, but invalidated
the exclusion in any situation where a driver seeks to recover
stacked benefits.

"It certainly is a big change," Post & Schell attorney Bryan Shay,
Esq. -- bshay@postschell.com -- a principal in the firm's insurance
department, said. "If nothing else, the court is expressly
overruling a few prior decisions that have been around for a little
while."

However, Shay said it is still unclear whether the ruling applies
only to scenarios where the claimant is seeking to recover stacked
benefits from a policy that the same insurer provided, or if it
also extends to situations where the claimant is seeking to stack
benefits with a policy provided by another carrier.

Gallagher involved policies that were issued only by GEICO.
According to court records, Gallagher bought stacked coverage on
two GEICO insurance policies -- one for his motorcycle and the
other for his two automobiles. With stacking, Gallagher was
entitled to $250,000.

After Gallagher was involved in a motorcycle accident, GEICO paid
$50,000 in underinsured motorist coverage, but the company denied
Gallagher's claim for additional coverage under the automobile
policy, citing the household vehicle exclusion, which said the
coverage did "not apply to bodily injury while occupying or from
being struck by a vehicle owned or leased by you or a relative that
is not insured for [UIM] coverage under the policy."

Shay said there was clear logic behind the notion that an insurer
could not bar stacking when it provided both policies and the
plaintiff never waived the benefits. But the issue was less clear
with two separate carriers, he said.

"That logic of, ‘Well, they knew about the other household
vehicles,' will not be quite as clear," Shay said. "That's where
the litigation is going to be going forward."

Foley Comerford & Cummins attorney Daniel Cummins, Esq. --
dancummins@comcast.net -- said he agreed with Justice David Wecht's
dissenting opinion, which said the majority's ruling went beyond
the case before it, and should have, instead, limited itself to
scenarios where the same carrier provided all the policies. For
that reason, Cummins said carriers might try to make the argument
that the more expansive portions of the ruling are dicta, although
he added that the defendants would have a difficult argument to
make.

"It's dicta in a clearly worded majority opinion in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so I'm not confident an argument in
that regard would get very far if raised by the carriers," he
said.

Cummins said the Gallagher decision was a "seismic shift" in
insurance law, and was also part of a recent pattern from the court
of departing with long-standing precedent. He specifically noted
the cases Cagey v. PennDOT and Balentine v. Chester Water
Authority.

"It seems like there's no restraint on the part of this court in
taking a fresh look at long-standing precedent," Cummins said. "And
for these reasons I think civil litigation defense attorneys may
want to think twice before taking an issue up to the Supreme Court,
for fear of making law that favors plaintiffs."

Cummins is one of many attorneys who said the Gallagher ruling will
create numerous new hurdles for insurance carriers, and could cause
statewide increases in insurance premiums.

"It may be that we have to wait for the pendulum to shift the other
way, which could be a while," he said.

At the same time the defense bar is set to push back on the ruling,
many in the plaintiffs bar are looking to expand on Gallagher.

Schmidt Kramer attorney Scott Cooper, Esq. who was plaintiff's
co-counsel in Gallagher and is co-counsel in the recent class
actions, said that since the ruling hinged on the court's
interpretation of the MVFRL, the same logic would apply to
exclusions for unlisted resident drivers, and the regular use
exclusion.

"If you're paying for interpolicy stacking, you should be getting
benefits," he said. "Any time you have an exclusion now, you can
argue the Gallagher case and say, read the statute."

Cooper and Haggerty were both dismissive of the argument that
Gallagher only applies to situations where the same carrier issued
all the policies, saying the ruling clearly struck down the
household vehicle exclusion broadly.

According to Haggerty, arguments can be made that carriers now have
a good-faith duty to reach out to anyone who had a claim denied on
the basis of the household vehicle exclusion going back at least
four years, but possibly as far back as 1990, when amendments
regarding stacking were added to the MVFRL.

Cooper agreed and, pointing to a footnote in Baer's opinion, said
that if the carriers want to change the law, they would need to ask
the Legislature.[GN]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Keller Lenkner Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Keller Lenkner LLC disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all purchasers of securities of General Electric
Company ("GE" or the "Company") (NYSE: GE) from October 12, 2018
through and including October 29, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The
action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Birnbaum v. General Electric Company, et al., No.
1:19-cv-01013.

The complaint alleges that GE and its Chief Executive Officer, H.
Lawrence Culp, Jr., violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements relating to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's (the "SEC") expanded
investigation into the Company's accounting practices, including
investigating GE's $23 billion goodwill impairment charge (the
"Power Charge"). The Company disclosed the Power Charge on October
1, 2018, and the SEC investigation began shortly after.

The Company revealed the truth on October 30, 2018, when the
Company disclosed that the SEC had expanded its previous
investigation into the Company's accounting practices to now
include the Power Charge. The Company disclosed that the Department
of Justice was also investigating GE. GE had failed to disclose
this material information on October 12, 2018 when defendants
disclosed that GE was delaying the release of the Company's
quarterly earnings. Upon disclosure of these facts, GE's stock
price fell sharply from a closing price of $11.16 on October 29,
2018, to a closing price of $10.18 on October 30, 2018 -- a nearly
10% market decline -- on trading of almost 345 million shares. GE
shares traded as low as $9.87 on October 30, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than April 2, 2019, which is the
first business day on which the District Court for the Southern
District of New York is open that is 60 days after the publication
date of February 1, 2019. Any member of the proposed class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice.

Keller Lenkner represents the plaintiff. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests please;

         Ashley Keller, Esq.
         Plaintiff's counsel
         Keller Lenkner
         Telephone: 312-741-5220
         Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com [GN]


GENERAL NUTRITION: Rossi Sues After GTD Product Almost Killed Him
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY ROSSI, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of
similarly situated individuals v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION and
GRENADE(R) USA, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417 (N.D. Ill., February
27, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed a
dietary supplement product named Grenade - Thermo Detonator(R),
which almost killed him because the contents of his purchased
bottle of GTD was laced with amphetamines or an amphetamine type
substance.

Mr. Rossi states that he was hospitalized in a Chicagoland hospital
for five days because he ingested what appears to be contaminated
GTD.

GNC is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and
headquartered in Pittsburgh.  GNC, in combination with GNC
Holdings, Inc. ("GNCH"), is the world's largest dietary supplement
retailer.  Throughout the United States, including in the state of
Illinois GNC advertises, promotes, markets, sells, and distributes
dietary supplements manufactured by third-parties.

Grenade(R) USA, LLC, is a Delaware registered limited liability
company.  Grenade USA manufactured a dietary supplement product
called GRENADE - THERMO DETONATOR(R) ("GTD").  Through on-line
sales and point-of-purchase (store-based) sales, GNC sold GTD to
the public, including consumers in the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


GEORGIA POWER: Suit over Municipal Franchise Fees Shelved
---------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company Southern Power Company 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 court has stayed the putative class action lawsuit related
to municipal franchise fees.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state tort law claims.

In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial
court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in August 2017. On
June 18, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of
the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, on February 13, 2019, the
Superior Court of Fulton County entered an order staying this
lawsuit for 60 days and ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC within 20 days for a declaratory ruling to address
certain terms the court previously held were ambiguous as used in
the Georgia PSC's orders.

The order entered by the Superior Court of Fulton County also
conditionally certified the proposed class. Georgia Power believes
the plaintiffs' claims have no merit and will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether conditional class certification will be upheld and the
ultimate composition of any class; and whether any losses would be
subject to recovery from any municipalities. The ultimate outcome
of this matter cannot be determined at this time."

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind.  The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in
Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The
Southern Company.


HIGHMARK INC: Cole's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joy Flowers Conti denied as premature the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL,
INC., on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIGHMARK INC., Case No. 2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D. Pa.).

Judge Conti also ruled that a case management order setting forth
the dates for the filing of motions to challenge the qualifications
of any proposed expert witness will accompany this order.[CC]


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: ASCs Win $4MM Settlement for Underpayments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Stewart, writing for Becker's ASC Review, reports that a
federal court awarded 183 surgery centers a $4 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey.

Five insights:

   1. The class action alleged Horizon underpaid surgery centers
for medical claims, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

   2. In 2008, Horizon identified and nixed flawed methodology
responsible for low reimbursements. However, Horizon denied the
allegations set forth in the lawsuit.

   3. The parties settled the dispute to avoid the cost of a
trial.

   4. Led by Barbara Edwards of Succasunna, N.J.-Roxbury Surgical
Center, the class action may apply to any licensed ASC in New
Jersey that provided out-of-network services to any Horizon member
from Oct. 1, 2004, through Dec. 31, 2014.

   5. Three of the class members opted out of their $4,545.61
portion of the settlement: Woodland Park, N.J.-based McBride
Surgical Center, Woodland Park-based Gastroenterology Diagnostics
of Northern New Jersey and Newark, N.J.-based Premier Surgical
Pavilion. The final approval order and judgement did not elaborate
on their reasons for opting out.[GN]


HOWARD LEE SCHIFF: Truglio Moves to Certify Class Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DAVID TRUGLIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICES HOWARD
LEE SCHIFF, P.C. and PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-00794-VAB (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order
certifying this matter as a class action.

The Class is proposed to be defined as:

     All consumers with an address in New Britain, Connecticut
     (2) who were mailed a Collection Letter by the Defendant
     such as the annexed Exhibit "A", from May 10, 2017 to the
     present, (3) in an attempt to collect an obligation owed to
     or allegedly owed to Portfolio Recovery Associates, (4)
     which stated "If you do not dispute the validity of the
     debt, or any portion thereof, within 30 days of the receipt
     of this letter, we will assume it is valid.  If you dispute
     the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, within 30
     days of receipt of this letter we will obtain and mail you
     verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against
     you.  At your request, in writing within 30 days of receipt
     of this letter, we will provide you with the name and
     address of the original creditor, if different from the
     current creditor."

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
                  Ari@MarcusZelman.com


INDEPENDENT HOME: Final Approval of Mitchell Settlement Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Audrea Mitchell, On behalf of herself and other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Independent Home Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-717 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
recommended that the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Rule 23 Class Settlement and for Approval of FLSA
Settlement, and the Plaintiffs' Counsel's Unopposed Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Costs be granted.

Mitchell filed a collective action complaint against the Defendant.
On Aug. 17, 2017, the parties stipulated to conditional
certification, after which 17 individuals joined the Action by
filing Consent Forms.  Thereafter, Class Plaintiff Mitchell filed
an amended collective and class action complaint to include Rule 23
allegations.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
alleged that she and other hourly, non-exempt individuals who
worked at IHC and provided companionship services, domestic
services, home care, and/or in-home services, including home
managers, support associates, caregivers, home health aides, and
aides between Jan. 1, 2015 and Aug. 31, 2017, are owed unpaid
overtime compensation for two reasons: (1) IHC did not pay them one
and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in
one or more workweeks; and (2) once IHC began paying overtime, it
failed to pay overtime based on the correct regular rate of pay
during workweeks whenthe  Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class
received additional forms of nondiscretionary remuneration.

The denied Class Plaintiff's claims and asserted affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class and collective action settlement
agreement and certification of settlement class.  On Nov. 2, 2018,
the Court found that the proposed settlement satisfied the standard
for approval of a FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).  The Court also certified the class, concluding that the
proposed Class Members satisfy the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
-- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation
-- and meet at least one of the three requirements listed in Rule
23(b).  

The Court found that the settlement class consists of all
individuals who worked at Independent Home Care, Inc., in Columbus,
Ohio, and provided companionship services, domestic services, home
care, and/or other in-home services, including home managers,
support associate, caregivers, home health aides, and aides between
Jan. 1, 2015, and Aug. 31, 2017, who did not previously file
consents to join the action.

The Settlement resolves two types of claims between the parties.
First, the Settlement resolves FLSA claims of the Class Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees who opted into the case pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Second, the Settlement resolves
state-law wage-and-hour claims of the Class Plaintiff and all
members of the proposed Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e).

The Settlement total is $300,000, inclusive of attorney fees and
costs.  It settlement makes individual payments available to the
Class Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Settlement Class Members
representing 101% of their total damages (exclusive of liquidated
damages).  The parties' proposed method of allocating the net
settlement amount establishes two pools of settlement funds -- one
for Collective Members who affirmative opted into the lawsuit
following conditional certification and another for Class Members
who did not do so.  Those settlement pools will be divided among
Collective and Class Members who do not opt out of the settlement
on a pro rata basis based upon the number of hours of overtime
worked during the relevant timeframe.  This ensures an equitable
distribution of settlement proceeds that is directly tied to the
claims of and harm allegedly suffered by Collective and Class
Members and will provide them with a share of the settlement funds
proportionate to the harm they allegedly suffered.

In addition, the Settlement calls for a $5,000 class representative
enhancement payment to the Class Plaintiff, but this payment will
not come from the settlement pools.  Likewise, IHC has agreed not
to oppose the Class Counsel's fee applications to the Court, which
will be paid by IHC and not be taken from the settlement funds
allocated to the classes.

The Class Plaintiff retained CAC Services Group, LLC to be the
Settlement Administrator.  CAC was responsible for providing Notice
to Collective and Class Members.  The Notice specifically advised
that the deadline for objecting was Dec. 16, 2018.  As of Jan. 21,
2019, the Settlement Administrator averred that CAC had not
received any requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class or
any objections from the Class Members.

Mitchell, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, moved the Court for final approval of the proposed
class and collection action settlement described in the parties'
Settlement Agreement, and to enter final judgment in the action.
Notice was given to members of the Settlement Class, and a Fairness
Hearing was held on Feb. 13, 2019.  Also before the Court is the
Plaintiff's Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Costs.

Magistrate Judge Vascura finds that the Settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable; and adequate to all participants and
qualifies for approval pursuant to Rule 23(e).  She recommended
that the Motion for final settlement approval and attorney's fees
and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees be granted.

The Magistrate further recommended the following be ordered:

     1. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to all participants and qualifies for
approval pursuant to Rule 23(e).

     2. The Court approves the Settlement and orders that it be
implemented according to its terms and conditions and the Order.

     3. The Court finds that the Total Settlement Amount of
$300,000, as well as the proposed allocations listed in the
Settlement Agreement, are fair and reasonable.  The Court orders
that such payments be distributed in the manner, and subject to the
terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

     4. The Court approves the proposed service award to Mitchell
in the amount of $5,000 and orders that such payment be made in the
manner, and subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

     5. The Court finds that awarding Class Counsel 33.5% of the
settlement award in the case ensures that counsel is fairly
compensated for the amount of work done as well as for the results
achieved.  The Court therefore approves the payment to the Class
Counsel of attorneys' fees in the amount of $100,000, expense
reimbursements in the amount of $472.41, and costs of
administration in the amount of $3,568.31, as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.  Such payments to be made in the manner, and
subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

     6. The Court dismisses the case with prejudice and directs the
Clerk to enter the Final Order and Judgment.  

     7. The Court retains jurisdiction over the action to enforce
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and resolves any and all
disputes thereunder.

If Plaintiff seeks review by the District Judge of the Report and
Recommendation, he may, within 14 days, file and serve on all
parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically
designating the Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection.  Response to
objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a
copy.

The Plaintiff is specifically advised that the failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.   Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in
those objections is waived.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/9J5Vu7 from
Leagle.com.

Audrea Mitchell, on behalf of herself and other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Matthew James Porter Coffman -- mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com --
Coffman Legal, LLC & Daniel I'Anson Bryant --
dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com -- Bryant Legal, LLC.

Independent Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith Eric
Golden -- keg@golmeiz.com -- Golden & Meizlish Co., LPA & Adam H.
Karl -- ak@golmeiz.com -- Golden & Meizlish Co., LPA.


IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tate Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN C. TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC.; MARATHON PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and DOES I through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342524
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 11, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for their 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 Tate was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly employee.

