CAR_Public/190320.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 57

                            Headlines

AARGON AGENCY: Warenski Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
ABC PHONES: Akrami Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Store Managers
AETNA INC: Settles Depression Coverage Class Action for $6.2MM
ALERE INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $5.1-Bil.

APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit
ARAMARK: Managers Withdraw Claims in Bonuses Class Action
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action

ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lampe Balks at Merger Deal with BioTime
AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Fixes Interest Rates of VRDO Bonds, Suit Says
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Leave to Appeal Afexa-Related Class Suit Dismissed

BAUSCH HEALTH: Third-Party Payors' Class Suit Remains Stayed
BHI ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Klapatch Class Allowed
BIG FISH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Practices
BOOZ ALLEN: Faces No-Poach Class Action in Ohio
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 35,500 Mesh-Related Suits

BRISTOW GROUP: April 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CANADA DRY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $11MM
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
CGY & J CORP: Wang Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
CHINA AGRITECH: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Suits over Resolute Energy Merger
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action for $4.5MM
CONAGRA BRANDS: Inflated Stock Price, Pension Fund Says
CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Silva Suit
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $19.8MM Obligation to be Satisfied in 2019

CONTROL GROUP: Hunt et al Sue over Sale of Sealed Criminal Records
COOK COUNTY COURT: Court Dismisses Nisi Suit Without Prejudice
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Flips Summ. Judgment in Korolshteyn Suit
COVERALL NORTH: Appeal from Arbitration Ruling in Gonzalez Nixed
CVS HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

DAF: Hauliers Urged to Join Class Action Against Truckbuilders
DELTA AIR LINES: Bid to Dismiss Donoff Class Suit Underway
DIGNITY HEALTH: Removes Van Bebber Case to E.D. California
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in B&R Suit Underway

E TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Class Action Now Closed
E TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Class Action Now Closed
ELI LILLY: Glucagon Pricing Class Lawsuit in New Jersey Ongoing
ELI LILLY: Still Defends 535 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits
ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Biometrics Privacy Class Action

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Gearhart Suit Sustained
FAST LANE: Craggs Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri
FITBIT INC: Sued over Defective 'Charge 2' Smart Fitness Bands
FLIGHT CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLORIDA: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Inmates' Media Files

FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Certify Class Action in Georgia
FORT MYERS, FL: Buys Contaminated Land to Avert Class Action
G4S SECURE: Court Narrows Claims in J. King's RICO Suit
GEE & GEE: Tellez Seeks Payment of Overtime & Minimum Wages
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action

GETSWIFT: 2 Execs Face ASIC Lawsuit Amid Class Actions
GOLF CLUB: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Vega, et al. Say
GRAND PRIX: Sosa Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
HCA MANAGEMENT: Laciste Sues over Alleged Illegal Time Shaving
HEALTH INSURANCE: April 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
HENRY SCHEIN: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit under Appeal
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Reached in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit

HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters Suit Underway
HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Police Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Vasquez and Garcia Suit Underway
HSBC USA: Rigged ICE LIBOR, Putnam Bank Alleges
HSBC USA: Suits over Precious Metals Derivatives in Canada Ongoing

IKE & MIKE: Sirak Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
IQVIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Fax Marketing
KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Moore"
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Files Consolidated Amended Complaint in Veal

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit
MARGOLIN SHOES: Sued for Collecting Biometric Information
MDL 2179: Court Dismisses E. Brown's Claims With Prejudice
MDL 2492: Asby vs. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Benditt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved

MDL 2492: Blunt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
MDL 2492: Booker Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
MDL 2492: Brantley Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
MDL 2492: Briggs Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
MDL 2492: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated

MDL 2492: Chambliss Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Davis-Moab Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Delts Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
MDL 2492: Drake Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
MDL 2492: Flamish Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated

MDL 2492: Hurd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Mackey Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Newbern Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Phillips Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Porras v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Rasmussen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rizzo Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Shadwick Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Sunday Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Williamson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3619 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3647 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3654 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied

MDL 2873: Jackson vs. 3M over Water Contamination Consolidated
MDL 2879: Barkley Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2879: Grady Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MICRO FOCUS: Araiza Labor Class Action Stayed
MICRO FOCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in Wall Suit

MICRO FOCUS: Court Stays Jackson Class Action
MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Stayed
MICRO FOCUS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Connor FDCA Suit

MOLSON COORS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
MONSANTO COMPANY: Allen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cantus Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lubbens Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lumpkins Sue over Sale of Roundup Products

MONSANTO COMPANY: Moore Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Perry Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Reeds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO: Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Heads to Trial
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Tax Racial Discrimination Class Action

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Discriminatory Tax Assessment
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Removes Soward Case to C.D. California
NCAA: Lett Sues over Health & Safety of NCAT Student-Athletes
NCAA: Talley Sues over Safety of Catawba Student-Athletes
NEBRASKA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Prison Conditions

NEBRASKA: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoenaed Docs in Sabata Suit
NEBRASKA: Expert Witnesses Condemn Prison Conditions
NEBRASKA: Sabata, et al. Seek to Certify Class & SubClasses
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Fails to Provide Proper Notice Prior to Layoff
NIKE: 1st Hearing in Gender Discrimination Class Action Held

NISOURCE INC: Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident in Mediation
NUVASIVE INC: No Longer Has Liability in Mauss Securities Suit
OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Juan Sierra Seeks Overtime Pay
PACIFIC GAS: York County Sues over Violation of Securities Laws
PARAMETRIC SOUND: April 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

PENINSULA INFINITI: Unger Sues over Vehicle Order Deposits
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Oral B Mouthwash Class Action
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Prelim Approval
QWEST CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order in Seifert for Review

REVEL SYSTEMS: Settlement in Bisaccia FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Padgett Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
SAMSUNG: Aug. 6 Washing Machines Claims Filing Deadline Set
SARBANAND FARMS: Court Partly Okays Class Notice Plan in Rosas Suit
SIDELINE MARKETING: Saul Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

SIX FLAGS: Seasonal Employees' Unpaid OT Class Action Certified
SOUTH FLORIDA MGS: Wijesinha Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
SOUTHLAND HVAC: Bolotnikov Sues over Time-Shaving Practices
TEXAS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lynn Suit
TIGER BRANDS: No Summons Yet for Listeriosis Class Action

TIGER NATURAL: $3.7MM Settlement in Fishman Suit Has Prelim OK
TRANSPORTATION AMERICA: Thadal Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
TRUEACCORD CORP: Rohrbach Sues over Debt Collection Practices
UNITED AIRLINES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: Ex-Trump Campaign Staffer Files Class Action

VERYABLE INC: Scott Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Laborers
WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Irresponsible Lending
WW GRAINGER: S. Rangel Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Has Not Named Lead Plaintiff in Lewis Suit
[*] Class Actions Target Companies in Agricultural Sector


                            *********

AARGON AGENCY: Warenski Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Warenski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Aargon Agency, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00313 (D. Nev., Feb. 20, 2019), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Aargon
Agency, Inc. in negligently and/or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using a
prerecorded voice and an artificial voice. The Defendant placed
these calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system."  The
telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A)(i). The ATDS
used by Defendants has the capacity to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator. The Defendant's calls was placed to a telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff
incurred a charge for incoming calls. The telephone calls were
unwanted by Plaintiff.  The Defendant did not have prior express
written consent to place the telephone calls to the Plaintiff, the
lawsuit says.

Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services.[BN]

Attorneys for Alan Warenski, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com

               - and -

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
          Henderson, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
          E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com

ABC PHONES: Akrami Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Store Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZAID AKRAMI, an individual, NICHOLAS BERNARDI, on behalf of
themselves and a class of other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., a Corporation,
DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06326 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks damages, restitution and
injunctive relief for Defendants' (1) failure to provide meal
periods, (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay
overtime; (4) failure to pay wages when due; (5) failure to pay
wages on termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (7) failure to pay meal and rest period premiums; (8)
unfair competition; and (8) violations of Private Attorney General
Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as store managers for ABC. As a store
manager, each Plaintiff supervised the operations of a single ABC
store and the sales associates employed there. Each store had only
one store manager. Store managers like Plaintiffs in turn reported
to district managers, who were supervised by regional managers.

Accorindg to thr complaint, when ABC did pay a meal period premium
to Plaintiffs and other store managers, it did not pay the full
amount it owed. Mr. Akrami and Mr. Bemardi were paid on salary plus
commission. California law requires that an employee be paid
one-hour's wage for any missed meal periods. The wage for
Plaintiffs should have included his substantial commission
compensation. Instead, ABC paid a meal premium equal to only 1 hour
of Plaintiffs' hourly pay excluding commission compensation.

As store managers, Plaintiffs were responsible for limiting
overtime expenses for their stores. Overtime hours, like missed
meal periods, were reported to store managers and district managers
through ABC's timekeeping software. Although overtime was rarely
scheduled, sales associates often were required to work overtime.
Selling cell phones and associated services and accessories takes
time. Buying a new phone, starting service, transferring data to a
new phone all take time. An average new phone buyer takes a sales
associate at least 30 minutes to serve. Customers asked to wait to
see a sales associate are likely to leave. If the end of shift
conflicted with a sale, the sales associates were required to work
overtime.

The Paintiffs and other store managers were also required to and
did work overtime. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for all
their overtime hours. District managers would fix any overtime
violations by altering timekeeping records. For example, district
managers would shift hours so an employee did not work more than
eight hours in a day, so an employee that worked ten hours on
Monday would show a time record of eight hours on Monday and two
additional hours on Tuesday, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
          BROWN, NERI, SMITH AND KHAN LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310)593-9980
          E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com

AETNA INC: Settles Depression Coverage Class Action for $6.2MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aetna Inc.
will pay $6.2 million to be rid of a class action challenging its
refusal to cover transcranial magnetic stimulation, a noninvasive
procedure used to treat depression.

The proposed deal would reimburse about 1,100 patients whose claims
were denied without requiring them to submit to reprocessing by the
insurer, the parties said in a Feb. 15 motion for court approval.
[GN]


ALERE INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUDITH GODINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.
ALERE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10766-PBS  

NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH
DEFENDANTS; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your
rights may be affected by the above- captioned securities class
action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") if, during the
period from May 9, 2013 through October 3, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), you purchased, or otherwise acquired the
publicly-traded common stock of Alere Inc. ("Alere").

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: Please also be advised that the
Court-appointed lead plaintiffs Glazer Capital Management, L.P.,
Glazer Enhanced Fund L.P., Glazer Enhanced Offshore Fund, Ltd.,
Glazer Offshore Fund, Ltd. and Highmark Limited, in respect of its
Segregated Account Highmark Multi-Strategy 2 (collectively,
"Glazer") and OFI Asset Management ("OFI" and together with Glazer,
"Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$20,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The Settlement, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

To be eligible for a payment from the proceeds of the Settlement,
you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely
complete and return the Claim Form with adequate supporting
documentation postmarked no later than, June 26, 2019. You may
obtain one from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator
for the Settlement, www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com, or you may
request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims
Administrator toll free at 877-261-7472. Please retain all records
of your ownership of and transactions in Alere common stock, as
they may be needed to document your Claim. If you request exclusion
from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund.
Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by the determinations,
orders and judgments in this Action relating to the Settlement,
whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person or entity
mails or delivers a written Request for Exclusion from the
Settlement Class, addressed to Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al.
EXCLUSIONS, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI
53217. The exclusion request must be received no later than May 7,
2019. You will not be able to exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class after that date. Each Request for Exclusion must: (a) state
the name, address and telephone number of the person or entity
requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name and
telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (b) state that
such person or entity "requests exclusion from the Settlement Class
in Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:16-cv-10766-PBS;" (c) state the number of shares of
publicly-traded Alere common stock that the person or entity
requesting exclusion purchased/acquired and sold during the Class
Period (May 9, 2013 through October 3, 2017, inclusive) as well as
the dates and prices of each such purchase/acquisition and sale,
and provide appropriate documentary proof of such
purchases/acquisitions and sales; and (d) be signed by the person
or entity requesting exclusion or an authorized representative
under penalty of perjury. A Request for Exclusion shall not be
valid and effective unless it provides all the information and
documentation called for in this paragraph and is received within
the time stated above, or is otherwise accepted by the Court.

The Settlement Hearing will be held on June 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable Patti B. Saris at the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S.
Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Courtroom 19, 7th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210. The Court reserves the right to approve the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses,
and/or any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the
Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the
Settlement Class.

Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion
may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or
Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in
writing. You must file any written objection, together with copies
of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection, with the
Clerk's Office at the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts at the address set forth below on or before May 7,
2019. You must also mail the papers to Lead Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel at the addresses set forth below so that the papers are
received on or before May 7, 2019.

This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed
Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters
involved in this Action, you are referred to the papers on file in
the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected
during regular office hours at the Office of the Clerk, United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John
Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300,
Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Additionally, copies of the
Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be
posted on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com.