IRWIN Industries, Inc. provides construction, maintenance, outage,
turnaround, and fabrication services to the energy and industrial
infrastructure markets in the United States. IRWIN Industries, Inc.
was founded in 1922 and is based in Long Beach, California with
additional offices in Oxnard, California; Denver, Colorado; and
Summerville, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J. TAPPER & CO. INC: Guzman Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teodoro Jose Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J. Tapper & Co., Inc., The Epicurean
Garden, LLC, United T LLC. John A. Tapper and Elizabeth Tapper,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00670 (E.D. N.Y., February 4, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid "spread
of hours" premium pursuant to New York Labor Law and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate as "The Garden," an organic and natural foods
grocery store located in Brooklyn where Guzman worked as a stock
person, cleaner and general helper. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


J.P. MORGAN: Miramontes Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Miramontes, Rita Norris and Randall Lloyd, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.P.
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00221 (C.D.
Cal., February 4, 2019), seeks to recover damages and obtain
injunctive relief for injuries caused under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Defendant is a bank who attempted to collect Plaintiffs' consumer
credit account by calling their cellphones using an automated
dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Alyson J. Dykes, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LOHMAN, P.C.
      4740 Green River Rd., Suite 310
      Corona, CA 92880
      Tel: (657) 500-4317
      Fax: (657) 227-0270
      Email: AlysonD@JLohman.com



JC 97 INC: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Yuan Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Jin Lin Yuan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JC 97 INC. d/b/a Shanghai Best,
"Allen" (first name unknown) Lau, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06739 (D.N.J., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendants minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorney's
fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, arising from Defendants' various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek. From approximately January 2014 to August 10,
2018, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in their restaurant
located at 95 Montgomery Street, Jersey City, NJ 07302 as a
delivery worker, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff(s):

          Ge Qu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Ste 10G
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com

JELD-WEN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Olea-Cisneros Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DORA OLEA-CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. JELD-WEN, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00007958-CU-0E-NC (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 11, 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 Olea-Cisneros was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly paid, nonexempt employee.

JELD-WEN, Inc. manufactures and sells windows and doors. It offers
windows, including double and single-hung, awning, full vent,
fixed, sliding, double sliding, casement, bay, and bow windows; and
exterior and interior doors, which include glass panel, sliding and
swinging patio, and folding doors. The company was founded in 1960
and is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. JELD-WEN, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348-4938
          Facsimile: (858) 348-4939
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Tamim Jami, Esq.
          THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
          3525 Del Mar Heights Rd #941
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 284-0248
          Facsimile: (858) 284-0977
          E-mail: tamim@jamilaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 district court
overseeing the contact lens-related class action suit, has granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015. In June 2016, the district court denied motions to dismiss
filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In March
2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The
district court held a hearing on the motion for class certification
in August 2018. In December 2018, the district court granted the
plaintiffs motion for class certification.

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: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R)-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 class action lawsuits related to INVOKANA(R).

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R),
a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.

Lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have also been
filed in state courts in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada. Product liability
lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases.

The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and
claims in the United States and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.

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: Continues to Defend XARELTO(R)-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 class action lawsuits related to XARELTO(R).

Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO(R), an
oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson; and JPI's collaboration partner for
XARELTO(R) Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates. The number of
pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the
Company continues to receive information with respect to potential
costs and the anticipated number of cases.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In addition,
cases have been filed in state courts across the United States.

Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort
litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there are coordinated
proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri. Class action
lawsuits also have been filed in Canada.

Johnson & Johnson said, "The Company has established an accrual for
defense costs only in connection with product liability litigation
associated with XARELTO(R)."

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: Trial This Month in Illinois AWP 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 in a case brought by
Illinois involving Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, trial
has been scheduled for March 2019.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in
state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent
and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the
companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price
(AWP) for the drugs at issue.

Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider
reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three
classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of
the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state
government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at
issue based on AWP.

Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed
to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP
Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also
prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or
settlement. Two cases remain pending. In a case brought by
Illinois, trial has been scheduled for March 2019. In New Jersey, a
putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against
Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech,
Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation.

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.


KRAFT HEINZ: Walling Says Financial Report Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVE WALLING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, BERNARDO HEES,
PAULO BASILIO, DAVID KNOPF, GEORGE ZOGHBI, CHRISTOPHER R. SKINGER,
VINCE GARLATI, and 3G CAPITAL INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00214-MRH (W.D. Pa., Feb. 26, 2019), is a federal
securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
brought on behalf of all purchasers of Kraft Heinz common stock
between May 4, 2017 and February 21, 2019, inclusive.

In June 2013, H. J. Heinz Company was acquired by Heinz. At that
time, Heinz was controlled by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and an
affiliate of Defendant 3G Capital, 3G Special Situations Fund III,
L.P, each of whom beneficially owned approximately 50% of Heinz
common stock. Just prior to the Merger, 3G Special Situations Fund
transferred all of its Heinz common shares to 3G Global Food
Holdings L.P., an affiliate of 3G Capital. Throughout the Class
Period, Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Global Food Holdings each owned
approximately 25% of Kraft Heinz outstanding common shares and were
the largest beneficial owners of Kraft Heinz common stock.

Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company whose subsidiaries are
engaged in a number of diverse business activities including
insurance businesses, a freight rail transportation business and a
group of utility and energy generation and distribution businesses.
3G Capital is a Brazilian-American, private equity firm known for
achieving significant cost reduction in companies under its
management by, among other things, implementing zero-based
budgeting at its portfolio companies. Zero-based budgeting is a
process whereby budgets are determined only after all anticipated
expenses in a given period have been justified as being necessary,
irrespective of what the budget may have been in a prior period.

After the Merger, Kraft Heinz was led by a group of executives that
were, or had been, partners or former employees of 3G Capital.
Defendant Hees, a partner at 3G Capital since July 2010, became CEO
of Kraft Heinz upon the closing of the Merger after serving as CEO
of Heinz since its formation in June 2013. Likewise, Defendant
Basilio, a partner of 3G Capital since July 2012, became EVP and
CFO of Kraft Heinz upon the closing of the Merger after previously
serving as CFO of Heinz since its formation in June 2013.

On October 1, 2017, Defendant Knopf, then only 29 years of age,
assumed Defendant Basilio's responsibilities and became EVP and CFO
of Kraft Heinz. Defendant Knopf has been a partner of 3G Capital
since July 2012 and held various roles at 3G Capital from 2013 to
2015. Consistent with 3G Capital's philosophy, Defendants adopted a
series of cost reduction initiatives after the Merger when
integrating the operations of Kraft and Heinz. Prior to the
beginning of Class Period, these cost-cutting initiatives helped
lower costs and drive increases in highly leveraged Kraft Heinz's
profitability even though the Company's sales were declining.

By the beginning of the Class Period, however, Defendants knew or
recklessly ignored that their belt-tightening measures had run
their course, depleted the Company of valuable resources,
marginalized its internal controls, and left Kraft Heinz's iconic
brands badly damaged. During the Class Period, Kraft Heinz suffered
an impairment in the value of its brands when they experienced
significant sales declines and market share losses as consumers
shifted to organic and lower priced private label offerings. This
dynamic left the Company with little pricing power and commoditized
its product categories. While Kraft Heinz's major brands were
suffering sales declines and market share losses, the Company was
also experiencing significant supply chain issues and cost
inflation. The combination of these factors severely slashed the
product margins and profitability of the Company's major brands,
causing an impairment in their value during the Class Period.

For example, during the Class Period, Defendants knew the value of
Kraft Heinz's Oscar Meyer cold cut trademarks were impaired when
that business suffered sales declines and market share losses due,
in part, to Defendants reluctance to invest the resources needed
for product distribution and new equipment. Similarly, Defendants
knew the value of Kraft Heinz's Kraft cheese trademarks were
impaired when that business suffered sales declines and market
share losses to aggressively priced private-label offerings and
cheaper brands sold by e-commerce retailers.  Defendants also knew,
or recklessly ignored, that the goodwill associated with Kraft
Heinz Canadian retail business was impaired when year-over year
sales for that business had been falling and its operations were
suffering from product discontinuations, higher input costs and
higher promotional expenses.

In October 2018, unbeknownst to investors, Kraft Heinz received a
subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission associated
with its investigation into Kraft Heinz's accounting policies,
procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting. In
November 2018, Kraft Heinz agreed to sell its Canadian natural
cheese business to Parmalat S.p.A for approximately $1.23 billion.

Then, on February 21, 2019, Kraft Heinz issued a press release
announcing that the Company had been improperly accounting for the
costs of products sold and that it recorded impairment charges of
$15.4 billion to lower the carrying amount of goodwill in certain
reporting units, primarily U.S. Refrigerated and Canada Retail, and
certain intangible assets, primarily the Kraft natural cheese and
Oscar Mayer cold cuts trademarks. The press release also announced
Kraft Heinz's receipt of an SEC subpoena associated with its
investigation into the Company's accounting policies, procedures,
and internal controls and that the Company had been operating with
material weaknesses in its system of internal controls over
financial reporting.

In response to this news, the price of Kraft Heinz common stock
declined approximately 27.5%, from $48.18 per share to $34.95 per
share, erasing more than $16 billion of the Company's market
capitalization on extremely heavy trading volume. Prior to the
disclosure of these adverse facts, in August 2018, 3G Global Food
Holdings sold more than $1.2 billion of Kraft Heinz common stock at
an artificially inflated price.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendants materially misled the
investing public, thereby inflating the price of Kraft Heinz common
stock, by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants'
statements, not false and misleading.  Those statements and
omissions were materially false and misleading in that they failed
to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the
truth about the Company, its business and operations.

Kraft Heinz is one of the largest food and beverage companies
worldwide. The Company was formed in 2015 when Kraft Foods Group,
Inc. ("Kraft") merged with H.J. Heinz Holding Corporation
("Heinz"). The Company maintains its principal executive offices in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its common stock is listed and trades
on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "KHC."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G.
          YATES, JR., P.C.
          300 Mt. Lebanon Blvd., Suite 206-B
          Pittsburgh, PA 15234
          Telephone: 412 391-5164
          Facsimile: 412 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631/367-7100
          Facsimile: 631/367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: 470/632-6000
          Facsimile: 770/200-3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com

LEMAN USA: Conditional Class Certification of Malicki Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JODIE L. MALICKI, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEMAN U.S.A., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-CV-1674 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
denied the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification.

Leman is a Wisconsin corporation that provides transportation and
logistical services throughout the United States. Its home office
is in Sturtevant, Wisconsin, but Leman operates multiple locations
throughout the United States.  Leman employed Malicki as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt Office and Warehouse employee at Leman's
Sturtevant location within the last three years from the date of
the filing of the complaint.

In the putative class and collective action, Malicki, a former
hourly-paid, non-exempt Office and Warehouse employee at Leman's
Wisconsin location, alleges that Leman maintained several policies
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin
Wage Payment and Collection Laws.  She challenges two specific
Leman policies: (1) failing to pay employees for rest periods of
short duration (i.e., 20 consecutive minutes or less) and (2)
indiscriminately shaving time by impermissibly rounding, deducting,
and/or failing to count recorded and compensable hours.  

Malicki avers that during her employment at Leman and on a daily
basis, she worked alongside other hourly-paid, non-exempt Office
and Warehouse employees as part of Leman's transportation and
logistical services.  Malicki alleges that despite the fact that
she and all other Office and Warehouse employees' timecards
reflected the actual time worked each workday, Leman unlawfully
failed to compensate its employees for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours as a result of its policy of shaving time from Office
and Warehouse employees' "clock in" and "clock out" time by
rounding, deducting, and/or failing to count recorded and
compensable time to Leman's benefit and to the employees'
detriment.

Malicki seeks to certify a conditional class of similarly situated
hourly paid, non-exempt Office and Warehouse employees at all of
Leman's United States locations within three years prior to the
date of the lawsuit.

Magistrate Judge Joseph finds that Malicki fails to provide any
evidence that Leman had a rounding policy or improperly paid any
other employee for work performed.  Thus, Malicki has failed to
make even a modest factual showing that she is similarly situated
to the putative class Plaintiffs.  For these reasons, he denied her
motion for conditional class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/lmzB9h from Leagle.com.

Jodie L Malicki, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Tobin,
Walcheske & Luzi LLC, David M. Potteiger, Walcheske & Luzi LLC,
James A. Walcheske -- jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske &
Luzi LLC, Kelly L. Temeyer -- ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com --
Walcheske & Luzi LLC & Scott S. Luzi -- sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com --
Walcheske & Luzi LLC.

Leman USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Conrad --
chrisc@dkblaw.com -- DeMark Kolbe & Brodek SC.


LEPAGE BAKERIES: Bakery Drivers' Lawsuit Will Become Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Murphy, writing for Press Herald, reports that a suit by
Maine bakery drivers seeking to be classified as employees rather
than independent contractors can proceed as a class-action lawsuit,
a federal judge has ruled.

The lawsuit, which seeks $5 million, is pending in federal court in
Bangor and alleges that the drivers routinely work up to 55 hours a
week, seven days a week and, as independent contractors, they don't
get employee benefits, such as overtime pay. The suit says at least
102 drivers are believed to be affected and names as defendants
Lepage Bakeries, an Auburn subsidiary of Georgia-based Flower
Foods, and CK Sales of Auburn, a distributor.

In 2013, the suit said, CK Sales converted its employees to
independent contractors and said it was operating a "franchised
distributorship."

But the suit said Flower Foods sets almost all the terms of the
relationship among the bakery, drivers and stores, including
prices, the products that are sold and shelf space. That means the
drivers are acting as employees, rather than independent
distributors, the lawsuit alleges.

Flower Foods sought to block the suit from proceeding as a class
action, meaning the drivers would have to proceed with their cases
individually. That usually means higher legal costs for the
individual plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Lance Walker said the case will go forward as a
class action because many of the issues he will have to weigh, such
as "the nature of the work . . . .  the method of payment and what
tools, supplies, and materials the worker must supply," are common
in all the cases and his rulings will apply to all the drivers.

"While there are some differences among the class members with
respect to certain factors -- for example, the employment of
assistants -- there nevertheless is commonality among them with
respect to most factors," Walker said.

Walker told the two sides to draft an order to define members of
the class by Feb. 8.

Another similar case heard recently in federal court in Maine
resulted in a settlement giving drivers overtime. That case,
however, involved employee drivers of Oakhurst Dairy and turned on
the punctuation within a Maine law that exempts certain employees
from being eligible for overtime pay.

Shawn Wanta, Esq.-- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- the lead lawyer for
the bakery drivers in the lawsuit, said the Maine case is one of
dozens across the country in which workers are challenging their
status as independent contractors.

"This is part of a larger trend," he said. "They want to know the
answer to the question: What am I, an employee or contractor? And
that's at the heart of the case. In this case, they show up at a
warehouse in the morning and return there at night and work for the
same managers that they see every day."

Wanta noted that before Lepage Bakeries was sold to Flower Foods,
its drivers were employees.

"They took the same people and converted them to contractors," he
said.

Rob Brooks, Esq. -- rbrooks@verrilldana.com -- an employment law
specialist at the Verrill Dana law firm in Portland, said the
standards for determining whether a worker is an employee or
independent contractor have changed in recent years and require
weighing many factors, from where they perform their work to
whether a worker has an individual profit motive directly connected
to their work.

Brooks, who is not involved in the Lepage Bakeries lawsuit, said
those decisions have taken on added importance in recent years.
Forty or 50 years ago, he said, most workers were clearly
employees, but in a "gig economy" where workers shift jobs
frequently, more are likely to be classified as independent
contractors. Employers like the flexibility offered by hiring
independent contractors, along with the savings from reduced
benefits.

The standards for determining who is an employee and who is an
independent contractor are developed by a half-dozen federal
agencies and "tend to shift back and forth," Brooks said. "It makes
this area very difficult to advise clients on."

A call to the lawyer representing the bakery was not returned.[GN]


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
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 in
Pennsylvania entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company or LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent
classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf.  

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

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: EFG Bank Insurance Litig. Ongoing in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 putative class action lawsuit entitled, EFG
Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-02592.

The civil action was filed on February 1, 2017. Plaintiffs own
Legend Series universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
or LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders'
contracts when it increased cost of insurance rates beginning in
2016.  

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: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit by TVPX ARS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company continues to defend a putative
class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff 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 own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors
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.  

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

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.


LIVE NATION CONCERTS: Fischler Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Concerts, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Brian Fischler, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Live Nation Concerts, Inc. doing
business as: Shaky Knees Music Festival, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01263 (E.D. N.Y., March 4, 2019).

Shaky Knees Music Festival is an annual music festival that takes
place in Atlanta, Georgia. The festival was founded in 2013 by Tim
Sweetwood in order to bring a proper indie music festival to the
city of Atlanta, which already hosts festivals such as Sweetwater
420 Fest and Music Midtown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




LUXOR LIMO: Denied Drivers Overtime Pay, Reimbursements, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiz Jenkins and Terrance Smith, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Luxor Limo Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00687, (E.D. N.Y., February 4, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and expenses, reimbursements for uniforms and statutory
penalties for failure to provide wage notices and wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Luxor offers black car and limousine trips in New York City where
Plaintiffs worked as drivers. They claim to have worked in excess
of forty hours per week without being paid overtime. Luxor
automatically deducted for lunch and rest breaks regardless of
whether they were availed of or not. Luxor failed to provide the
required wage notices and wage statements indicating the proper
overtime rate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
      675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
      New York, NY
      Tel: (718) 669-0714
      Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


LYONS DOUGHTY: Jacobs Asserts Breach Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons, Doughty &
Veldhuis, P.A. The case is styled as Christopher Jacobs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.A., Midland Funding LLC
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00453-UNA (D.
Del., 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.

Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis is a creditors' rights law firm dedicated
to consumer collections in the states of New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Ohio and Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
   Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
   1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
   Wilmington, DE 19805
   Tel: (215) 326-9179
   Email: ag@garibianlaw.com




MASTER FLOW: Luna Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO LUNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. MASTER FLOW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC f/k/a MFT RESOURCES, LLC,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00704 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2019), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Natchitoches, Louisiana, Master Flow Technologies,
LLC, formerly known as MFT Resources, LLC, is a Louisiana limited
liability company and an "employer" as defined by the FLSA.

Master Flow provides services in the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


MDL 2492: Brown v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Edward Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Salve Regina University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00320 (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-00998 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
Salve Regina University student-athletes.

The Brown 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: Caviggia v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jordan Caviggia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Saint Francis University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00320 (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-00998 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
Saint Francis University student-athletes.

The Caviggia 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: Conn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Travis Conn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Gardner-Webb University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00346 (Filed Jan. 27, 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. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01275 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 Gardner-Webb
University Student-Athletes.

The Conn 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: Cuevas v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ERIC CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Texas Lutheran University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00321 (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-00999  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
Texas Lutheran University student-athletes.

The Cuevas 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: Harris v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Brian Harris, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Wingate 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-00316 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
Wingate University student-athletes.

The Harris 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: Jackson v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Anthony Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and La Salle University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00314 (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-00991 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 La
Salle University student-athletes.

The Jackson 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: King v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, John King, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Newberry College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00328 (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-01007 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
Newberry College student-athletes.

The King 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: Medley v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jack Medley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Hiram College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00322 (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-01000 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
Hiram College student-athletes.

The Medley 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: Mileto v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Stephen Mileto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00311 (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-00989  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
student-athletes.

The Mileto 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: Oliver v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Brian Oliver, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Coe College, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00317
(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-00995
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 Coe
College student-athletes.

The Oliver 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: Page v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jovon Page, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Elon University, 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-01012 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 Elon
University student-athletes.

The Page 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: Schroeder v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Donald Schroeder, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Illinois College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00319 (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-00997 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 Illinois College
student-athletes.

The Schroeder 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: Thorne v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, KYLE THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-390 (Filed Jan. 27, 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. 25, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01192 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 Hofstra University
Student-Athletes.

The Thorne 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 2672: ECF No. 3606 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3606, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the ECF No. 3606 motion to remand.

Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or
Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one
of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car
makers.  Rather than participate in those settlements,
approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them.  Some
of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in
state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal
court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the
captioned MDL.

Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more
than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases,
were filed in the Court.  The Order addresses one of those motions,
ECF No. 3606.  When it was filed, the ECF No. 3606 motion covered
114 separate cases. Each had been filed in California state court,
by counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA").  Many of the cases
have since been voluntarily dismissed; only 30 remain outstanding.

VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3606 cases on the basis of both federal
question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  The
Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that neither
form of jurisdiction is present.

Each of the ECF No. 3606 cases was filed by either an individual or
a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen or Audi TDI
diesel-engine car.  The general factual allegations in the cases
are the same.  The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the cars
at California-based dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they
read the window stickers attached to the cars, which advertised
them as having low emissions.  They also reviewed marketing
materials representing that the cars were "green" vehicles and were
good for the environment. The low-emission representations induced
Plaintiffs to purchase the cars.

In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for
the environment.  And not only were the cars' emissions higher than
represented, but VWGoA, which also did business as Audi of America,
Inc., knew this.  VWGoA knew that the cars could not perform as
promised and had specifically developed and installed software in
them that detected and evaded emissions testing.  During testing,
the cars appeared to satisfy governing emission standards; but when
the cars were on the road, they emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40
times the legal limits.

In September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations,
VW admitted that it had equipped its TDI-diesel engine cars with
emissions-cheating software, and that it had been doing so since
2009.

The ECF No. 3606 complaints each include three claims against VWGoA
and VW AG.  The claims are for violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Vehicle Code, and Song-Beverly Act.
The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "incidental,
consequential, and actual damages in excess of $25,000," statutory
and punitive damages, "rescission and repurchase of the subject
vehicles and restitution of all monies expended," and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on
the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  VW AG
apparently was not served and did not join the notices of removal.
The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3606 motion to
remand.

Judge Breyer finds that the allegations in VWGoA's notices of
removal are sufficient to support that the Plaintiffs and VWGoA
were citizens of different states when the complaints were filed.
The requirement of complete diversity is therefore satisfied.

As to actual damages, he finds that the Plaintiffs have put the
full amounts that they paid to buy and lease the cars in dispute,
and Mr. Lytle's estimates serve as a sufficient proxy of those
amounts.  Based on Mr. Lytle's estimates, the actual damages in
controversy range from $9,097 to $36,252 per case.

With respect to punitive damages, the Judge holds that at this
stage, the question is whether at least $50,000 in punitive damages
is at stake in each of the cases.  Given the facts alleged and the
amount of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, it is clear
that the answer to this question is yes.  At least $50,000 in
punitive damages is at stake in each of the ECF No. 3606 cases.

Multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $295 leads to an
estimate of $29,736 in attorneys' fees per case.  At least that
amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of
the ECF No. 3606 cases

Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $29,736 in
attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000.  And when
actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the
ECF No. 3606 cases range from $88,833 to $115,988.  The Judge finds
that Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is
satisfied.

Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between it and VW AG on the one
hand, and the Plaintiffs on the other.  Also, a preponderance of
the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is
met.  He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity
subject-matter jurisdiction over the ECF No. 3606 cases and denied
the motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fXmv5e from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: ECF No. 3621 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3621 MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the ECF No. 3621 motion to remand.

Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or
Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one
of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car
makers.  Rather than participate in those settlements,
approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them.  Some
of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in
state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal
court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the
captioned MDL.

Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more
than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases,
were filed in the Court.  The Order addresses one of those motions,
ECF No. 3621.  When it was filed, the ECF No. 3621 motion covered
41 separate cases.  Each had been filed in Colorado state court, by
the counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed
by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA").  Many of the cases
have since been voluntarily dismissed; only nine remain
outstanding.

VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3621 cases on the basis of both federal
question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  The
Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that neither
form of jurisdiction is present.

Each of the ECF No. 3621 cases was filed by either an individual or
a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen TDI diesel-engine car.
The general factual allegations in the cases are the same.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the cars at Colorado-based
dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they read the window
stickers attached to the cars, which advertised that the cars
offered "good clean diesel fun."  The Plaintiffs also allege that
VWGoA and Volkswagen AG, represented to them that the cars would
emit 25 percent fewer emissions than comparable gasoline-powered
cars, and that the cars were 90% cleaner than pervious diesel
cars.

In fact, the cars did not have low emissions.  And not only were
their emissions higher than represented, but VW knew this.  VW knew
that the cars could not perform as promised and had specifically
developed and installed software in them that detected and evaded
emissions testing.  During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy
governing emission standards; but when the cars were on the road,
they emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits. In
September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations, VW
admitted that it had equipped its TDI-diesel engine cars with
emissions-cheating software, and that it had been doing so since
2009.

The ECF No. 3621 complaints each include two to three state-law
claims against VWGoA and VW AG.  All of the complaints include a
breach of warranty claim, under Colorado's version of the Uniform
Commercial Code, and a claim for violation of Colorado's Consumer
Protection Act ("CCPA").  Some of the complaints also include a
claim for common law fraud.

The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include reimbursement of the
purchase price paid for the subject vehicles, rescission and
repurchase of the subject vehicles and any incidental,
consequential, actual, statutory, and punitive damages totaling
$74,000, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on
the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  VW AG
apparently was not served and did not join the notices of removal.
The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3621 motion to
remand.

WGoA, as the removing party, need only provide a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal, in which it alleges the
underlying facts supporting each of the requirements for removal
jurisdiction.  The requirement at issue is complete diversity; and
JUdge Breyer finds that VWGoA has alleged the underlying facts
supporting this requirement by alleging that it was a citizen of
New Jersey and Virginia and that the Plaintiffs were citizens of
Alabama when the complaints were filed.  These allegations are
sufficient to support that the Plaintiffs and VWGoA were citizens
of different states when the cases began. The requirement of
complete diversity is therefore satisfied.

The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have challenged VWGoA's
amount-in-controversy allegations, and VWGoA has submitted evidence
in support of its allegations in response.  For two reasons, Judge
Breyer finds that the Plaintiffs' demands do not control.  First,
as framed, the Plaintiffs' demands apply only to the remedies of
rescission and damages.  Second, even if the Plaintiffs had
explicitly demanded judgments not to exceed $74,000 -- a demand
that would cover all forms of relief, including attorneys' fees --
those demands would not control.

As to actual damages, the Judge finds that the fact that the
Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of Mr. Lytle's numbers
suggests that he has made reasonably accurate calculations.  Mr.
Lytle's methodology also appears sensible: he used the
vehicle-specific information that the Plaintiffs provided in their
complaints and respected market metrics and resources, and he
explained in detail how he arrived at his estimates.  The
Plaintiffs have put the full amounts that they paid to buy and
lease the cars in dispute, and Mr. Lytle's estimates serve as a
sufficient proxy of those amounts.  Based on Mr. Lytle's estimates,
the actual damages in controversy range from $18,358 to $31,327 per
case.

Next, because the allegations support that VWGoA's conduct was
fraudulent, the Judge holds that treble damages under the CCPA may
be permitted. Treble damages are therefore part of the amount in
controversy. When the estimates of CCPA damages are trebled, the
total amounts of damages in controversy in the ECF No. 3621 cases
range from $55,074 to 93,981.

Colorado caps punitive damages at the amount of the actual damages
awarded to the injured party.  In the ECF No. 3621 cases, then, a
treble damages award under the CCPA would exceed a punitive damages
award.  The Judge therefore includes treble damages, but not
punitive damages, in the amount in controversy, as the higher
amount is a better indicator of the "amount in dispute."

As to attorneys' fees, multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate
of $295 leads to an estimate of $29,736 in attorneys' fees per
case.  At least that amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in
controversy in each of the ECF No. 3621 cases.

Finally, when $29,736 in attorneys' fees is added to the above
estimates of treble damages, the amounts in controversy in the ECF
No. 3621 cases range from $84,810 to $123,717.  Because these
amounts all exceed $75,000, the Judge finds that Section 1332(a)'s
amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied for each of the ECF
No. 3621 cases.

Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between it and VW AG on the one
hand, and the Plaintiffs on the other.  Also, a preponderance of
the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is
met.  He therefore concludes that it has diversity subject-matter
jurisdiction over the ECF No. 3621 cases and denied the motion to
remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hze86n from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: ECF No. 3768 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3768, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the ECF No. 3768 motion to remand.

The order addresses ECF No. 3768, a motion to remand certain cases
to Alabama state court.  The Plaintiffs are individuals and couples
who bought Volkswagen TDI diesel-engine cars, and who either opted
out of the Court-approved class action settlements with Volkswagen,
or who were not members of those classes because they sold their
cars before the class period began.  When filed, the ECF No. 3768
motion covered 20 separate cases.  Some of those cases have been
terminated and nine remain pending today.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") is the sole Defendant
in the ECF No. 3768 cases.  It removed the cases on the basis of
both federal question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that neither
form of jurisdiction is present.

The Plaintiffs allege that VWGoA marketed its TDI diesel-engine
cars as having low emissions, good gas mileage, and an
environmentally-friendly engine.  To obtain these benefits, the
Plaintiffs allege that they agreed to pay premium prices for the
cars.

In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for
the environment.  And not only were the cars' emissions higher than
represented, but VWGoA knew this.  VWGoA knew that the cars could
not perform as promised and had specifically developed and
installed software in them that detected and evaded emissions
testing.  During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing
emission standards; but when the cars were on the road, they
emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits.

In September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations,
VWGoA admitted that it had equipped its TDI diesel-engine cars with
emissions-cheating software, and that it had been doing so since
2009.  The Plaintiffs allege that the software has substantially
impaired the cars' use, value and safety, and that the cars'
performance will be adversely affected if the cars are modified to
meet emission standards.

The ECF No. 3768 complaints each include five claims against VWGoA.
The claims are for (1) fraud and suppression, (2) fraud in the
inducement, (3) breach of an express warranty, (4) breach of an
implied warranty, and (5) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301-12.  The Plaintiffs seek actual and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  In each case, they seek a
judgment that will not exceed a total of $49,990 plus costs, and
interest.

VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on
the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs
responded by filing the ECF No. 3768 motion to remand.

WGoA, as the removing party, need only provide a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal, in which it alleges the
underlying facts supporting each of the requirements for removal
jurisdiction.  The requirement at issue is complete diversity; and
JUdge Breyer finds that VWGoA has alleged the underlying facts
supporting this requirement by alleging that it was a citizen of
New Jersey and Virginia and that the Plaintiffs were citizens of
Alabama when the complaints were filed.  These allegations are
sufficient to support that the Plaintiffs and VWGoA were citizens
of different states when the cases began. The requirement of
complete diversity is therefore satisfied.

The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have challenged VWGoA's
amount-in-controversy allegations, and VWGoA has submitted evidence
in support of its allegations in response.  As to actual damages,
the Judge finds that given VWGoA's evidence and the Plaintiffs'
silence, it appears likely that the purchase prices of the cars are
indeed in dispute.  The vehicle purchase prices in the ECF No. 3768
cases range from $17,991 to $34,034.  These amounts represent the
actual damages in controversy.

Next, at this stage, the question is whether at least $50,000 in
punitive damages is at stake in each of the cases.  Given the facts
alleged and the amount of punitive damages awarded in comparable
cases, the Judge finds that it is clear that the answer to this
question is yes.  At least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake
in each of the ECF No. 3768 cases.

As to attorneys' fees, the Judge finds that multiplying 100.8 hours
by the hourly rate of $295 leads to an estimate of $29,736 in
attorneys' fees per case.  At least that amount of attorneys' fees
is reasonably in controversy in each of the ECF No. 3768 cases.

Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $29,736 in
attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000.  And when
actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the
ECF No. 3768 cases range from $97,727 to $113,770.  Section
1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.

Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between it and the Plaintiffs,
and a preponderance of the evidence supports that the
amount-in-controversy requirement is met.  He therefore concludes
that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the
ECF No. 3768 cases and denied the motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oaSspF from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2741: Cloutier Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT CLOUTIER, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and and JOHN DOES 1-50., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-14024 (Filed Jan. 24, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida 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-00808-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 Cloutier 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 Plaintiff:

          Francisco A. Albites, Esq.
          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          Parker Waichman LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-8612
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: falbites@yourlawyer.com
                  jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MDL 2741: Colombara Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled THOMAS COLOMBARA AND CYNTHIA
COLOMBARA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00132 (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-00936-VC to the
proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs 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 Colombara 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: Hans Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GEORGE W. HANS and MARGARET P.
HANS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00127 (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-00932-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs 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 Hans 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: Martin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WENDELL P. MARTIN, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00133 (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-00937-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 Martin 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: McCrae Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALEX MCCRAE and DIANE MCCRAE, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409 (Filed Jan. 21, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, 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-00925-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 McCrae 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:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, PC
          120 N. LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 899 9090
          E-mail: SMM@cliffordlaw.com

MDL 2741: McCrae Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAMES M. OUTLAW and KAREN OUTLAW,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00128 (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-00933-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 McCrae 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

MDL 2741: Salamone Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PHYLLIS SALAMONE, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00058 (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-00926-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 Salamone 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: Stewart Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM STEWART, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00060 (Filed Jan. 16, 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-00928-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 Stewart 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 2875: Cacaccio Suit v. Mylan over Tainted Valsartan Moved
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Joseph Cacaccio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
INC.MYLAN N.V.RITE AID CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06916 (Filed Dec. 5, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 25, 2019. The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-06841-RBK-JS to the proceeding. The suit alleges product
liability for personal injury caused by the use of generic
valsartan.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for the Defendants:

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


MDL 2875: Nelson Suit v. Teva over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Gerald Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., MAJOR
PHARMACEUTICALS, Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Huahai US
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00332 (Filed Jan. 16, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on Feb. 25, 2019. The New Jersey District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06847 to the proceeding. The suit alleges
product liability for personal injury caused by the use of generic
valsartan.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

Attorneys for Major Pharmaceuticals:

          Kelly T. Currie, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          590 Madison Avenue, 20th Flr
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 895-4257
          Facsimile: (212) 223-4134

Attorneys for Huahai US Inc.:

          Kevin P. Potere, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          1540 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 471-1876
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4654

MDL 2878: Castillo Suit v. Ranbaxy over Generic Drugs Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Cesar Castillo, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. RANBAXY INC., RANBAXY
LABORATORIES, LTD. RANBAXY U.S.A., INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06126 (Filed:
Nov. 1, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Feb. 25, 2019. The District
of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10357-NMG
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, under the government settlements,
Ranbaxy maintained their ANDA status for five "Excepted
Applications," including Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte. These drugs
were subject to additional FDA audits, but did not lose their right
to the 180-day exclusivity period. Despite the opportunity, once
again, to comply and bring these Excepted Application drugs to
market, Ranbaxy's obstinate delay tactics and excessive compliance
failures continued. Their scheme of fraud and deception prevented
generic alternatives for Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte from promptly
entering the market . Ranbaxy originally applied for the Diovan,
Nexium, and Valcyte ANDAs in 2004-2005. Patent settlements did not
allow for the entry of generic Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte until
2012, 2014, and 2013 respectively. Still, Ranbaxy's failure to
comply delayed the entry of a generic product onto the market for
at least another 28 months for Diovan, 9 months for Nexium, and 20
months for Valcyte.