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

         Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
         299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10171
         (212) 894-7200
         vcappucci@entwistle-law.com

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
         New York, NY 10119
        (212) 279-5050
         jabraham@aftlaw.com

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

         Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al.
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173055
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
         877-261-7472
         info@AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com
         www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

Dated: March 8, 2019


ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $5.1-Bil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anthem Inc.
reached a settlement with employees who sued the company over the
fees tied to its $5.1 billion 401(k) plan.

The settlement would resolve a class action accusing Anthem's
retirement plan committee of including high-fee mutual fund share
classes in the plan and paying excessive record-keeping fees to
Vanguard Group Inc.

Terms of the deal haven't yet been made public. The settlement was
noted in the court docket Feb. 19 after a hearing before Magistrate
Judge Matthew P. Brookman. [GN]


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf Case of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apogee Enterprises, Inc.,
Joseph F. Puishys, and James S. Porter, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-3097 (NEB/SER) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the
Retirement Plans' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Selection of Counsel.

Murray Mayer filed a putative class action against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges the Defendants made false and misleading
statements or concealed adverse information regarding Apogee's
business, operations, and prospects in order to inflate the stock
price.  

Mayer proposes a class of investors who purchased Apogee common
stock between June 28, 2018 and Sept. 17, 2018.  He asserts two
counts for the proposed class: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section
20(a) by Puishys and Porter.

The City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and
the City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan
("Retirement Plans") moved for appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs
and approval as the Lead Counsel.  Neither Mayer nor Defendants
have responded to the Retirement Plans' motion.  Additionally, no
other persons or entities have come forward to request appointment
as the Lead Plaintiff.  

Magistrate Judge Rau notes, however, that Mayer requests in his
complaint appointment as the Class Representative and appointment
of his attorneys as the Class Counsel.  He explains that statutory
notice was published on Nov. 5, 2018.  The Retirement Plans' motion
was timely filed following that notice.  Likewise, Mayer filed the
complaint which initiated the matter.  Thus, both Mayer and the
Retirement Plans may be considered as the Lead Plaintiff.

Second, according to the Complaint, Mayer purchased 400 shares of
Apogee stock on Sept. 17, 2018.  The Retirement Plans purchased
8,460 shares on Aug. 14, 2018.  Whether considering the Retirement
Plans individually or collectively, they hold a much larger
financial interest than Mayer by a factor of 10 or 20,
respectively.  Moreover, the Retirement Plans purchased their
shares at a higher price -- $49.73 -- compared to Mayer -- $49.05
-- rendering their loss even higher.  Further, the Retirement Plans
have held Apogee stock longer than Mayer.  Thus, the Judge holds
that the Retirement Plans have the largest financial interest in
the relief sought by the class.

Third, the Judge has no concerns that the Retirement Plans would
not adequately represent the interests of the class.  The
Retirement Plans, as institutional investors, are able and willing
to prosecute this action completely and vigorously and have the
resources to do so.  Indeed, the Retirement Plans are the large,
institutional lead plaintiff[s] envisioned by Congress when the
PSLRA was enacted.  The Retirement Plans interests are similar to
those of the class in litigating the alleged securities violations
related to the valuation of Apogee stock, that is, the Retirement
Plans are driven to seek redress for the losses incurred.  Thus,
the Retirement Plans satisfy the third requirement.

Finally, the Retirement Plans ask for appointment of their counsel
of choice as the Lead Counsel.  The Judge finds no reason to
disturb the Retirement Plans' choice in counsel.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rau granted the Retirement Plans'
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection
of Counsel.  He appointed the Retirement Plans as the Lead
Plaintiffs, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel,
and Zimmerman Reed LLP as the Liaison Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4HedNR from Leagle.com.

Murray Mayer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield &
Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield.

Apogee Enterprises, Inc., Joseph F. Puishys & James S. Porter,
Defendants, represented by Kirsten E. Schubert --
schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Thomas P.
Swigert -- swigert.tom@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Vanessa
J. Szalapski -- szalapski.vanessa@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP.

City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan & City
of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan, Movants,
represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
-- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson --
‎carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & June
Pineda Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP.


ARAMARK: Managers Withdraw Claims in Bonuses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Harold Brubaker, writing for Philly.com, reports that two Aramark
managers filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 19 in Philadelphia
alleging that the food-, building-, and uniform-services giant
broke a contract when it decided in February not to pay 2018
bonuses to thousands of lower-level managers across the country.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of Henry J. Lacher and Michael Ruskowski,
seeks nationwide class-action status.

Mr. Lacher, of Greenville, S.C., has worked for Aramark as a
district facilities manager since 2016. The lawsuit says Mr. Lacher
earned a bonus of more than $40,000 in 2018. Aramark owes Mr.
Ruskowski, a director of environmental services at a facility in
Florida, more than $10,000 for his 2018 bonus, according to the
lawsuit

[Update on Feb. 21: Mr. Ruskowksi withdrew his claim on Feb. 20
without giving a reason.]

Failure by the court to force Aramark to pay the bonuses "would
cause a great injustice" to the managers and provide "an unfair
financial windfall" to the company, the complaint said.

Representing Messrs. Lacher and Ruskowski are lawyers in Dresher,
Boston, and Greenville. They argue that Aramark breached a contract
by not paying bonuses promised in employment offer letters, which
said managers were eligible for bonuses calculated according to a
management incentive bonus plan.

"We look forward to pursuing this important lawsuit on behalf of
managers who worked hard for their annual bonuses and reasonably
expected the bonuses to be paid," the lawyers said in a statement
provided by lawyer Peter Winebrake of Winebrake & Santillo LLC in
Dresher. "For many working families, annual bonuses are an
important component of household income. In today's economy,
families rely on bonus pay when they make their household budgets.
So it's very important that businesses follow through on
commitments to pay annual bonuses."

The other lawyers listed on the complaint are David E. Rothstein,
of Rothstein Law Firm PA, in Greenville, plus Harold Lichten and
Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. in Boston.

The lawyers did not make Messrs. Lacher and Ruskowski available for
interviews.

Aramark has denied any obligation to pay bonuses, which sometimes
account for more than 20 percent of a manager's annual
compensation. The company employs about 170,000 people in the
United States, including 14,000 in Pennsylvania and nearly 6,500 in
the Philadelphia region.

"Aramark does not have a guaranteed bonus plan, and does have
ultimate discretion to determine bonus payouts. Beyond that, we do
not comment on pending litigation," the company said on
Feb. 19.

The company's chief financial officer, Stephen P. Bramlage, said
that Aramark did not pay 2018 bonuses to lower-level managers
because the company did not meet a profit target set by the firm's
board of directors. Lower-level managers, whose bonuses have long
been calculated at the local level, were not told at the beginning
of the year that the company's overall profitability could
determine whether or not they got a bonus, Mr. Bramlage
acknowledged.