Because of Ranbaxy's fraud and delay tactics, consumers paid
supracompetitive prices for brand Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte
products when a safe, effective, and cheaper generic alternative(s)
should have been available. The action arises under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. sections
1962(c) and (d) and 1964. Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages
for their injuries, and those suffered by members of the End Payer
Purchaser Class, resulting from the defendants' fraudulent and
anticompetitive conduct that delayed the entry of generic drugs
into the U.S. market, thhe lawsuit says.

The Castillo case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2878, Re:
RANBAXY GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 11, 2019. These The actions
involve allegations that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in submitting applications for Abbreviated New Drug
Applications to improperly secure the "first-to-file" status
concerning the generic drugs Diovan, Valcyte and Nexium. The
Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania action supports
centralization in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs
Meijer Distribution, Inc., and Meijer, Inc., in two District of
Massachusetts actions support centralization in that district.
Defendants Ranbaxy Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
oppose centralization. If the Panel decides to centralize the
cases, defendants suggest the Eastern District of New York as the
transferee forum.

In its Feb. 11, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The Plaintiffs all allege that Ranbaxy adopted a
practice of ignoring FDA regulations and protocols to obtain
first-to-file status for its generic drug applications. The
first-to-file 180-day exclusivity period blocked other generic
drugs from entering the market for several months, allowing Ranbaxy
to reap large profits. When the FDA made inquiries into its
procedures, plaintiffs allege that Ranbaxy enlisted an outside law
firm, Buc & Beardsley LLP, and an ostensibly independent
consultant, Parexel Consulting LLC, to perpetuate the fraud and
falsely represent to the FDA that Ranbaxy complied with FDA
regulations. These false reports allegedly allowed Ranbaxy to gain
tentative approval of its generic drug applications and maintain
its exclusive status for several drugs, including Valcyte, Nexium,
and Diovan. Centralization is warranted to prevent inconsistent
rulings (including with respect to class certification) and
overlapping pretrial obligations, reduce costs, and create
efficiencies for the parties, courts, and witnesses. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton. The lead case
is 1:19-md-02878-NMG.

Ranbaxy Inc. manufacturers and distributes prescription, branded,
and over-the-counter drugs in the United States and Canada.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Robert Allen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          Citigroup Center
          153 East 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022-4611
          Telephone: (212) 446-4970
          E-mail: jlefkowitz@kirkland.com


MDL 2878: UFCW Suit v. Ranbaxy over Generic Drugs Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND
OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. RANBAXY INC., RANBAXY
LABORATORIES, LTD. RANBAXY U.S.A., INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04807 (Filed Nov.
6, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Feb. 25, 2019. The District
of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10356-NMG to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, under the government settlements,
Ranbaxy maintained their ANDA status for five "Excepted
Applications," including Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte. These drugs
were subject to additional FDA audits, but did not lose their right
to the 180-day exclusivity period. Despite the opportunity, once
again, to comply and bring these Excepted Application drugs to
market, Ranbaxy's obstinate delay tactics and excessive compliance
failures continued. Their scheme of fraud and deception prevented
generic alternatives for Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte from promptly
entering the market.  Ranbaxy originally applied for the Diovan,
Nexium, and Valcyte ANDAs in 2004-2005. Patent settlements did not
allow for the entry of generic Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte until
2012, 2014, and 2013 respectively. Still, Ranbaxy's failure to
comply delayed the entry of a generic product onto the market for
at least another 28 months for Diovan, 9 months for Nexium, and 20
months for Valcyte.

Because of Ranbaxy's fraud and delay tactics, consumers paid
supracompetitive prices for brand Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte
products when a safe, effective, and cheaper generic alternative(s)
should have been available. The action arises under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. sections
1962(c) and (d) and 1964. Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages
for their injuries, and those suffered by members of the End Payer
Purchaser Class, resulting from the defendants' fraudulent and
anticompetitive conduct that delayed the entry of generic drugs
into the U.S. market, the lawsuit says.

The United Food case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2878, Re:
RANBAXY GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 11, 2019. These The actions
involve allegations that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in submitting applications for Abbreviated New Drug
Applications to improperly secure the "first-to-file" status
concerning the generic drugs Diovan, Valcyte and Nexium. The
Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania action supports
centralization in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs
Meijer Distribution, Inc., and Meijer, Inc., in two District of
Massachusetts actions support centralization in that district.
Defendants Ranbaxy Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
(collectively Ranbaxy), oppose centralization. If the Panel decides
to centralize the cases, defendants suggest the Eastern District of
New York as the transferee forum.

In its Feb. 11, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The Plaintiffs all allege that Ranbaxy adopted a
practice of ignoring FDA regulations and protocols to obtain
first-to-file status for its generic drug applications. The
first-to-file 180-day exclusivity period blocked other generic
drugs from entering the market for several months, allowing Ranbaxy
to reap large profits. When the FDA made inquiries into its
procedures, plaintiffs allege that Ranbaxy enlisted an outside law
firm, Buc & Beardsley LLP, and an ostensibly independent
consultant, Parexel Consulting LLC, to perpetuate the fraud and
falsely represent to the FDA that Ranbaxy complied with FDA
regulations. These false reports allegedly allowed Ranbaxy to gain
tentative approval of its generic drug applications and maintain
its exclusive status for several drugs, including Valcyte, Nexium,
and Diovan. Centralization is warranted to prevent inconsistent
rulings (including with respect to class certification) and
overlapping pretrial obligations, reduce costs, and create
efficiencies for the parties, courts, and witnesses. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton. The lead case
is 1:19-md-02878-NMG.

Ranbaxy Inc. manufacturers and distributes prescription, branded,
and over-the-counter drugs in the United States and Canada.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
          Renee A. Nolan, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399-4770

               - and -

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914 997-0500
          E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Daniel J. McGravey, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          2005 Market Street
          One Commerce Square, Suite 1000
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 640-8544
          Facsimile: (215) 640-8501
          E-mail: dmcgravey@clarkhill.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Robert Allen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          Citigroup Center
          153 East 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022-4611
          Telephone: (212) 446-4970
          E-mail: jlefkowitz@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Lauri A. Kavulich, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 640-8500
          Facsimile: (215) 640-8501
          E-mail: lkavulich@clarkhill.com

MERRILL LYNCH: Asks Court to Toss Class-Action
----------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that
wirehouse Merrill Lynch has asked a federal court to toss a
proposed class-action lawsuit in which a Merrill Edge client
alleges the firm "misleadingly and deceptively markets" its Maine
529 college-savings program, known as NextGen.

Thomas Baldwin, the client who filed the lawsuit, invested in the
college savings program without consulting a Merrill financial
advisor but by purchasing shares directly online. In his lawsuit,
Baldwin alleges the wirehouse marketed on its website the 529 plan
as providing the same benefits to New York State income tax payers
as those enrolled in its New York 529 program.

In its Jan. 31-filed motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Merrill argues
the suit fails to state any federal causes of action and only makes
allegations related to Maine and common laws. The federal
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act bars plaintiffs from
pursuing class actions if they have no federal causes of action,
Merrill's lawyer, Jeff Goldman, Esq. --
jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com -- from Boston offices of Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, argues in the motion.

With its motion, Merrill also counters Baldwin's characterization
of how it markets its college plan on its website.

"Baldwin's claims of misrepresentation are disproved by the very
‘screenshots' of Merrill Lynch's webpages that Baldwin includes
in his complaint," Merrill's motion states. "Those screenshots
conspicuously caution the reader, in a bolded box in the very
center of the page, that: NextGen provides certain state tax
benefits only to residents of the state of Maine. If you or the
intended beneficiary are not residents of the state of Maine, you
should consider whether your home state or your beneficiary's home
state offers any state tax or other benefits that are only
available for investments in that state's Section 529 plan."

In his lawsuit, Baldwin alleges Merrill "engages in this deceptive
conduct to entice consumers to enroll in its Maine 529 Program
instead of other plans it does not manage." Its marketing approach
"enables Merrill Lynch to earn fees, including management fees" and
"seems to be working," according to the lawsuit, signed by
Baldwin's lawyer Benjamin Donahue, Esq. -- bdonahue@hww.law -- of
Portland, Maine's Hallett Whipple Weyrens.

Merrill's Maine 529 Program in the past five years has experienced
36% asset growth, according to the lawsuit, which cited a Portland
Press Herald report.

"Merrill Lynch has been handsomely rewarded for its services with
around $40 million in annual management fees," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit focuses on the marketing and explanatory materials for
the Maine 529 program that are made available to Merrill Edge
users, or Merrill Lynch's self-directed investors. Those materials
have led to unfair trade practices and negligent representation,
the lawsuit claims. For other similarly situated NextGen 529
investors, the lawsuit seeks damages for losses they incurred as a
result of putting their college savings into the Merrill Lynch plan
rather than other alternatives.

Previously, FA-IQ reported that Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $19
million in restitution over alleged failures in supervising its
agents who were opening 529 college savings plans in the state of
Maine. Citing a Portland Press Herald article, FA-IQ reported that
Maine's state regulators alleged Merrill Lynch let agents put
investors into a plan, known as the NextGen program in Maine, into
Class C shares; Merrill Lynch earned more in fees from Class C
shares than Class A shares, but Class C shares are designed for
investing with a shorter time horizon, according to the state, the
Press Herald writes.

The wirehouse had detected the inappropriate allocation itself and
reported it to Finra, according to Bill Norbert, a spokesman for
the Finance Authority of Maine, the Press Herald reported. FAME is
the administrator of the NextGen program in Maine, according to the
Press Herald.

The NextGen fund only offered the long-term-geared class of shares
until 2006, Judith Shaw, the administrator of the Maine Office of
Securities, which issued the consent order, told the Press Herald.
Merrill Lynch didn't have a system to match the age of the
beneficiary to the class of the investment once a second share
class was added to the fund, according to the Press Herald. But
that supervisory failure on the part of the wirehouse has since
been fixed, Shaw told the Press Herald.[GN]


MINDBODY INC: Kumar Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Vista
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Kumar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mindbody, Inc., Richard Stollmeyer,
Katherine Blair Christie, Court Cunningham, Gail Goodman, Cipora
Herman, Eric Liaw, Adam Miller and Graham Smith, Case No.
19-cv-00839, (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2019), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Mindbody by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners through Torreys
Parent, LLC and Torreys Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mindbody will be sold to Vista for $36.50 in cash for each share of
Mindbody common stock held. The transaction is valued at
approximately $1.9 billion.

The complaint asserts that the proxy statement filed pursuant to
the transaction failed to disclose the details of Mindbody
insiders' potential conflicts of interest and the background
process leading to the merger and the data and inputs underlying
the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the company's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP.

Mindbody is a technology platform for the fitness, beauty and
wellness services industries. Vista Equity Partners exclusively
invests in software, data, and technology-enabled organizations.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

              - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.com


MOLSON COORS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Molson Coors Brewing Company (NYSE: TAP)
("Molson Coors" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February 14,
2017 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Molson Coors investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC
(D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740, or online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/molson-coors/to discuss their legal
rights and options with respect to this action.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that Molson Coors and certain of the Company's executive officers
made materially false and misleading statements to investors during
the Class Period about the Company's financial results.

On February 12, 2019, Molson Coors disclosed that its Audit
Committee "concluded that the Company's previously issued
consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 should be restated and no
longer be relied upon."  Additionally, Molson Coors disclosed that
"management of the Company has determined that a material weakness
existed in the Company's internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2018 relating to the design and maintenance of
effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of the
accounting for and disclosure of the income tax effects of acquired
partnership interests."  Following this news, shares of the
Company's common stock fell $6.17 per share, or 9.5% in value, to
close on February 12, 2019 at $59.19, on heavy trading volume.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased Molson Coors' common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 16, 2019,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
investor class.

For additional information about this action please contact Kaskela
Law LLC or visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/molson-coors/. Kaskela
Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and federal
actions throughout the country.  For additional information about
Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


MOLSON COORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Molson Coors Brewing Company (NYSE:TAP) from February
14, 2017 through February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Molson Coors investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Molson Coors class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1505.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Molson Coors failed
to properly reconcile the outside basis deferred income tax
liability for Molson Coors' investment in its MillerCoors, LLC
partnership; (2) consequently, Molson Coors misreported net income
in its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years
ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, resulting in an
overall downward revision to net income; (3) Molson Coors lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Molson Coors' business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 16,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1505.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Dubourgs Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR J. DUBOURG SR. and CAROL M. DUBOURG, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00265-AGF (E.D.
Mo., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and
sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by
Monsanto Company, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's
Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

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

The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate
and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread
controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans
and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to
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, 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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Everett Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE M. EVERETT, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00263 (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: Furnas Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID W. FURNAS, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00266-JAR (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate
and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread
controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans
and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to
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, 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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Howard Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. HOWARD, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00264 (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

MOVIEPASS: Hit With Class-Action Suit
-------------------------------------
William Hughes, writing for The A.V. Club, reports that bringing us
one step closer to the day when it'll be easier to catch MoviePass
in court than it is to use the subscription service to actually see
a film in theaters, Variety reports tonight that yet another
class-action suit has now been lodged against the company.
Specifically, two subscribers -- Lawrence and Laurie Weinberger, of
Sea Cliff, N.Y. -- have filed a suit against the company, alleging
that they paid a combined $210.70 for a pair of annual
subscriptions to the service in March 2018, and managed to see a
whopping total of three movies with it in the subsequent year.

Not for lack of trying, either: The Weinbergers allege, like many
subscribers, that they tried to use their MoviePass card
repeatedly, but that every time they whipped out the app, every
single screening in their area was blacked out or unavailable.
That's been a recurring criticism of the service -- or absence
thereof -- in recent months, which led to a whole different class
action suit being brought against it back in November.

Don't worry, though: The company (acquired in 2017 by Helios And
Matheson Analytics, which you'd think would empathize on some level
with consumers who also wish they hadn't recently bought MoviePass)
recently pledged to make things right, and get back to the basics
of giving away stuff for less than they paid for it. They
disclosedd a new pricing plan just last week, knocking users back
to three movies per month, raising prices in more expensive markets
like cities, and offering a premium plan allowing users to opt out
of those litigation-inducing blackouts.

You know, this whole thing is going to make one hell of a movie
someday; it's a shame we're probably going to have to pay full
ticket price to see it.[GN]


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Wins Final Nod of Settlement in Gadime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan M. Azrack grants final approval of the Class
Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit titled NILGUN GADIME, an
individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP, Case No.
2:17-cv-00777-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.).

The certified Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of New York, to whom
     The Law Office Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP mailed
     a written communication between February 10, 2016, and
     March 2, 2017, which sought to collect a medical debt from
     the parent of an adult child.