In the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, the company had net income of
$568 million on revenue of $15.8 billion.

The bonus controversy at Aramark, which is among the largest U.S.
providers of food, facilities, and uniform services, started Dec.
3, when the company notified thousands of managers that fiscal 2018
bonuses, "historically paid in December, will be paid in
February."

That set off alarm bells that the bonuses, which often amount to 15
percent to 25 percent of total compensation, depending on
performance, would not be paid. Sure enough, late on Feb. 1,
Aramark notified lower-level managers that they would not get their
2018 bonuses because of "great disparity in the financial
performance across our U.S. businesses."

Instead, the company said, it would make onetime payments ranging
from $5,500 to $27,500 for all managers at a particular level using
money it saved on taxes because of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act,
which slashed corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent.

Despite the profit shortfall, Aramark's top executives still
received their bonuses -- including CEO Eric Foss, whose total
compensation in 2018 was $16 million, including $2.6 million in
bonus payments. [GN]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until March 25, 2019, to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies,
Inc. (NYSE: ARLO), if they purchased the Company's shares issued in
connection with its August 3, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Arlo 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/nyse-arlo/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by March 25, 2019.

                        About the Lawsuit

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

On December 3, 2018, the Company disclosed that shipments of Arlo
Ultra, its recently-announced flagship security camera system, were
delayed due to "a quality issue with the battery from one of its
suppliers" discovered during the final testing phase, and that as a
result it lowered its Q4 2018 financial guidance.

On this news, the price of Arlo's shares plummeted 42% from its IPO
price.

The case is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al, 19-cv-00372.

         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]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 24 announced he filing of a class action lawsuit against
Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo" or "the Company") (NYSE: ARLO) for
violations of Secs. 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 or traceable
to Arlo's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Arlo's August
3, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), are encouraged to contact
the firm before March 25, 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. Arlo's new battery for the Company's
Ultra camera systems suffered from flaws and quality issues. These
problems resulted in a shipping delay in the Ultra cameras. The
delays endangered Arlo's product from reaching the market for the
holiday season, and allowed competitors to capitalize on the issue,
gaining market share from the Company. At the same time, Arlo's
customers experienced problems with the product including excessive
battery drain. The battery issues were likely to negatively impact
the fourth quarter 2018 financial results. Based on these facts,
the Company's Registration Statement was false and materially
misleading. When the market learned the truth about Arlo, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN]


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Astec Industries, Inc.
("Astec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASTE) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Astec securities between July 26, 2016 and October 22,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/aste.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material 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.

On July 24, 2018, Astec revealed its 2018 second quarter financial
results and announced that it was exiting from its contractual
obligations concerning the Highland wood pellet plant in Arkansas
"driven by unresolved issues, which inhibited the plant's ability
to meet contractual provisions by the date required by the
Company's sales contract with Highland." As a result, the Company
"agreed to pay $68 million in cash in the aggregate over the course
of the next 120 days and forgive approximately $7 million in
receivables." Following this news, Astec stock dropped $12.59 per
share, or over than 20%, to close at $48.21 on July 24, 2018. Then
on January 22, 2019, Astec revealed that its Chief Executive
Officer, Benjamin G. Brock, had resigned effective immediately.
Following this news, Astec stock dropped $1.86 per share, or
roughly 5%, over the next two trading days to close at $35.97 on
January 23, 2019.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/aste or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC, at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Astec,
you have until April 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lampe Balks at Merger Deal with BioTime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS LAMPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., DONALD
M. BAILEY, MICHAEL H. MULROY, ANDREW ARNO, STEPHEN L. CARTT, ALFRED
D. KINGSLEY, RICHARD T. LEBUHN, ADITY A MOHANTY, NATALE S.
RICCIARDI, HOWARD I. SCHER, BIOTIME, INC., PATRICK MERGER SUB,
INC., BROADWOOD CAPITAL, INC., BROADWOOD PARTNERS, L.P., NEAL C.
BRADSHER, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG19007391 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 19, 2019), contends that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and/or aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed
sale of Asterias to BioTime.

On November 8, 2018, Asterias issued a press release announcing it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 7,
2018 to sell Asterias to Bio Time. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Asterias stockholders will have the right to
receive 0.71 BioTime common shares for each share of Asterias
common stock they own. Upon consummation of the Proposed
Transaction, BioTime stockholders will own approximately 84% of the
combined company and Asterias stockholders will own approximately
16% of the combined company.

According to the complaint, BioTime's acquisition of Asterias is a
blatantly conflicted transaction that was arranged by and carried
out for the sole benefit of Bio Time and its officers and
directors, and that is unfair to Asterias' minority stockholders.
Asterias was a long-time majority owned and controlled subsidiary
of BioTime. Although legally spun off in May 2016, BioTime and its
insiders still collectively own over 49% of Asterias' common stock
and therefore retain effective control of the Company. This fact is
readily conceded in Asterias' public filings. The proposed
Transaction is driven by the interests of the Bio Time insiders and
affiliates who stand on both sides of the deal, in particular
BioTime director Bradsher who is BioTime's largest stockholder and
Asterias' second largest stockholder. Despite the Proposed
Transaction being a terrible deal for Asterias' minority
stockholders they are powerless to stop it given BioTime and
Bradsher's control over the Company. Moreover, since Asterias'
Board failed to establish the required procedural safeguards to
protect the Company's minority stockholders against this conflicted
controlled transaction, the burden is on the Board to demonstrate
that the Proposed Transaction is entirely fair.

The lawsuit contends that the interlocking relationships between
Asterias and BioTime and Broadwood are endemic, and render the
Proposed Transaction hopelessly conflicted. At least six of the
nine members of the Board -- Defendants Donald M. Bailey, Michaef
H. Mulroy, Andrew Arno, Stephen L. Cartt, Alfred D. Kingsley and
Aditya Mohanty -- suffer from debilitating conflicts of interest
and are beholden to Bio Time as either (i) members or former
members ofBioTime's board or former senior executives of Bio Time;
(ii) board members or senior executives of OncoCyte Corporation
("OncoCyte"), an affiliate of Bio Time and a former subsidiary of
Bio Time from August 2016 to November 2017; ( iii) members of the
board of AgeX Therapeutics, Inc., which recently spun of from
BioTime; or (iv) members of the board of the combined company if
the Proposed Transaction is consummated. Additionally, Defendant
Richard T. LeBuhn is employed and beholden to Broadwood. As dual
fiduciaries suffering from divided loyalties, there is no doubt
that these director Defendants are not disinterested and
independent of Bio Time, the lawsuit says.

Asterias is a biotechnology company focused on developing
cell-based therapeutics to treat neurological conditions associated
with demyelination and cellular immunotherapies to treat
cancer.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISS LAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Telephone: 310 208-2800
          Facsimile: 310 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
AT&T Inc. ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE: T). Such investors are
advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether AT&T and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

In June 2018, in connection with its acquisition of Time Warner
Inc. ("Time Warner"), AT&T issued approximately 1.185 billion new
shares of AT&T common stock directly to former shareholders of Time
Warner common stock, with each former share of Time Warner common
stock issued and outstanding immediately before the acquisition
converted into the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued
AT&T common stock.  The Registration Statement issued in connection
with the stock issuance touted yearly and quarterly growth trends
in AT&T's Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video
Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV
Now service sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional
satellite DirecTV subscribers, such that AT&T was purportedly
experiencing an ongoing trend of total video subscriber "Net
Additions."  It subsequently became clear that AT&T had
substantially increased prices while discontinuing promotional
discounts for its DirecTV Now service and was consequently losing
subscribers.  Since the Time Warner acquisition, AT&T's stock price
has fallen as low as $27.36 per share, a decline of nearly 16% from
the $32.52 price per share on the exchange date for the
acquisition.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Fixes Interest Rates of VRDO Bonds, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Philadelphia brings an antitrust class action on behalf
of itself and a proposed class of issuers of "Variable Rate Demand
Obligations" or "VRDOs" -- mainly state and local public entities
such as municipalities, agencies, public universities, and
hospitals -- against various financial institutions alleging that
the Defendant conspired to inflate the interest rates for VRDOs.
The lawsuit seeks to recover actual damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of suit,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief under Section 1
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Antitrust Act, arguing that the harm inflicted by the Defendants
likely amounts to billions of dollars class-wide.

VRDOs are tax-exempt bonds with interest rates that are reset on a
periodic basis, typically weekly. VDROs are issued by public
entities to raise money to fund their operations, as well as
critically important infrastructure and public services, such as
neighborhood schools, water and wastewater systems, public power
utilities, and transportation services. VRDOs are also issued by
public entities on behalf of tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations --
including schools, community organizations, and charities -- which
use the VRDOs to fund their operations and projects.

VRDOs allow issuers to borrow money for long periods of time while
paying short-term interest rates. Investors find VRDOs attractive
because the bonds include a built-in Variable Rate Demand
Obligations are also sometimes referred to as Variable Rate Demand
Notes ("VRDNs").  To manage the bond, VRDO issuers contract with
banks -- like the Defendants -- to act as re-marketing agents
("RMAs"). RMAs have two primary jobs under the remarketing
agreements. First, on each reset date, RMAs are required to reset
the interest rate of the VRDO at the lowest possible rate that
would permit the bonds to trade at par. For the vast majority of
VRDOs, the reset date occurs on a weekly basis, typically every
Tuesday or Wednesday. Second, when an existing investor exercises
the "put" on the bonds and tenders the bond to RMAs, RMAs are
required to "remarket" the VRDO to other investors at the lowest
possible rate. For these ongoing services, issuers pay RMAs
remarketing fees.

VRDO issuers are motivated to obtain the lowest interest rates for
their debt. The higher the rates that VRDO issuers pay, the more
costly it is for them to finance their operations and fund
infrastructure projects. If an RMA cannot deliver low rates,
issuers have the right to replace that RMA with another one who
can. Thus, in a properly functioning market, RMAs would compete
against each other for issuers' business by actively working to set
the best (i.e., the lowest) possible rate for their customers.

Since about late 2015, various government authorities have been
investigating the Defendants' practices in the market for VRDO
remarketing services, based on facts that were first brought to
their attention by a whistleblower. Among other things, the
whistleblower alleges that RMAs (including the Defendants) were not
actively and individually marketing and  pricing VRDOs at the
lowest possible interest rates, but instead were setting
artificially high rates without regard to the individual
characteristics of VRDOs, market conditions, or investor demand.
The whistleblower also alleges that RMAs (including the Defendants
here) were improperly coordinating the rates they set for VRDOs.
These allegations were based on the whistleblower's extensive
analysis of data available to the whistleblower due to that
person's role in the marketplace the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, as a result of Plaintiff counsel's
investigation, Plaintiff has further learned that, as early as
February 2008, the Defendants were agreeing among themselves not to
compete against each other in the market for remarketing services,
and instead to keep VRDO rates artificially high, to the detriment
of their customers, including Plaintiff.  The Defendants conspired
by communicating with each other in person, via telephone, and
through electronic communications.

The case is captioned THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, the Plaintiff, vs.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANC OF AMERICA
SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK
N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
LIMITED, THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
WELLS FARGO FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES LLC, the
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-LAK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21,
2019).

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, Minneapolis, and Toronto. Bank of America was formed through
NationsBank's acquisition of BankAmerica in 1998.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel L. Brocket, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          Sami H. Rashid, Esq.
          Thomas Lepri, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@qulnnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  samirashid@quinnemanuel.com
                  thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
          William A. Maher, Esq.
          Brant Duncan Kuehn, Esq.
          WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10100
          Telephone: (212) 382-3300
          E-mail: dwollmuth@wmd-law.com
                  wmaher@wmd-law.com
                  bkuehn@wmd-law.com

BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
and its subsidiaries continue to defend the Generic Pricing
Antitrust Class Action.

On June 22, 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Oceanside"), Bausch Health US, LLC
(formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch
Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas"), were
added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict
antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724).

The complaint was filed by direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated. The plaintiffs seek
damages under federal antitrust laws.

Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated
in the same multidistrict litigation did not name the Company or
any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The direct purchaser
plaintiffs assert that the Company's subsidiaries purportedly
entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig
bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic
pharmaceuticals. Specific claims against the Company's subsidiaries
relate to generic pricing of the Company's metronidazole vaginal
product as part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic
drug manufacturers.

Prior to the Company's subsidiaries being added to the case, some
of the defendants moved to dismiss certain of the consolidated
amended complaints. On October 16, 2018, the Court granted in part
and denied in part these defendants' motions to dismiss.

On December 21, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging similar claims against the Company's
subsidiaries as the earlier-filed putative class action complaint.
On December 20, 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had
opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the
MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health
Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' putative class action complaint. The current deadline
for filing motions to dismiss is February 21, 2019. Discovery
against the Company's subsidiaries has commenced.

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.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Leave to Appeal Afexa-Related Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Supreme
Court of Canada has dismissed the application for leave to appeal,
with costs, in the lawsuit over Cold-FX(R).