MJRF will create two settlement funds ("Class Recovery"):

   * Actual Damage Fund.  MJRF will create an Actual Damage Fund
     of $2,200.00.  Each Class Member who did not exclude
     him/herself and who timely returned a claim form
     ("Claimants") is entitled to receive a payment from the
     Actual Damage Fund in an amount equal to 100% of the monies
     MJRF collected from each Claimant; and

   * Statutory Damage Fund.  MJRF will also create a Statutory
     Damage Fund of $10,000.00, which shall be distributed pro
     rata to each Claimant.

Claimants will receive their share of the Class Recovery by check.
Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of
issuance.

The Settlement also provides that MJRF shall pay the Plaintiff
$3,500 and the Class Counsel $16,000 for his attorneys' fees and
costs.  MJRF shall separately pay all costs of notice and
administration incurred by the Administrator.

Judge Azrack also directs the Plaintiff's counsel to file with the
Court a final report identifying the amount and number of any
uncashed checks and explaining the final distribution of the two
Settlement Funds.[CC]


NATIONAL GRID: Brian Cunha Talks Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Anita Baffoni, writing for FOX Providence, reports that attorney
Brian Cunha, Esq. -- brian@briancunha.com -- is representing the
small businesses and residents in a class-action lawsuit against
National Grid and Enbridge,a Canada-based natural gas supplier.

He joined Dan Yorke to discuss the lawsuits following a gas outage
in Newport during an extremely cold week in January.[GN]


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Mitchell Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIE MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19cv607 (E.D. Pa., Feb.
11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

NRA GROUP, LLC, doing business as National Recovery Agency,
operates as an accounts receivable (A/R) management company that
provides debt collection, skip tracing, and credit bureau reporting
services to companies in the United States. The company was
formerly known as National Recovery Agency, Inc., and changed its
name to NRA GROUP, LLC in 2005. The company was founded in 2005 and
is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania with additional offices in
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Provo, Utah; Los Angles, California;
Panama City, Panama; and Pune, India. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Continues to Probe Officers & Directors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF continues its investigation into Navient
Corporation (NasdaqGS: NAVI).

Throughout 2017 and 2018, Navient was sued in several civil suits
by the U.S. CFPB and Attorneys General from Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Washington, California and Mississippi for violations of consumer
protection laws based on allegations of widespread acts of
misconduct toward loan borrowers. Recently, the court presiding
over the PA suit refused to dismiss the case, allowing it to
proceed.

In October 2017, the Company was sued in a securities class action
lawsuit for failing to disclose material information, which is
ongoing. In October 2018, the Company was sued in a consumer class
action lawsuit for misleading borrowers regarding the terms and
options available for their loans.

Recently, the court presiding over another securities class action
lawsuit filed against the Company in 2016 for allegedly concealing
the risk exposure in its loan holdings denied the Company's motion
to dismiss in part, allowing the case to proceed.

The actions of the Company's executives have exposed it to
potential penalties, fines and other financial losses from the
numerous investigations and lawsuits by public officials, consumers
and shareholders.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Navient's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Navient's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Navient shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn, Esq., -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navi/ to learn more.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NCAA: Pacchioni Sues over Safety of Wilkes Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PACCHIONI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and WILKES UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00814-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of Wilkes student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NCAA: Phipps Sues over Health & Safety of Baylor Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA PHIPPS, individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Morris Trent Phipps, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00819-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of Baylor student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NEW BALANCE: Notice Procedure in Dashnaw Suit Partly Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHEILA DASHNAW et al., Plaintiff, v. NEW BALANCE
ATHLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17cv159-L (JLB) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
parties' Joint Motion to Modify Notice Plan, Class Notice, and
Settlement Implementation Dates.

On Jan. 24, 2019, the Court issued the Order Granting Plaintiff's
Second Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.
Among other things, the January 24 Order preliminarily approved the
proposed class action settlement contained in the Amended
Settlement Agreement signed Dec. 7, 2018, set the content and
procedure for a full length and summary notice to the settlement
class, and provided a schedule through the final settlement
approval hearing.

On Feb. 15, 2019, the parties filed the Joint Motion, seeking
relief from failure to timely comply with the January 24 Order.
They seek to delay Notice distribution and increase the Notice cost
to the putative Class members by $20,000.  

The parties explain that they did not comply with the January 24
Order because they discovered the summary notice was too long for
the 1/8 page ad they had proposed in their Second Renewed Motion,
and that a 1/4 page ad is needed, which will increase the Notice
expense from the $200,000 estimate in the Settlement to $220,000.
According to the parties, this will decrease the settlement fund
available to the Class members; however, the estimated claim
payments will be reduced by less than $0.25.

Because the monetary effect on the projected individual Class
member recovery is small, the change to a 1/4 page ad does not
alter the Court's finding in the January 24 Order that the terms of
the Settlement are in the range of possible approval as fair,
reasonable and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).  Accordingly, Judge Lorenz granted the request to modify the
January 24 Order to accommodate the higher cost of a larger print
ad.

The parties request to delay the distribution of Notice by two
weeks or more, and the final settlement approval hearing by
approximately six weeks.  They contend that they did not comply
with the January 24 Order because they discovered that the new
Court Approved Summary notice at 1,100 words is more than double
the word count that would fit in the proposed 1/8-page ad unit.

Although the moving parties failed to give any plausible
explanation for their oversight, the Judge is not in the position
to deny their request for extension of time, because it would
deprive the putative Class members of their choice to participate
in the Settlement.

For the foregoing reasons, the request for extension of time is
granted, but only insofar as it does not unduly delay Settlement
administration.  The January 24 Order is supplemented and amended
as follows:

    1. The Settlement Administrator will forthwith, and in no event
later than Feb. 22, 2019, disseminate the long form notice and
publish the summary notice with changes as approved in the Order.

    2. The Settlement Administrator will forthwith, and in no event
later than March 1, 2019, send the hard copy summary notices with
changes as approved in the Order.

    3. No later than March 14, 2019, the Settlement Administrator
will re-send hard copy summary notices which were returned as
undeliverable.

    4. No later than June 6, 2019, the Class members will submit
their claims or requests for exclusion, if any, by following
instructions in the long form notice.

    5. To the extent the Class members choose to file written
objections, they are encouraged to do so no later than June 14,
2019. Any replies to objections will be filed no later than June
21, 2019.

    6. No later than June 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs will file their
motion for final approval of the Settlement.  In addition to the
requirements stated in the January 24 Order, the motion papers will
include a detailed breakdown of fees and costs incurred by the
Settlement Administrator, which must include the invoice for
publishing the summary notice in print as well as other vendor
invoices.

    7. To the extent any Class members choose to file a Notice to
Appear, they are encouraged to do so no later than July 8, 2019.

    8. The final approval hearing is continued to July 15, 2019 at
10:30 a.m.

The parties request to make three changes to the Notice content.
They request that (1) the notices reflect the new schedule leading
to the final approval hearing; (2) the notices incorporate the
increased cost; and (3) the Class members, should they chose to
submit written objections to the Settlement, be directed to file
them with the Court instead of also submitting them to the
Settlement Administrator.

Based on the findings, the Judge granted the request to amend the
Notice.  The January 24 Order is supplemented and amended to permit
changing the Notice to reflect (1) the dates set forth; (2) the
increased cost of printed ad notice; and (3) the change in the
procedure for objecting to the Settlement, i.e., written objections
to the Settlement, if any, need not be submitted to the Settlement
Administrator, but may be filed with the Court.

Finally, the parties request that the summary notice be published
in print in the People Magazine's California edition instead of the
Los Angeles Times as recommended in the Second Renewed Motion and
approved in the January 24 Order.  They claim this is necessary to
reduce the cost of the larger ad size.  While a ¼-page ad in the
Los Angeles Times, 4 times a week would increase the cost of notice
by $30,000, the same size ad in People Magazine's California
edition (presumably only once a week) will increase it by $20,000.
The Claim Administrator assures that publication in the People
Magazine's California edition will not reach fewer, but slightly
more putative Class members.

Based on the representations in the parties' briefing and
declarations, the Judge finds that changing print publication of
the summary notice to People Magazine's California edition will not
diminish the adequacy of notice to meet due process requirements
and requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and
(e)(1).  The request to change the publication is therefore
granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz granted in part and denied
in part the Joint Motion as stated.  The Order amends and
supplements the January 24 Order.  Unless expressly stated, all
duties and obligations imposed by the Settlement and the January 24
Order remain in effect.  The Court is not inclined to entertain any
further requests for modification to the Notice and Settlement
administration process.  The Order will forthwith be posted on the
Settlement website.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/I9jDoo from Leagle.com.

Sheila Dashnaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, William Meier, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sherryl Jones, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason
Hoon Kim, O'Melveny and Myers, Todd M. Schneider --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky LLP & Aubry Wand -- awand@wandlawfirm.com -- The
Wand Law Firm.

New Balance Athletics, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented
by Elizabeth E. Brenckman -- brenckman@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson
P.C., pro hac vice, Garrett K. Sakimae -- sakimae@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., Laura B. Najemy -- najemy@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Puzella, Fish & Richardson
P.C., pro hac vice, Richard David Hosp -- hosp@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., pro hac vice & Sheryl K. Garko -- garko@fr.com --
Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice.

The Attorney General of the State of California, Miscellaneous
Party, represented by Timothy Dean Lundgren.


NEW YORK CITY: Hill Seeks Redefinition of Section 1981 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Hill, et al. v. City of New
York, et al., Case No. 13-cv-6147 (PKC)(JO) (E.D.N.Y.), move to
recertify the Rule 23(b)(2) class as a single Section 1981 class.

Pursuant to the Court's Order, the City previously filed the Notice
of Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing, which is "Exhibit A"
to the Proposed Settlement Agreement, on January 11, 2019.

The Plaintiffs move for the Court to redefine and certify this
class definition, as now stated in the attached Proposed Settlement
Agreement:

Section 1981 Class Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2):

     All individuals who were employed by the City of New York as
     PCTs or SPCTs in the NYPD Communications Section at any time
     between November 6, 2010 and October 23, 2018.

Certification of this class is more aligned with the theory of the
case, which alleges that the City's predominately non-minority
dispatcher units outside the NYPD, including the FDNY and EMS
dispatcher units, are treated more favorably, the Plaintiffs
assert.  The Defendants do not oppose this motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq.
          MADUEGBUNA COOPER LLP
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 232-0155
          Facsimile: (212) 232-0156
          E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com


NISSAN NORTH: Briefing Sched for Bashaw Suit Dismissal Bid Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHY BASHAW, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07292-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has issued
an order modifying the briefing schedule for Defendants Nissan
North America ("NNA")'s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer in Bashaw and
Kerkorian suits.

On Nov. 30, 2018, Bashaw filed a putative class action Complaint
against Defendants NNA and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.  On Dec. 31,
2018, Plaintiffs Vaughn Kerkorian and David Turner filed a putative
class action Complaint against the Defendants captioned Kerkorian
v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al., No. 4:18-cv-07815-HSG (N.D.
Cal. filed Dec. 31, 2018).  On Jan. 3, 2019, Plaintiff Bashaw filed
a Motion for Consolidation and Appointment of Interim Class
Counsel, which, among other things, seeks consolidation of the
action with the Kerkorian action.

On Jan. 15, 2019, Defendant NNA filed in the Bashaw and Kerkorian
actions a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue or, In
the Alternative, Transfer for Convenience, and set with the Court's
permission March 14, 2019 as the hearing date.  The Plaintiffs'
oppositions to the Motions to Transfer are due Feb. 21, 2019, and
NNA's reply briefs are due Feb. 28, 2019.

On Feb. 11, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on the pending
Motion for Consolidation and Motions to Transfer from March 14,
2019 to April 11, 2019.  The Plaintiffs and NNA have met and
conferred through the counsel and have agreed to modify the
briefing schedule for NNA's Motions to Transfer.

The stipulated modifications to the briefing schedule will not
alter the April 11, 2019, hearing date or otherwise impact any
other deadlines already set by the Court.  By entering into the
Stipulation, NNA does not waive, and preserves, any and all
defenses, objections, and motions available to it under federal or
state law, including without limitation any defenses that it may
raise under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) or any other due
order of pleadings motion.

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulated, and
Judge Gilliam granted, as follows:

     1) The Plaintiffs in the Bashaw and Kerkorian actions will
file their opposition(s) to the pending Motions to Transfer on or
before Feb. 28, 2019;

     2) Defendant NNA will file its reply briefs in support of the
pending Motions to Transfer on or before March 14, 2019;

     3) If the Court denies this Stipulation prior to the
Plaintiffs' filing of their opposition brief(s), NNA agrees not to
argue the Plaintiffs waived their opposition to the Motions to
Transfer if the Plaintiffs file their opposition brief(s) within
three days of such denial.

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

Cathy Bashaw, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frederick J. Klorczyk,
III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul
Cauley, Jr., Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Matthew Jacob Adler --
matthew.adler dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Paul Jeffrey
Riehle, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


NOBLES COUNTY, MN: ACLU Suit Granted Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt McKinney, writing for Minneapolis Star Tribune, reports that
a district judge has approved class-action status for an American
Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against Nobles County and the Nobles
County Sheriff's Office over immigration detentions.

The suit alleges the sheriff doesn't have legal grounds to hold
some detainees but does so anyway at the request of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement authorities. The suit has four named plaintiffs
but could see a class size of at least 40, court papers show.[GN]


NUNEZ GROUP: Mediate Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MEDIATE, on behalf of himself individually and others
similarly situated v. THE NUNEZ GROUP, LLC, d/b/a El Chingon
Mexican Bistro, and LORENZO NUNEZ JR., an individual, Case No.
1:19-cv-00579 (D. Colo., February 27, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by
the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Mr. Mediate worked as a server for the Defendants' restaurant for
almost two years.  During this time, he alleges, the restaurant
frequently bounced his paychecks, paid him late, and improperly
required him to tip out to "back of the house" staff (i.e. kitchen
workers, such as cooks and sous chefs).

The Nunez Group, LLC, doing business as El Chingon Mexican Bistro,
is a corporation doing business within Denver County, and whose
principal place of business is located in Denver, Colorado.  The
Individual Defendant is the owner of the restaurant and is
considered the primary boss.

El Chingon operates a restaurant, El Chingon Mexican Bistro,
located at 4326 Tennyson St., in Denver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


OFFICINA PROFUMO: Olsen Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officina Profumo Farmaceutica Di Santa Maria Novella of America
Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Thomas J.
Olsen, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Officina Profumo Farmaceutica Di Santa Maria
Novella of America Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01984
(S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2019).

Officina Profumo Farmaceutica Di Santa Maria Novella of America
Corporation is a Cosmetics store in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Offers Counseling to Alleged Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kantele Franko, writing for Minneapolis Star Tribune, reports that
Ohio State is offering to help provide free counseling services
through outside providers for the 150-plus alumni who say they
experienced sexual misconduct by a university team doctor decades
ago.

Praesidium, a company that has experience in responding to
incidents of sexual abuse, will help alumni access counseling that
is needed because of the conduct of the late Dr. Richard Strauss,
and no contact with the university is required, according to a
letter the university said was sent Friday to over 115,000 alumni
from Strauss' era. Those who already pursued such counseling
because of encounters with Strauss can seek further resources
through Praesidium, the letter from President Michael Drake said.

Dozens of plaintiffs in two related lawsuits allege Ohio State
ignored or failed to stop sexual misconduct by the late Dr. Richard
Strauss. Attorneys for those men said the offer of counseling is a
positive step but decades late.

"These guys had to live the last few decades with the harm that was
done by Strauss," said Stephen Estey, Esq. --
steve@estey-bomberger.com -- one of the lawyers handling a
class-action complaint against OSU.

Scott Elliot Smith, Esq. an attorney in the other lawsuit, called
it "disingenuous" that Ohio State "is just now acknowledging the
impact and long term effect of the trauma its indifference has
caused to so many men."

He also questioned the timing, noting that OSU offered counseling
after a federal judge pointed the cases toward mediation .

The university said in a statement that its guiding principle since
a survivor first came forward last spring has been "to lift up and
support our community while we pursue the truth," and that as the
law firm investigating the allegations for OSU nears the end of
that work, Ohio State felt it was important to offer counseling
services.

Strauss' accusers say they were unnecessarily groped during exams
or experienced other sexual misconduct by the physician between
1979 and 1997, nearly his whole tenure at the school. The
allegations involve male athletes from at least 16 sports, plus
Strauss' off-campus medical office and work at the student health
center.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is
reviewing whether OSU responded appropriately to concerns about
Strauss.

Meanwhile, the school and the plaintiffs in the lawsuits are at
odds over who might guide the process toward potential settlement.

The plaintiffs recommended mediation teams led by former federal
judge Layn Phillips, who mediated recent sexual misconduct cases
involving Michigan State University and the University of Southern
California, or Kenneth Feinberg, who worked on Penn State cases and
mediating sexual abuse claims involving the Catholic church .

But Ohio State said in a court filing on Jan. 31 that it won't
agree to those mediators because the handling of the Michigan State
and Penn State matters led to controversy. The university instead
recommended former federal Judge James Holderman or Paul Calico,
the chief mediator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, saying both have expertise in mediation.

Strauss killed himself in 2005. Although his family expressed
shock, no one has publicly defended him since the allegations were
raised last spring.

Employment records released by the university reflect no major
concerns about Strauss, but alumni have said they complained about
him as far back as the late 1970s. Ohio State has at least one
documented complaint from 1995.

Some Strauss accusers have questioned the independence of that
investigation. Ohio State says it's committed to uncovering the
truth and will publicly share the findings.

The State Medical Board said it never disciplined Strauss, but it
has acknowledged having confidential records about the
investigation of a complaint involving him. It won't disclose
details. [GN]


PARK CAKE: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Ruiz Says
-------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PARK CAKE, INC., d/b/a L'EXPRESS
RESTAURANT, and SIMON OREN, ANDREW SILVERMAN, and ANN BRYNELL, as
individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01748 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
25, 2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's
employment at the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant from August 2016 until September 2018. The Plaintiff was
a food preparer and kitchen worker, and performing other
miscellaneous duties from in or around August 2016 until in or
around September 2018.

Although the Plaintiff worked 58.5 hours or more per week during
the period of his employment, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
1.5 hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully
failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a consipicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

PAX VENTURES: Pimental Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PIMENTAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PAX VENTURES, LLC, BORDEN KITCHEN, LLC, 740 ROAST CORP.,
ALEXANDER XENOPOULOS, and PETER XENOPOULOS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01846
(S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Pax Ventures, LLC, was a domestic limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
place of business in New York City.  Pax was the umbrella company
for New York City-based fast casual food chains Pax Wholesome
Foods, Cafe Europa, and Roast Kitchen.  Pax ceased operations and
closed Pax Wholesome Foods in September 2018.  Pax was dissolved on
February 22, 2019.

740 Roast Corp. is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the state of New York, which has a principal place of
business in New York City.  740 Roast Corp. owns and operates a
restaurant doing business as Roast Kitchen located in New York
City.

Borden Kitchen, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of New York, which has a
principal place of business in Long Island City, New York.  Borden
Kitchen owns and operates a commissary where all food items for
sale at all New York City-based Pax Wholesome Foods and Roast
Kitchen restaurants are cooked and prepared.  The Individual
Defendants are officers, members, partners, owners, shareholders,
directors, supervisors, managing agents, and/or proprietors of each
of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PB&J CONWAY: Underpays Red Robin Staff, Wilson & Watson Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY WILSON and SUSAN WATSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PB&J CONWAY RR LLC
and PB&J RESTAURANTS INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00148-BRW (E.D. Ark., Feb. 25, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other persons
employed as tip-earning hourly-paid employees similarly situated
minimum wages and overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs and other tip-earning hourly employees spent more
than 20% -- and usually substantially more their time performing
non-tipped duties for Defendants such as performing side work,
cleaning the restaurant, and other non-tipped duties. Because
Plaintiffs and other tip-earning hourly employees spent more than
20% of their time performing non-tipped duties for Defendants,
Defendants were not lawfully entitled to take advantage of the tip
credit established by 29 U.S.C. section 203(m).  Thus, Defendants
were required to pay Plaintiffs and other tip-earning hourly
employees at a rate equal to at least the applicable minimum wage
per hour for their non-tipped work, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and/or operate Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and
Brews located at 1025 South Amity Road, Conway, Arkansas 72032, at
which Plaintiffs were previously employed.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: Blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  Josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

PESSCO LLC: Valdez Moves to Certify Class of Welders and Foremen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Valdez asks the Court to conditionally certify his case
captioned ARTURO VALDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PESSCO, LLC d/b/a PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT SALES
& SERVICES and GEN-NAN RESOURCES & EQUIPMENT, L.P., Case No.
7:18-cv-00094-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), as a collective action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of:

     All welders and shop/working foremen who regularly worked in
     excess of forty hours per week and who were not paid proper
     overtime compensation during the last three years.

Mr. Valdez also asks the Court to authorize the issuance of notice
to potential class members via mail and e-mail, and to order
Production Equipment to produce verified contact information,
including e-mail addresses, for all putative class members so that
notice may be timely implemented.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bridget@mooreandassociates.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          C.H. (Hal) Brockett, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan J. McNeel, Esq.
          BROCKETT & MCNEEL LLP
          TGAAR Tower
          24 Smith Road, Suite 400
          Midland, TX 79705
          Telephone: (432) 686-7743


PHOENIX INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSP Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES
16-11-509 LLC, a designated series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC v. THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Domestic For-Profit entity,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00436 (N.D. Ohio, February 27, 2019), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y, otherwise known as the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act or the MSP Law, arising from the
Defendant's alleged systematic and uniform failure to reimburse
conditional Medicare payments made by Medicare Advantage
Organizations.

Phoenix Insurance Company is a domestic for-profit entity.  The
Defendant is an insurance company that is authorized to and
presently conducts business in the state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          John Martin Murphy, Esq.
          William Mason, Jr., Esq.
          Edward J. Kelley, III, Esq.
          KELLEY & FERRARO, L.L.P.
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1300
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 575-0777
          Facsimile: (216) 575-0799
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jmurphy@kelleyferraro.com
                  mmason@kelleyferraro.com
                  ejkelley@kelleyferraro.com

               - and -

          Paul Napoli, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          Danielle Marlow, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: PNapoli@napolilaw.com
                  SBadala@napolilaw.com
                  DMarlow@napolilaw.com


PITNEY BOWES: City of Livonia Retiree Plan's Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. 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 putative class action entitled, City of Livonia Retiree
Health and Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the
Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging,
among other things, that the Company failed to make certain
disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017
performance at the time of the notes offering. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.

In addition, in December 2018 and then in February 2018 certain of
the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in
two virtually identical derivative actions purportedly brought on
behalf of the Company, Clem v. Lautenbach et al. and Devolin v.
Lautenbach et al.

These two actions, both filed by the same counsel in Connecticut
state court allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty
relating to these same disclosures, and seek compensatory damages
and other relief derivatively for the benefit of the Company.

Pitney Bowes said, "Although litigation outcomes are inherently
unpredictable, we believe these matters are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this
time."

Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location
intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in three
segments: Commerce Services; Small & Medium Business Solutions; and
Software Solutions. The company was formerly known as Pitney Bowes
Postage Meter Company. Pitney Bowes Inc. was founded in 1920 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES: Porras Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Blank
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Porras, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01542 (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as other fraud.

Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. develops, manufactures, and
distributes of protective solutions, such as body armor and
ballistic systems for the U.S. Military and Department of Defense,
federal agencies, domestic and international law enforcement, and
correction professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phong L Tran, Esq.
   Johnson Fistel LLP
   655 West Broadway Suite 1400
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 230-0063
   Fax: (619) 255-1856
   Email: phongt@johnsonfistel.com



PROSHARES SHORT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures (NYSEArca: SVXY)

Class Period: Investors in ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
ETF pursuant to the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement and/or
between May 15, 2017 and February 5, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 1, 2019

Join the action: https://tinyurl.com/yyl56fgh

The lawsuit alleges: ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: According to the complaint in the Registration
Statement and during the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information
regarding the risks of investing in the Fund. Specifically, the
Registration Statement failed to disclose that the Fund was
threatened with catastrophic losses as a result of the Fund's
flawed design and the low-volatility environment and acute
liquidity risks that existed during the Class Period. In addition,
during the Class Period defendants made similar false and
misleading statements in numerous financial reports and draft
prospectuses and registration statements filed with the SEC.

To learn more about the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


PROVIDENCE PLANTATION: Nickerson to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON NICKERSON, and Similarly-situated Inmates, v.
PROVIDENCE PLANTATION, et al, C.A. No. 19-00030-WES (D. R.I.),
Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island recommended that (i) the Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be granted; and (ii) the
Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

On Jan. 25, 2019, Nickerson, a state inmate, filed a hand-written
pro se Complaint consisting of 121 pages and 529 numbered
paragraphs.  He sues on his own behalf as well as
similarly-situated individuals who are/can be/have been
incarcerated in Maximum Security and/or served food from a
R.I.D.O.C. dining hall and Keefe Commissary store order including
parolees and those on probation.

The Plaintiff sues over 80 individuals and entities (both
governmental and private) ranging from Rhode Island's Governor and
Department Directors to rank-and-file Correctional Officers,
Counselors, Doctors, Nurses, a Dietician and a Chaplain.  His legal
claims are numerous and include allegations of racial
discrimination, retaliation, unsanitary food service and living
conditions, inadequate medical care, anti-trust violations, cruel
and unusual punishments and deprivation of due process.

The Plaintiff's Complaint is accompanied by an Application to
Proceed IFP without being required to prepay costs or fees,
including the $400.00 civil case filing fee.

After reviewing the Plaintiff's Application signed under penalty of
perjury, Magistrate Judge Almond concludes that the Plaintiff is
unable to pay fees and costs in the matter and thus, his
Application to Proceed IFP is granted.

Having granted IFP status, the Court is required by statute to
further review the Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B) and to dismiss the suit if it is "frivolous or
malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"
or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief."

As presently drafted, the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint is neither
short nor plain.  Although his Complaint is factually intensive,
his legal claims for relief are conclusory and stated against large
groups of the Defendants without any clear delineation of their
respective involvement.  While dismissal of the present Complaint
is recommended, the Magistrate also recommends that the dismissal
be without prejudice and with leave for the Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint to remedy the pleading deficiencies noted.

Next, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiffs presents no viable
or plausible legal or factual theories of legal recovery against
the Defendants.  In particular, he sues the Cities of Providence
and Cranston, the Counties of Providence and Kent, the Rhode Island
Department of Health and Department of Human Services, and the
Directors of those Departments in their official capacities.  The
Plaintiff has simply not stated any legally viable claims against
these entities, and thus they are not proper Defendants in this
case.

Because the Plaintiff as a pro se litigant may not represent any
interests but his own, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff has
no legal standing to represent a Rule 23 class and thus his class
action claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

The conclusory allegations described fall far short of alleging the
affirmative link necessary to state a plausible claim of
supervisory liability under Section 1983.  The Plaintiff fails to
clearly identify who he is suing in their supervisory capacity and
the factual basis for the required "affirmative link" needed to
support a claim of supervisory liability.

Finally, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff raises several
issues here which plainly arose more than three years prior to the
suit being initiated on Jan. 25, 2019.  These claims are
time-barred on their face and, in part, appear to be challenges to
the lawfulness of his state criminal conviction and resulting
incarceration which are not properly pursued under Section 1983.
Thus, any of the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims accruing prior to
Jan. 25, 2016 should be dismissed at screening as time-barred, as
well as any claims attacking the legality of his state criminal
conviction.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Lincoln granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  However, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), he further recommends that the
Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave
to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the District Court's
Order of Dismissal which remedies the numerous pleading
deficiencies noted.  In addition, should the Plaintiff choose to
file an Amended Complaint, he is advised, first and foremost, to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.

He should also ensure that his Complaint: (i) includes the names of
all Defendants in the caption; (ii) sets forth his allegations in
separately-numbered paragraphs; (iii) complies with Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provides adequate notice
to the individual Defendants of the nature and basis of his claims
against each of them; (iv) states where and when the acts or
omissions about which he complains occurred and who allegedly
committed those acts or omissions; and (v)  states plainly the
basis for his individual claim(s) against each Defendant, the right
violated and the relief which he is seeking against each.

Any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be specific and
must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of its
receipt.  Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner
constitutes waiver of the right to review by the District Court and
the right to appeal the District Court's decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3HBIvX from Leagle.com.

Jason Nickerson, Plaintiff, pro se.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Battles $100M Class-Action Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inside Self-Storage reports that Public Storage Inc., a publicly
traded self-storage real estate investment trust (REIT) and
third-party management firm, is facing a $100 million class-action
lawsuit from past tenants claiming they were forced to buy tenant
insurance from the company as a condition of renting a unit. Filed
in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County, Perez, et. al.
vs. Public Storage alleges employees misled customers into
believing they had to obtain tenant insurance through the REIT as a
uniform practice, which violates California's unfair competition
law, according to a source.

In its legal filings, Public Storage argues that it requires
tenants to have insurance for the goods they store but doesn't
stipulate where a policy must be purchased. The REIT also maintains
its managers don't offer insurance advice or check for proof of
insurance if the company's offering is declined, a source
reported.

Public Storage attorneys on Jan. 29 asked the judge to decertify
the class, arguing that plaintiff testimony amounts only to a few
isolated cases in which employees went "off-script" and, therefore,
doesn't meet the court's mandate that class certification must
apply only to instances in which staff carried out a company wide
policy.

Clare Ingram, a Public Storage district manager, testified that
company employees must follow a specific script and related
procedures when renting storage units. Employees are trained to
tell customers that insurance is a rental requirement and buying a
policy through the company is an option, Ingram told the court. If
a customer declines to purchase insurance through Public Storage,
managers don't ask for proof of insurance, she said. Ingram also
indicated that telling customers they had to buy insurance through
Public Storage wasn't consistent with company training and
policies.

Recently retired former chief financial officer Edward Reyes also
testified on Jan. 29, telling the court the REIT's tenant-insurance
program accounts for less than 5 percent of company revenue.

The class of plaintiffs is comprised of tenants who rented a Public
Storage unit in California between Feb. 3, 2012, and Feb. 8, 2016.

In 2015, Public Storage settled a class-action suit in Florida in
which plaintiffs claimed the REIT misrepresented how it was using
the premiums collected from customers who bought tenant insurance
through the company, a source reported.

Based in Glendale, Calif., Public Storage has interests in 2,418
self-storage facilities in 38 states, with approximately 161
million net rentable square feet. Operating under the Shurgard
brand name, the company also has 228 facilities in seven European
countries, with approximately 12 million net rentable square
feet.[GN]


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. discloseds that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RVLT) securities between March 14, 2014 and November 14, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until April 1, 2019 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that the company was improperly recognizing revenue
for certain transactions; (2) that, as a result, the company's
financial statements were misstated; (3) that the company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; (4) that, as a
result, company would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur
substantial costs; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Revolution securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this disclosedment or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
                  https://bespc.com/rvlt/
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the April
1, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors that purchased Revolution
Lighting Technologies, Inc. ("Revolution" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: RVLT) securities between March 14, 2014, and November 14,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") Revolution investors have
until April 1, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On October 17, 2018, Revolution announced that revenue for the
third quarter of 2018 would be $33 million, compared to previous
guidance of $40-$41 million, and that the Chief Executive Officer
had offered to acquire all of the Company's common stock at a price
of $2.00 per share. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$0.98 per share, or over 38%, to close at $1.58 per share on
October 17, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on October 19, 2018, the Company disclosed an ongoing SEC
investigation regarding revenue recognized from transactions
between 2014 through the second quarter of 2018. The Company
estimated that the net effect on the reported revenue based on
shipment of products, as opposed to the Company's policy of bill
and hold revenue recognition, "would have been to reduce revenue by
$5.0 million, $6.3 million and $6.3 million in each of 2014, 2015
and 2016, respectively, and increase revenue by $11.6 million and
$5.1 million in 2017 and 2018, respectively."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or
over 10%, to close at $1.43 per share on October 22, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume, thereby further injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was improperly
recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's financial statements were misstated; (3) that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; (4) that, as a result, Company would be subject to
regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Revolution, you may move the Court no
later than April 1, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters please;

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


ROYAL CREDIT: Streitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Credit Union.
The case is styled as Maximilian Streitz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Credit Union,
Repossessors Inc and John Doe Repossession Companies 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-00535 (D. Minn., 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.

Royal Credit Union is a stable, innovative, and full service credit
union providing financial services to eastern Minnesota and western
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas J Lyons , Jr, Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center P.A.
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Fax: (651) 704-0907
   Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Grants Leave to Amend J.L. Mourning Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFERY LEE MOURNING, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM GORE et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California recommends that: (1)
the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied without
prejudice; (2) the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend be granted
with instructions to file an amended pleading within the objections
period for the Report and Recommendation; (3) the Plaintiff's
request for class certification be denied; and (4) the Plaintiff's
Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiff is a homeless veteran who receives monthly
non-service connected United States Veterans' Administration
("V.A.") pension checks.  Because he does not have a permanent
address, the Plaintiff normally receives his pension checks at a
church in San Diego, California.  