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954).

The proposed claim asserted that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and
that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On
November 8, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended notice of civil
claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and
broaden them from what was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action. In response, the plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed
certain additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others.

The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and,
on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
plaintiff's application for certification of this action as a class
proceeding. On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the
decision to dismiss the application for certification.

The plaintiff filed its appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and the
Company filed its appeal factum on April 19, 2017. The appeal
hearing was held on September 19, 2017 and, on April 30, 2018, the
British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On June 29,
2018, the plaintiff filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada in this matter and, on February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court
of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal with
costs.

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: Third-Party Payors' Class Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
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 case
entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087, remains stayed.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various
third-parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a
putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.  

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No.
3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on
December 14, 2016.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity
and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.  

The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.


The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February
13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to
stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal
proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner.

On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered
an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly
terminating other pending motions.

Bausch Health said, "The Company believes these claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

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

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.


BHI ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Klapatch Class Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS KLAPATCH and RICHARD LEE, individually and for
others similarly situated, v. BHI ENERGY I POWER SERVICES, LLC,
Civil Action No. 18-11581-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
allowed the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

Klapatch and Lee are the Plaintiffs in the putative class action
directed against BHI.  They allege that BHI misclassified them as
exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and
then failed to pay them overtime as required under the FLSA and
CMWA.

BHI provides temporary staffing to nuclear power plants across the
country.  BHI employs salaried (exempt) and hourly (non-exempt)
workers through whom it provides clients with engineering,
construction, electrical, management, and supervisory services.
Clients, in turn, pay BHI based on the total number of employee
hours worked.

BHI hired Klapatch in February of 2015 and Lee in January of 2017
to work in various power plant positions.  Klapatch worked in
Minnesota and Connecticut, while Lee worked in Texas.  They allege
that as hourly employees, they were improperly paid a standard
hourly rate, including for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

On July 26, 2018, they initiated the lawsuit, claiming that BHI had
failed to pay them and other employees the required overtime.  On
Dec. 28, 2018, they moved for conditional certification pursuant to
the FLSA, which BHI opposed on Jan. 25, 2019.

The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective
action consisting of all employees of BHI who were, at any point in
the past 3 years, paid "straight time for overtime" and staffed to
a power plant.

Judge Stearns finds that the Plaintiffs have made a plausible case
that they are similarly situated employees of BHI who suffered from
a common unlawful practice, namely not being paid overtime.  He,
therefore, accepts as a conditional collective action class all
employees of BHI who were, at any point in the past 3 years, paid
"straight time for overtime" and staffed to a power plant.

The Plaintiffs also request that the Court adopts their proposed
notice and consent form, opt-in procedures, and schedule, all of
which BHI opposes.  The Judge, instead, directs the parties to file
a joint proposal (to the extent an agreement is possible) by March
22, 2019, for an appropriate mechanism for providing notice to the
putative class members with a clearly stated option to elect to
opt-in.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns allowed the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/N8cUl4 from Leagle.com.

Dennis Klapatch, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, &
Richard Lee, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Josephson --
mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Philip J. Gordon -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law
Group, Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com --
Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice & Kristen M. Hurley --
khurley@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group.

BHI Energy I Power Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by James
M. Nicholas -- jnicholas@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Donald
W. Schroeder -- dschroeder@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Erin
C. Horton -- ehorton@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP.


BIG FISH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Halverson, writing for SeattlePI, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed against Seattle-based Big Fish Games alleging
they used illegal gambling practices in their mobile apps.

The complaint, filed Feb. 11 U.S. District Court in Western
Washington, said that Big Fish Games, Inc., an app developer that
makes "free-to-play" online casino games, used practices similar to
casinos to "reap huge profits" while never paying out anything of
monetary value.

The games start players off with a free, finite set of virtual
chips they can use for slot machine and other casino-style games,
the complaint said. After the chips run out, players can't play
anymore unless they buy chips through in-app offers or
micro-transactions that start at 99 cents but can run up to
hundreds or thousands of dollars.

In "social casino" games like the ones made by Big Fish Games,
there's no way to accumulate more chips unless you win them by
wagering chips you already have, or by buying more, the lawsuit
said. This is unlike other mobile games that give players the
option of a paywall or to wait a certain amount of time to play
after losing lives or credits.

The complaint said developers of the games "have begun exploiting
the same psychological triggers as casino operators." They
referenced gaming publications like PC Gamer that wrote about the
similarities of micro-transactions in video games to casinos.

Some that download the app don't spend a dime on the game, but the
complaint said the company depends on certain customers known as
"whales," similar to how casinos operate.

"Whales," as they're described in the complaint, make up a
minuscule portion of the total players, but together can provide
almost half of the revenue for the games.

The complaint said the games also contribute to gambling addicts
who migrate from casino game apps to online gambling, through a
study that linked the high revenue of "free-to-play" games and the
low number of gamers who actually purchase in-app items.

Big Fish Games' premier product is "Big Fish Casino, and brings in
an annual revenue of over $100 million, and all of their casino
games combined bring in revenues of over $200 million," the
complaint said.

When Big Fish Games was owned by Churchill Downs Inc., the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the company's practices
constituted illegal gambling under Washington state law.

"As we allege in our complaint, the mobile gambling industry, by
design, preys on consumers by bringing additive gambling
opportunities directly into their homes," Christopher Dore, an
attorney representing the plaintiff said in an email. "We look
forward to proving that companies are aware that many of their
customers fall victim to these gambling games, with significant
negative impacts on their lives financially and otherwise."

The class action said it represents Florida resident Manasa
Thimmegowda individually, and on behalf of all individuals
similarly situated, who lost money wagering on games of chance
developed by the defendants.

The lawsuit accuses Big Fish Games, Inc., their owners Aristocrat
Technologies Inc. and their previous owners Churchill Downs
Incorporated, of operating illegal online casino games.

Big Fish Games have not yet have not yet submitted a reply in the
case. [GN]


BOOZ ALLEN: Faces No-Poach Class Action in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
Jennifer Carsen, writing for HR Dive, reports that an antitrust
class-action complaint filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio alleged a group of U.S. government
contractors entered into illegal no-poaching agreements with each
other. The class of current and former employees seeks damages and
injunctive relief (Hunter v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., Inc
et al., No. 2:19-CV-411 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 7, 2019)).

The plaintiffs, who all worked at the Joint Intelligence Operations
Center Europe in Molesworth, England, claim their employers agreed
not to hire each other's employees, in violation of U.S. antitrust
laws including the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The group alleged
these actions had the effect of eliminating competition for skilled
labor, restricting employee mobility and suppressing wages for the
purpose of increasing profits.