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff was arrested by San Diego law
enforcement officers on suspicion of felony vandalism, and his bail
was set at $45,000.  Shortly thereafter, he was transferred to the
George Bailey Detention Facility ("GBDF") in San Diego,
California.

While being held as a pretrial detainee, the Plaintiff made several
requests of GBDF staff to place a phone call to either the V.A., or
his social worker at the church, so he could re-route his pension
checks to GBDF.  However, the telephone system at GBDF, provided by
Securus Telephone Co., did not allow outgoing phone calls to 1-800
numbers; this restriction prevented the Plaintiff from calling the
1-800 number for the V.A.  Although Plaintiff was allowed to write
letters, he was prohibited from using a different telephone system
to contact either the V.A. or his social worker. As a result,
Plaintiff did not receive his pension checks for approximately
three months -- until he wrote his local congressman, who was able
to reach out to the V.A. and re-route the checks to GBDF.  Because
he did not receive his pension checks in time, the Plaintiff was
unable to post bail or retain private counsel of his choosing,
although he was appointed counsel by the state court.

On Sept. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, alleging violations
of the Fourteenth Amendment and interference with his right to
counsel.  He names San Diego County Sheriff William Gore and
Securus Telephone Company as the Defendants, and prays for
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which
was granted on Jan. 3, 2019, with instructions to the U.S. Marshal
to effect service of the Complaint on the named Defendants.  On
Feb. 1, 2019, Sheriff Gore was served.  On Feb. 12, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  On Feb. 13, 2019,
he filed two more motions: the first, to amend the Complaint to
include a demand for damages and certify his lawsuit as a class
action; and the second, to appoint counsel.

The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as to all of the claims
contained in his Complaint.  However, the motion is premature given
the procedural posture of the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to
carry his burden of proof.  Therefore, Magistrate Judge Montenegro
respectfully recommended that the Court denies the Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice.

The Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint to add a prayer
for damages and class action allegations.  Although he has not
complied with the Local Civil Rule requiring him to submit a copy
of his proposed amended pleading, the Plaintiff has included the
specific language he intends to insert in his amended Complaint.
Given the policies to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se
civil rights litigants, and of liberally granting leave to amend,
the Magistrate respectfully recommended that the Court grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, orders the Plaintiff to file
an amended pleading within the objection period for the Report and
Recommendation.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint contains a request to
certify the lawsuit as a class action.  He proposes that the class
be composed of similarly situated American veterans who collect
incomes from the United States Treasury Department as non-service
connected and service connected veterans.  However, the Magistrate
finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the class
certification prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a).  Therefore, she respectfully recommended that the Court
denies the Plaintiff's Motion.

Finally, the Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint counsel to
represent him in the matter.  However, the Plaintiff has shown he
is capable of litigating the case pro se, and the Plaintiff could
arguably prove his case on his own if he were able to produce
sufficient evidence.  Therefore, the Magistrate respectfully
recommended that the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint
Counsel.

Magistrate Judge Montenegro respectfully submitted the Report and
Recommendation to Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.  For the reasons set
forth, she recommended that the Court issues an order (1) approving
and adopting the Report and Recommendation; (2) denying the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; (3)
granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, and instructing
the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint during the objections
period for the Report and Recommendation; (4) denying the
Plaintiff's request for class certification; and (5) denying th
Plaintiff's Motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.

No later than March 22, 2019, any parties to the action may filed
written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties.
The document should be captioned "Objections to Report and
Recommendation."  Any reply to the objections will be filed with
the Court and served on all parties no later than April 21, 2019.
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on
appeal of the Court's Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/vC6JaF from
Leagle.com.

Jeffery Lee Mourning, Plaintiff, pro se.


SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Partial Summ. Judgment Bid in Armendariz Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ, ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH
VIGIL, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official
capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00339-WJ-LF (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the
County Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The case is a putative class action arising from the Defendants'
renovation of the shower facilities at the Santa Fe Adult
Correctional Facility in 2014 when the Plaintiffs and the class
members were inmates at the ACF.  The Plaintiffs allege that they
were exposed to dust, debris, and hazardous chemicals, which caused
them injury.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains four claims: (1)
Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against
the County Defendants; (2) Supervisory Liability under Section 1983
against the County Defendants; (3) claims under the New Mexico Tort
Claims Act against the County Defendants; and (4) claims against
Defendant ICC under New Mexico Common Law.

The matter comes before the Court upon a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment by the County Defendants, Santa Fe County Board of
Commissioners and Mark Gallegos, filed on July 23, 2018.  In the
motion, they seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims
in Counts I and II because they are barred by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act ("PLRA") due to these Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the
available grievance procedure available at the Santa Fe County
Adult Detention Facility.

Judge Johnson sees two options in the case.  The first is to issue
a ruling that is conditional on the Court's subsequent
certification of the class.  The vicarious exhaustion rule would
apply to all the Plaintiffs if the class if certified, but would
not apply to the non-exhausted Plaintiffs if class certification is
denied.  Under this option, only the Plaintiffs who are class
members from certified classes would benefit from the vicarious
exhaustion rule -- which is consistent with the case law presented
by both parties.  The second option is for the Court to defer
ruling on this motion until after it decides the class
certification issue.  Having come this far, the Judge finds that
the first option is the most expeditious.

The Judge holds the need not determine whether Plaintiffs
Armendariz, Coleman, Gomez, Lovato, Manzanares, Trujillo and Vigil
individually exhausted under the PLRA because these Plaintiffs
would benefit if another Plaintiff satisfied exhaustion
requirements for their Section 1983 claims.  To determine whether
this occurred, he turns to the Plaintiffs who were not subjects of
the Defendant's motion, but who did exhaust their claims:
Christopher Mavis, Matthew Lucero, James Wheeler, Philip Talach.
The Judge finds that Plaintiffs Mavis, Lucero and Wheeler were not
required to administratively exhaust their claims because they were
not incarcerated when the federal complaint was filed in March
2017.  And under the vicarious exhaustion rule, Talachy's
exhaustion benefits other Plaintiffs in the case who did not.

As to the three other Plaintiffs, class members but not named
Plaintiffs, who were incarcerated when the federal complaint was
first filed in March of 2017: Marvin Carrillo, nthony Hamilton and
George Maez, the Judge finds that the Defendants do not dispute
that these Plaintiffs have exhausted their federal claims and under
the vicarious exhaustion rule, exhaustion by Carrillo, Hamilton and
Maez would satisfy the PRLA's requirements for non-exhausted
Plaintiffs who are the subject of the motion.

In sum, Judge Johnson finds and concludes the the Court will apply
the vicarious exhaustion rule in the case, but application of the
rule is conditional on the Court granting class certification in
the case.  Should the Court grant class certification, the
Plaintiffs Armendariz, Coleman, Gomez, Lovato, Manzanares, Trujillo
and Vigil will be deemed to have administratively exhausted their
Section 1983 claims under the PLRA under the vicarious exhaustion
rule, based on exhaustion completed by Plaintiffs Talachy,
Carrillo, Hamilton and Maez.  The Judge makes no findings on
whether Plaintiffs Armendariz, Coleman, Gomez, Lovato, Manzanares,
Trujillo and Vigil have individually satisfied the PLRA's
exhaustion requirements.  Therefore, the Judge denied the the
County Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/BJOB82 from Leagle.com.

Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato,
Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Christopher Mavis, Philip
Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo, Joseph Vigil & James M. Wheeler, on
their own behalf and on similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark H. Donatelli -- mhd@rothsteinlaw.com --
Rothstein Law Firm, John C. Bienvenu -- jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com
-- Bienvenu Law Office, Kristina Martinez, Coberly and Martinez,
LLLP & Paul M. Linnenburger -- plinnenburger@rothsteinlaw.com --
Rothstein Donatelli LLP.

Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners & Mark Gallegos, in his
individual capacity, Defendants, represented by Alisa
Wigley-Delara
-- awd@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock & Ziegler, PC, Christa
M. Hazlett -- cmh@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock & Ziegler.
P.C., Jennifer A. Noya -- jennifer.noya@modrall.com -- Modrall
Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Tiffany L. Roach Martin --
tiffany.martin@modrall.com -- Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris &
Sisk, PA & Alex Cameron Walker -- alex.walker@modrall.com --
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Judd
C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm, PLLC,
John D. Sear -- john.sear@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke
LLP, pro hac vice & Richard G. Morgan --
rick.morgan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac
vice.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal Underway in Moulton Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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
plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the order of dismissal of the
lawsuit styled as, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against Service
Corporation International (SCI) and its subsidiary in connection
with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs
allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. The company
filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in
June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to
the suit.

The case has continued against the company's subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors. However, in
October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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 itself in a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action lawsuit styled as,
Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on
behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service
Corporation International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding the
company's Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania and our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SETERUS INC: Leak Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc. The
case is styled as Bridget Leak, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Seterus, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00021-TCB-RGV (N.D. Ga., March 1,
2019).

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

Seterus, Inc. is a mortgage lender in Beaverton, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Harper T. Segui, Esq.
   Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP - NC
   900 W. Morgan Street
   Raleigh, NC 27603
   Tel: (919) 900-5000
   Email: harper@wbmllp.com

      - and -

   Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
   Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP - NC
   900 W. Morgan Street
   Raleigh, NC 27603
   Tel: (919) 600-5000
   Fax: (919) 600-5035
   Email: scott@wbmllp.com


SITEL OPERATING: Foster Asks to Certify Call-Center Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARQUISE FOSTER, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SITEL OPERATING
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00148 (M.D. Tenn.), asks the Court,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to enter an order
conditionally certifying a collective action for:

    "all current and former hourly call-center employees who
     worked for Sitel Operating Corporation at any time during
     the last three years through the final disposition of this
     matter."

Ms. Foster also asks the Court to enter an order requiring the
Defendant to produce contact information for all Putative Class
Members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 928-9890
          Facsimile: (615) 928-9917
          E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 418-2069
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5352
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com


SMITH INT'L: Drobish Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands
----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Drobish, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED (SCHLUMBERGER N.
V.) fka SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00238-RRS-PJH (W.D. La., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act from the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs and his co-workers were employed by Defendant as
Reamer Hands, performing technical and manual labor job duties for
flowback and pressure control jobs for oil and gas service
companies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiffs and
other Reamer Hands to work at least 12 hours a day, for at least 7
days a week. As a result, Reamer Hands often worked weeks
consisting of 84 hours or more.

The Defendant paid all Reamer Hands a salary and job bonus,
regardless of the number of hours worked. Further, Plaintiffs and
coworkers never received overtime pay for work performed in excess
of 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit says.

Smith International was a Fortune 500 company headquartered in the
Greenspoint district and in unincorporated Harris County, Texas.
Smith International ceased to exist as an independent company
following the merger with Schlumberger. This company supplies
products to gas and oil production and exploration companies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth D St Pe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D ST PE
          311 W University Ave Ste A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com

Attorneys for Smith International Inc.:

          Sam Zurik, III, Esq.
          Bryan Edward Bowdler, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          P O Box 60118
          New Orleans, LA 70160
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
                  beb@kullmanlaw.com

SMITH INT'L: Myers Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Walter Myers, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED
(SCHLUMBERGER N. V.) fka SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00239-RRS-PJH (W.D. La., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and his co-workers were employed by Defendant as
Reamer Hands, performing technical and manual labor job duties for
flowback and pressure control jobs for oil and gas service
companies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiffs and
other Reamer Hands to work at least 12 hours a day, for at least 7
days a week. As a result, Reamer Hands often worked weeks
consisting of 84 hours or more.

The Defendant paid all Reamer Hands a salary and job bonus,
regardless of the number of hours worked. Further, Plaintiffs and
coworkers never received overtime pay for work performed in excess
of 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit says.

Smith International was a Fortune 500 company headquartered in the
Greenspoint district and in unincorporated Harris County, Texas.
Smith International ceased to exist as an independent company
following the merger with Schlumberger. This company supplies
products to gas and oil production and exploration companies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kenneth D St Pe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D ST PE
          311 W University Ave Ste A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com

Attorneys for Smith International Inc.:

          Sam Zurik, III, Esq.
          Bryan Edward Bowdler, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          P O Box 60118
          New Orleans, LA 70160
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
                  beb@kullmanlaw.com

SMITH INT'L: Story Seeks Overtime Wages for Reamer Hands
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Brent Story, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED (SCHLUMBERGER N.
V.) fka SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00240-RRS-PJH (W.D. La., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and his co-workers were employed by Defendant as
Reamer Hands, performing technical and manual labor job duties for
flowback and pressure control jobs for oil and gas service
companies.

According to the complaint, the  Defendant required Plaintiffs and
other Reamer Hands to work at least 12 hours a day, for at least 7
days a week. As a result, Reamer Hands often worked weeks
consisting of 84 hours or more.

The Defendant paid all Reamer Hands a salary and job bonus,
regardless of the number of hours worked. Further, Plaintiffs and
coworkers never received overtime pay for work performed in excess
of 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit says.

Smith International was a Fortune 500 company headquartered in the
Greenspoint district and in unincorporated Harris County, Texas.
Smith International ceased to exist as an independent company
following the merger with Schlumberger. This company supplies
products to gas and oil production and exploration companies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth D St Pe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D ST PE
          311 W University Ave Ste A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com

Attorneys for Smith International Inc.:

          Sam Zurik, III, Esq.
          Bryan Edward Bowdler, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          P O Box 60118
          New Orleans, LA 70160
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
                  beb@kullmanlaw.com

SOUTHERN POWER: Monroe County Employees' Retirement Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Power Company 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 putative class action lawsuit initiated by Monroe
County Employees' Retirement System.

In January 2017, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons
who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between
April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013.

The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees. In June 2017, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that provided additional detail about
their claims, increased the purported class period by one day, and
added certain other former Mississippi Power officers as
defendants.

In July 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to which the
plaintiffs filed an opposition in September 2017. On March 29,
2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, issued an order granting, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed certain claims
against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power
and dismissed the allegations related to a number of the statements
that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading.

On April 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claims in the lawsuit. On August 10, 2018, the court
denied the motion for reconsideration and denied a motion to
certify the issue for interlocutory appeal.

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

Southern Power Company, a public utility company, develops,
acquires, constructs, owns, and manages generation assets,
including renewable energy projects. The company was founded in
2001 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Power Company is a
subsidiary of The Southern Company.


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Copper Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Laquita Copper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00789-GAM (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
relief resulting form Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to March 19, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Comcast. The Comcast
obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property,
insurance or services were the subject of the transactions,
specifically phone and internet services.

On or about March 19, 2018, Defendant Southwest sent Plaintiff an
initial contact notice (the "Letter") regarding the alleged debt
owed. The Letter does not meet the required guidelines of the
FDCPA, as interpreted by the Third Circuit, because it falsely
omits the requirement of the "G Notice" in the first sentence by
leaving out the requirement that a consumer must dispute in
writing, the lawsuit says.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. was founded in 2003. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[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

SPEEDWAY LLC: Removes Howe Case to Northern District of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Speedway LLC filed a notice to remove the case, CHRISTOPHER HOWE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SPEEDWAY LLC and MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2017 CH 11992, from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 25, 2019. The Northern
District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01374 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts two claims on behalf of himself and a
putative class. The first claim is that the Defendants violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and the second is for
common law negligence. Both claims rest upon the samefactual
allegations. The Plaintiff alleges that Speedway required its
employees to scan their fingerprints and later use their
fingerprints to punch in and out of work.[BN]

Attorneys for Christopher Howe:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                 ascharg@edelson.com
                 ewadescott@edelson.com

STILLMAN LAW: Cole Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------
AMY COLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00112-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant's November 13, 2018
communication to Plaintiff was the first communication Plaintiff
received from Defendant. The Plaintiff did not receive any other
communication from Defendant within five days of the November 13,
2018 communication.

Defendant's November 13, 2018 communication identified "CITIZENS
BANK N.A." as Defendant's "Client & Current Owner of the Debt." The
letter identified Plaintiff's "Balancec as "$20010.80."