According to the plaintiffs, contractors routinely hired workers
employed by subcontractors that were not parties to the no-poach
agreement. In one instance, the complaint said, a supervisor for
one contractor told workers not to attend another contractor's job
fair because "[t]he no poaching agreement is still in place so they
are not allowed to talk to you." The plaintiffs also argued they
were "essentially Defendants' captives" due to the need for workers
to hold jobs in order to maintain their work visas and due to the
fact that workers would need to pay relocation expenses if they
chose to quit their jobs, among other factors. "Defendants knew
this, and Defendants unlawfully exploited their power over
workers," the complaint said. "This made Defendants' illegal
agreement even more profitable."

Dive Insight:
No-poach agreements are an active area of enforcement for the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), with employee advocates arguing that
such agreements unfairly stack the deck in favor of employers.

In October 2016, DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued
a guidance document for HR stating that it is illegal for employers
to agree to fix wages, or to not hire one another's workers. The
agencies also reserved the right to pursue criminal charges against
companies and individuals involved in those activities.

Last year, in the first no-poach settlement since the release of
the 2016 guidance, DOJ and FTC declined to pursue criminal charges,
but only because the no-poach agreements had been ended prior to
the agencies' announcement of their intent to pursue criminal
charges. Notably for employers, DOJ said in the settlement that
no-poaching agreements are illegal even if they don't ultimately
have any anticompetitive effects -- they are per se illegal,
according to  Mark Krotoski, Partner at Morgan, Lewis and Bockius.
Franchise owners, including Jiffy Lube and several fast-food
restaurants, have also been among those targeted in the no-poach
crackdown.

Unless employers are engaging in a joint venture, merger or
acquisition, they should not share sensitive information about
employee salaries and recruitment, experts previously told HR Dive,
even with employers they don't consider direct competitors.
Additionally, employers may want to conduct an "antiitrust audit"
of their contracts to ensure they don't contain any potentially
unlawful provisions, even if they are not enforced. Compliance
efforts also may need to involve a clear reporting component so
employees know who to speak with if they suspect a problem. [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 35,500 Mesh-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that of the
approximately 50,000 cases and claims related to transvaginal
surgical mesh products, approximately 35,500 have met the
conditions of settlement and are final.

As of February 5, 2019, approximately 53,000 product liability
cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products
designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ
prolapse have been asserted against the company. The pending cases
are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and include
eight putative class actions.

There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one
certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims
in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal
injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge
in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases
to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices
regarding its transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Boston Scientific said, "We have responded to those requests. As of
February 5, 2019, we have entered into master settlement agreements
in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with
certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of
approximately 50,000 cases and claims. These master settlement
agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of
settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon,
among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 50,000 cases and
claims, approximately 35,500 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered
into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing."

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BRISTOW GROUP: April 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the April 15,
2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of investors that purchased Bristow Group Inc.
("Bristow" or the "Company") (NYSE: BRS) securities between
February 8, 2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Bristow investors have until April 15, 2019 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Bristow 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 February 11, 2019, the Company disclosed that it "did not have
adequate monitoring control processes in place related to
non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and
lease agreements." The same day, the Company announced that it had
terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc. On
this news, the Company's share price fell $1.22 per share, or
nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per share on February 12, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on February 12, 2019, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the
SEC to announce: (i) that it had terminated its agreement to
purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc.; and (ii) that Jonathan E.
Baliff would retire as Chief Executive Officer and would resign
from the Board of Directors, effective February 28, 2019. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.64, or nearly 35%, to close
at $1.20 per share on February 13, 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, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate monitoring
processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured
financing and lease agreements; (2) that, as a result, the Company
could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial
covenants; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely
to breach certain agreements; (4) that, as a result, the Company
had understated its short-term debt; (5) the required corrections
would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting; and (7) 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 Bristow during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than April 15, 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, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]


CANADA DRY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $11MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Armbruster, writing for News4JAX, reports that Ginger ale
drinkers could be owed some money after the makers of Canada Dry
reached a pair of settlements in class-action lawsuits.

The company agreed to pay $11 million to settle claims of false
advertising over whether the company's drinks were "made from real
ginger."

Real ginger is known to provide health benefits, such as stomach
calming.

In addition to the cash payout, the ginger ale class-action
settlement also requires Canada Dry to change product labels to
include words such as "taste," "extract" or "flavor" if it
continues to represent "ginger" as an ingredient, according to
cdgasettlement.com.

To cash in on the class-action lawsuit, you must have bought Canada
Dry Ginger Ale between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 19, 2018.

If you do not have receipts, you can get up to $5.20 per
household.

If you have proof of purchase, you can get up to $40 per
household.

The deadline to submit a claim form is March 19.

To learn more about the settlement or submit a claim, go to
cdgasettlement.com. [GN]


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
Michael Burke, writing for Madison.com, reports that a 21-state
class-action lawsuit scheduled for trial in April alleges that CBL
& Associates, the owner of East Towne Mall and West Towne Mall in
Madison, deliberately overcharged its commercial tenants for
electricity for years.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, claims that CBL's
tenants have been victim to a "criminal enterprise" in which CBL
knowingly overcharged its mall tenants for electricity by up to 100
percent.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2016 by Hagens Berman and
Buckner+Miles. A federal judge in Florida certified the class of
small business tenants, denied CBL's motion for summary judgment.
The trial is expected to start on April 1 or very soon thereafter
at the U.S. District Courthouse for the Middle District of Florida
in Fort Myers.

CBL, which is publicly held and based in Chattanooga, Tenn., also
is the former owner of Regency Mall in Racine, which it acquired in
2000. The current owners, Hull Property Group, bought Regency as a
"failed mall" in December 2016, along with two other CBL malls.
Hull has since put millions of dollars into renovations of Regency
Mall and has also since bought the former Boston Store property,
which was not part of the original purchase, although the mall
continues to struggle with closures similar to other malls.

CBL spokeswoman Stacey Keating said on Feb. 6, "We believe this
case is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously. We
have already filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals."

               The allegations

According to the 32-page complaint, CBL promised its small-business
tenants that their electricity charges would not exceed what CBL
was charged by local public utilities for the electricity the
tenants actually used. But the suit states that CBL breached its
own lease agreements, and state law, by inflating both the
electricity rates charged and the amounts of electricity used by
tenants.

In U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson's recent order
certifying the class, he called CBL's objections "specious" and
denied CBL's attempts to strike expert witnesses chosen by
attorneys representing the mall tenants.