The Defendant's November 13, 2018 communication then advised
Plaintiff that "[w]e have been hired by CITIZENS BANK N.A. to
assist them in the collection of the above referenced account. As
of the date of this letter, CITIZENS BANK N.A. asserts that you owe
$20010.80", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class and subclass:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, 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
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

SUNSET MESA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------
Colette Bordelon, writing for Western Slope Now, reports that the
Colorado-based National Trial Firm Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh &
Jardin filed a lawsuit representing 64 families against Megan Hess,
the owner of Sunset Mesa Funeral Directors and Donor Services.
Sunset Mesa is the Montrose funeral home accused of doubling as a
body broker. The FBI investigation into the funeral home is still
ongoing.

The first defendant listed in the suit is Megan Hess, the owner of
Sunset Mesa Funeral Directors. Hess' parents are included as well.
It goes on to name Retriever Freight Services, the Montrose County
Coroner, the Montrose County Commissioners, Four Corners Cremation
& Burial Society, and HopeWest, among several other defendants.

The lawsuit stated "the deceased are dismembered, carved up and
sold piecemeal for profit. After the deceased are dissected and
sold off in parts, the mourning families are returned urns filled
with sand, concrete, and cat littler masquerading as their
loved-ones' cremains."

The lawsuit has several claims, one of which said the Montrose
County Coroner and HopeWest "recieved pecuniary gain for directing
Plaintiffs and their loved ones to Sunset Mesa Funeral Home in an
amount to be proven at trial." The suit had previously called the
prices Hess charged at Donor Services for body parts "arrestingly
below market prices."

In a press release from the lawfirm, a representative said "they
will work tirelessly to get the answers, wherever the facts lead,
and to hold those responsible accountable for their horrific
conduct. Only then can these families have justice."

KREX 5 News reached out to several of the defendants named in the
lawsuit. Retriever Freight Services Co-Owner Tomas Smith issued
this statement: "It is unclear why Retriever Freight Services was
named in this lawsuit. As a regional pickup and delivery company,
we take direction and receive compensation from national freight
forwarders, not local businesses. We had no business relationship
with Donor Services/Sunset Mesa funeral home, nor did we receive
compensation from the group. In this instance, we were asked to
perform a pick up and transfer service by an anatomical logistics
company located in another state. We have assisted with all
requests for information from law enforcement in an effort to help
shed light on this unfortunate situation. Our inclusion in this
lawsuit seems to be the result of sloppy research by the
plaintiff's legal team."

Those with HopeWest and the Montrose County Coroner's office said
they have not been served with the suit at this time. A HopeWest
representative said they are saddened by the situation surrounding
Sunset Mesa, and they are dedicated to the care of their
patients.[GN]


SYNERGIES3 TEC: Installers Hit Misclassification, Seek OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Jackson and James Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Synergies3 TEC Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00178, (E.D. Mo., February 4, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Synergies3 is a satellite installation provider for AT&T (DirecTV).
It provides satellite installation services to AT&T customers
across the United States. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
installation technicians and were paid on a piece-rate or per job
compensation. They claim to be misclassified as independent
contractors, thus denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

             - and -

      Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
      Jay Eidsness, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      Email: srey@nka.com
             jeidness@nka.com

             - and -

      Eli Karsh, Esq.
      LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
      230 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1200
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 862-3333
      Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
      Email: elikarsh@aol.com

             - and -

      Benjamin Westhoff, Esq.
      SEDEY HARPER WESTHOFF, P.C.
      2711 Clifton Ave.
      St. Louis, MO 63139
      Telephone: (314) 773-3566
      Facsimile: (314) 773-3615
      Email: bwesthoff@sedeyharper.com


TABLE FOR EIGHT: Lin et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JIAN BIN LIN, ZHEN QI WENG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. TABLE
FOR EIGHT, INC. d/b/a "M Noodle Shop", M SHANGHAI, LLC d/b/a "M
Shanghai", MAY LIU, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01119 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2019), is an action
brought by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, arising from the Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices .

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours
worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

From September 1, 2013 until present, the Plaintiff was hired by
the Defendants to work as a delivery person for the Defendants'
restaurant located at 549 Metropolitan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
11211, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: 718 353 8588
          E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com

TELLTALE GAMES: Class-Action Suit Over Layoffs Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Will Houston, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports that
a former Telltale Games employee's class-action lawsuit against the
company over its September company-wide layoffs has been dismissed,
but the issue is likely not resolved, according to one of the
employee's attorneys.

Telltale Games, which was based at 4000 Civic Center Drive in San
Rafael, laid off nearly all of its 275 employees on Sept. 21 after
it could not secure a financier. The ex-employee, Vernon Roberts,
filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco on Sept. 25 claiming the company violated
the federal and state versions of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, or WARN Act, by not providing
employees 60 days notice of the layoffs.

Roberts was seeking salary and benefit payments for those 60 days.

Proceedings in the case were humming along until a sudden Feb. 1
court filing, which stated that Roberts and Telltale agreed to
dismiss the matter without prejudice and without awarding
attorneys' fees or cost recovery to either party.

Court documents do not indicate what led to the agreement, but
Roberts' attorney Stuart Miller, Esq. of the New York-based
Lankenau & Miller law firm says it was because of an arbitration
agreement Roberts and other employees signed. The agreement
prevents them from filing a class-action suit against the company.

Miller said that Roberts and other employees do have the option of
filing an arbitration case. The attorney said they can also file a
claim in Telltale's ongoing state proceeding that is similar to
bankruptcy known as an assignment for the benefit of creditors. He
said time is of the essence though as claims in this proceeding
will need to be filed by April.

"We feel we have a very compelling case," Miller said on Feb. 7.
"We have already gathered the evidence and we feel that the case is
very strong for each of the employees, but they've got to get a
claim filed and they have to file an arbitration."

Miller said he would not disclose how many employees have expressed
interest in this, but said he expects it to be a "big number" and
that they should contact legal counsel as soon as possible.

Multiple attempts to contact Telltale's attorneys on Feb. 7 were
unsuccessful.

In its court filings, Telltale Games denied that it violated the
WARN Act due to the circumstances leading up to the layoffs. In a
statement in a Jan. 28 court filing, the company wrote it was
seeking financing in 2018 and was under the belief it could secure
a financier. That deal "suddenly fell apart," which resulted in
Telltale closing its office "on or about the same day it learned
the deal had fallen through."

The company argues the federal WARN Act does not apply to them as
it gives companies an exemption for the 60-day noticing
requirements if there were business circumstances that were not
reasonably foreseeable at the time that the notice would have been
required. The state version of the act does not include this
exemption.

This explanation falls in line with what Telltale co-founder Dan
Connors told Variety magazine last year. Unnamed sources told the
publication that it was specifically after Lionsgate backed out.
Connors declined to comment on the financier's identity. In 2015
Lionsgate announced it was making a "significant investment" in
Telltale -- which publications reported to be about $40 million --
for the purpose of co-developing new and existing intellectual
property into episodic games and television.

A court filing lists Lionsgate Entertainment Corp. along with other
companies as non-party interested entities in the case.[GN]


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Removes Johnson Case to Western Dist. of Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractor Supply Company removes case, TAMMY JOHNSON and VANESSA
DETTWILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-5 06039-RJB (Filed:
Dec. 12, 2017), from the Superior Court of the State of Washington
for the County of King to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on Feb. 25, 2019. The Western
District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00270
to the proceeding.

The action alleged (1) Violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207; (2)
Violations of Wash. Rev. Code 8 section 49.46.130; (3) Violations
of Wash. Rev. Code sections 49.12.020 and Wash. Admin. Code section
296-126-9 092; and (4) Violation of Wash. Rev. Code sections
49.52.050.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Marc C. Cote, Esq.
          Michael C. Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
          E-mail: mcote@frankfreed.com
                  msubit@frankfreed.com

               - and -

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
          1180 S Beverly Drive, Suite 302
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203-0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
          E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Adam T. Pankratz, Esq.
          Kyle D. Nelson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
             SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 5150
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-693-7057
          Facsimile: 206-693-7058
          E-mail: kyle.nelson@ogletree.com
                  adam.pankratz@ogletree.com

UNITED STATES: Galvez Files Suit v. Homeland Security Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Department of
Homeland Security. The case is styled as Leobardo Moreno Galvez,
Jose Luis Vicente Ramos and Angel de Jesus Munoz Olivera, on behalf
of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Lee Francis Cissna in his official
capacity, Kirstjen M Nielsen in her official capacity, Robert Cowan
in his official capacity, Department of Homeland Security and US
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00321 (W.D. Wash., March 5, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the nature of suit as
Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in
public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home
ministries of other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
   615 2ND AVE, STE 400
   SEATTLE, WA 98104
   Tel: (206) 957-8611
   Email: aaron@nwirp.org

      - and -

   Leila Kang, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
   615 2ND AVE, STE 400
   SEATTLE, WA 98104
   Tel: (206) 957-8608
   Email: leila@nwirp.org

      - and -

   Matt Adams, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
   615 2ND AVE, STE 400
   SEATTLE, WA 98104
   Tel: (206) 957-8611
   Email: matt@nwirp.org

      - and -

   Meghan E Casey, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
   615 2ND AVE, STE 400
   SEATTLE, WA 98104
   Tel: (206) 957-8651
   Email: meghan@nwirp.org

      - and -

   Olivia Fiona Gibbons, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (TAC)
   1119 PACIFIC AVE STE 1400
   TACOMA, WA 98402
   Tel: (206) 816-3894
   Email: olivia@nwirp.org

      - and -

   Tim Henry Warden-Hertz, Esq.
   NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
   1119 PACIFIC AVE STE 1400
   TACOMA, WA 98402
   Tel: (206) 957-8652
   Email: tim@nwirp.org


UNITED STATES: Judge Tosses Tupac Stepdad's Suit
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on March 7
tossed a civil rights class action brought by late rapper Tupac
Shakur's stepfather against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
others, finding a habeas corpus petition -- not a class action --
is the vehicle to address claims of sham parole hearings and rights
violations.


US GOVERNMENT: Eckes' Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon E. Deguilio denied a motion for preliminary injunction
filed by Plaintiffs in the case captioned  Austin Eckes and Jerome
Derrell Robertson also known as: Jerome Robertson, an individual
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Robert E Carter, Jr., Commissioner, et al. and United
States Government, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00147-JD-MGG (N.D.
Ind., March 4, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Prisoner Civil
Rights.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a complaint
utilizing Prisoner Complaint (INND Rev. 8/16), which is available
in the prison's law library. They have until April 5, 2019, to file
a complaint in this case and separately either pay the filing fee
or file an in forma pauperis motion accompanied by his trust fund
ledgers for the past six months.

The Court cautioned Messrs. Eckes and Robertson that if they do not
respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


UXIN LIMITED: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
discloseds the filing of a class action lawsuit against Uxin
Limited ("Uxin" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: UXIN ) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to Uxin's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on June 27,
2018, are encouraged to contact the firm before March 30, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at  brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Uxin was presumably planning to stop
offering complimentary services to customers including inspections.
The Company planned on having dealers provide these services to
consumers on a complimentary basis. This change was likely to
negatively impact Uxin's 2B business model. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Uxin, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


VALE SA: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, discloseds that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced on behalf of purchasers of Vale S.A. (NYSE: VALE) ("Vale"
or the "Company") securities during the period between April 13,
2018 and January 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation
have until March 29, 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 Vale securities 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 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Vale had failed to
adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at
its Feijao iron ore mine, its programs to mitigate health and
safety incidents were inadequate, and several people were killed
and hundreds more were reported as missing after Vale's dam at its
Feijao iron ore mine was breached.

According to the complaint, following a January 25, 2019 report
that Vale's tailings dam had burst at its Feijao iron ore mine and
several people were killed, January 26, 2019 reports that hundreds
of people were still missing, Brazil's National Mining Agency
ordered Vale to suspend operations, and Vale was fined $66.32
million for various violations, and January 28, 2019 report that
Brazil's top prosecutor will pursue criminal charges and securities
regulators were investigating, the value of Vale shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Vale securities purchased on or after April 13, 2018 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the
end of 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
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


VALE SA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Vale S.A. (NYSE:  VALE) ("Vale") on behalf of purchasers of Vale
securities between April 13, 2018 and January 28, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Vale securities during
the Class Period may, no later than March 29, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit www.ktmc.com/vale-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, Vale is a mining and metals company
headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  In November 2015, the
Fundão tailings dam, joint-owned by Vale and BHP Billiton Brasil
Ltda., had burst, releasing tailings downstream, flooding
communities and negatively impacting property and the environment.
This dam failure resulted in 19 fatalities. Vale purportedly took
steps to provide relief to those affected and prevent such a
catastrophe from occurring in the future.

The Class Period commences on April 13, 2018, when Vale filed a
Form 20-F with the SEC, which provided its financial results and
position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.  The Form
20-F stated that Vale was committed to keeping its workplace safe
and minimizing environmental damage after its joint-owned Fundão
tailings dam had burst in 2015.

According to the complaint, on January 25, 2019, Reuters reported
that Vale's tailings dam had burst at its Feijao iron ore mine in
Brumadinho, Brazil. Several people were killed, including Vale's
workers. Hundreds of others were reported as missing, and mining
debris and mud flooded the city.  Following this news, shares of
Vale fell $1.20 per share, or over 8%, to close at $13.66 per share
on January 25, 2019.

Then, on January 28, 2019, Reuters reported "Brazil's top
prosecutor said on Monday she will pursue criminal prosecutions
after the collapse of a tailings dam operated by mining giant Vale
SA killed at least 58 people and left hundreds missing, and that
executives may be punished."  That same day, Reuters reported that
"Brazilian securities industry regulator CVM has opened a probe
into miner Vale SA's filings related to a burst tailings dam in the
town of Brumadinho."  Following this news, shares of Vale dropped
$2.46 per share, or over 18%, to close at $11.20 on January 28,
2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Vale had failed to adequately assess the risk
and damage potential of a dam breach at its Feijão iron ore mine;
(2) Vale's programs to mitigate health and safety incidents were
inadequate; (3) consequently, several people were killed and
hundreds more were reported as missing after Vale's dam at its
Feijão iron ore mine was breached; and (4) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.

Vale investors may, no later than March 29, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


VALE SA: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the March 29,
2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of investors that purchased Vale S.A. ("Vale" or
the "Company") (NYSE: VALE) securities between April 13, 2018 and
January 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Vale investors
have until March 29, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Vale investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On January 25, 2019, Reuters reported that a tailings dam burst at
Vale's Feijao iron ore mine in Brazil, leaving hundreds of people
missing. According to the article, the mine was in the process of
being decommissioned. On this news, Vale's stock fell over 15%
during intraday trading on January 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vale had failed to
adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at
its Feijao iron ore mine; (2) Vale's programs to mitigate health
and safety incidents were inadequate; (3) consequently, several
people were killed and hundreds more were reported missing after
Vale's dam at its Feijao mine was breached; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Vale during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than March 29, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters please;

         Contact:
         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: 215-638-4847
         Toll free: 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


WELBILT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Welbilt, Inc. ("Welbilt" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBT) and
certain of its officers and directors.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, and
indexed under 19-cv-00191, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Welbilt securities between February 24, 2017, and November
2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Welbilt securities between
February 24, 2017, and November 2, 2018, you have until February
11, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Welbilt was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in New Port
Richey, Florida.  Welbilt designs, manufactures, and supplies
foodservice equipment for the global foodservice industry.  Welbilt
was formerly known as "Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc." and changed its
name to "Welbilt, Inc." in February 2017.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i)
Welbilt's internal financial reporting controls were lacking and
ineffective; (ii) Welbilt was incorrectly recording the tax basis,
as well as amortization of intangible assets, of foreign
subsidiaries; (iii) as a result of the foregoing conduct, Welbilt's
previous financial statements could not be relied upon; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 5, 2018, Welbilt announced in its Current report on
Form 8-K with the SEC (the "November 2018 Form 8-K") that certain
of its previous financial statements should not be relied on
because the Company had incorrectly recorded the tax basis of
foreign subsidiaries and the amortization of their intangible
assets.  As a result, Welbilt had understated its U.S. tax
liability.

On this news, Welbilt's stock price fell $5.06 per share, or
approximately 26.19%, to close at $14.26 per share on November 5,
2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


WINNEBAGO, IL: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Ford Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Melvin A. Ford v. Winnebago
County, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-50056 (N.D. Ill.), seeks class
certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Mr. Ford accuses the Defendants of violating the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Ford, at Big Muddy River Correctional Center in Ina, Illinois,
appears pro se.[CC]




                            *********

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 ***