In Magnuson's order he wrote that CBL hired Valquest to prepare
estimates of electricity usage for its tenants, and based its
tenant electricity charges on those surveys.

"According to plaintiff, CBL and Valquest intentionally engaged in
a scheme to inflate both the usage and the rate for that usage,"
the judge wrote. "Indeed, plaintiff cites to evidence that Valquest
and CBL knew what they were doing was wrong and potentially
illegal."

The lawsuit details alleged racketeering and a conspiracy between
CBL and Valquest, in violation of the Racketeer Influence and
Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, as well as violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's
Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.

The suit seeks relief for all individuals and entities that leased
mall space from and paid monthly energy charges to CBL and whose
electricity charges were determined based on a Valquest
survey.[GN]


CGY & J CORP: Wang Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Guo Hua Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CGY & J Corp. d/b/a Kitaro, and Guo
Yong Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01772 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the nonpayment
of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and failure to
provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring and to
furnish wage statements with every payment of wages would
financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and
violate state and federal laws. From approximately 2004 to present,
the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a food delivery person
for their restaurant, namely Kitaro located at 510 Amsterdam
Avenue, New York, NY 10024, the lawsuit says.

Guo Yong Chen owns the stock of CGY & J Corp. and manages and makes
all business decisions including but not limited to the amount in
salary the employees will receive and the number of hours employees
will work; and being amongst the ten largest corporate
shareholders, Guo Yong Chen is individually responsible for unpaid
wages under Section 630 of the New York Business Corporation
Law.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

CHINA AGRITECH: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq. -- jdunlap@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP, in an article for The National La Review reports that
the Supreme Court meant what it said in China Agritech, Inc. v.
Resh -- that is the primary lesson from the First Circuit's January
30th decision in In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation.  The Supreme Court observed in China Agritech
that its prior ruling in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah "tolls
the statute of limitations during the pendency of a putative class
action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action
individually or file individual claims if the class fails."  China
Agritech went on to hold that "American Pipe does not permit the
maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the
statute of limitations."  The First Circuit, in In re Celexa and
Lexapro, rejected a plaintiff's attempt to read China Agritech
narrowly.

In re Celexa and Lexapro involved consolidated prescription drug
marketing cases.  Plaintiffs asserted RICO and state-law claims,
alleging that defendants fraudulently promoted antidepressant drugs
for uses the FDA had not approved -- referred to as "off-label"
uses.  The same defendants had previously been named in a qui tam
action that was unsealed in February 2009.  One of the plaintiffs,
Painters, and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund
("Painters"), sought certification of two classes of third
party-payors that had paid for or reimbursed off-label
prescriptions of Celexa or Lexapro. The district court denied class
certification.

On appeal, the First Circuit -- while brushing aside the district
court's concerns about individual issues of causation and injury --
nevertheless affirmed the denial of class certification.  Judge
Kayatta, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that Painters had
put forward evidence that could establish causation and injury on a
class-wide basis.  He went on, however, to find that the class
action was time-barred.

The Court first found that Painters' individual claims were timely.
The Court concluded that the four-year statute of limitations was
subject to the discovery rule and held that, as a matter of law,
the limitations period began running in March 2009 after the qui
tam action was unsealed.  Painters' claim was timely because the
running of the limitations period was stayed for eight months by a
prior class action (the "N.M. UFCW case").  Because Painters was a
putative class member of that prior class action, American Pipe
tolling applied to its claim during the pendency of the N.M. UFCW
case.

Even though Painters' own claim was timely, the Court nevertheless
held that Painters' class action was not.  As Judge Kayatta wrote,

China Agritech clarified that [American Pipe] tolling has limits:
While a putative class member may join an existing suit or file an
individual action upon denial of class certification, a putative
class member may not commence a class action anew beyond the time
allowed by the untolled statute of limitations.

The Court refused to limit China Agritech to situations in which
class certification was denied in the earlier-filed class action.
Painters had argued that, unlike China Agritech, there was no
substantive ruling on class certification in the N.M. UFCW case
that had preceded Painters' own action.  The First Circuit,
however, held that the decision in China Agritech stood for the
broad proposition that the "tolling effect of a motion to certify a
class applies only to individual claims, no matter how the motion
is ultimately resolved.  To hold otherwise would be to allow a
chain of withdrawn class-action suits to extend the limitations
period forever."  The Court, therefore, affirmed the denial of
class certification.

After In re Celexa and Lexapro, there is no doubt that China
Agritech is no paper tiger in the First Circuit.  The rule is
clear:  a class action does not toll the statute of limitations for
subsequent class actions. [GN]


CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Suits over Resolute Energy Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. 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 a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits
related to its agreement and plan of merger to acquire Resolute
Energy Corporation.

In 2018, the company made various oil and gas property acquisitions
for $26 million. Additionally, the company entered into an
agreement and plan of merger to acquire Resolute Energy Corporation
in a cash and stock transaction valued at a total purchase price of
approximately $1.6 billion, including cash, stock, and the
assumption of Resolute's long-term debt.

As of January 25, 2019, Resolute, the directors of Resolute, and in
two of the cases, Cimarex, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2, have
been named as defendants in five purported stockholder class
actions challenging the adequacy of the disclosures to Resolute
stockholders made in the proxy statement/prospectus concerning the
merger.

Three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, one complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and one complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Additional lawsuits arising out of the merger may be filed in the
future.

Cimarex Energy said, "There can be no assurance that defendants
will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential
future lawsuits. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize
the completion of the merger."

Cimarex Energy Co. operates as an independent oil and gas
exploration and production company primarily in Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. Cimarex Energy Co. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action for $4.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew M. Shatzkes, Esq. -- mshatzkes@sheppardmullin.com -- of
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that Community Health System, one of
the largest health systems in the United States, has agreed to pay
$4,500,000 to settle claims made against it arising from a 2014
data breach. The data breach, believed to be caused by malware
installed by Chinese hackers on CHS's computer system, exposed the
names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and Social
Security numbers of approximately 4.5 million patients.

Following the breach, numerous lawsuits were filed by patients
seeking compensation for the theft of their personal information.
The lawsuits were consolidated into a single lawsuit. The
settlement, which still must be approved by the Judge overseeing
the case, provides for two different payments to patients affected
by the breach. Individuals who can prove they incurred
out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the breach and/or can show
evidence in time lost securing their accounts, can claim up to
$250. Individuals who have suffered identity theft or fraud can
recover up to $5,000.

Putting It Into Practice:  This case is a reminder for entities to
review their data protection mechanisms. Class action lawsuits by
individuals affected by breaches are becoming more common, and
could significantly increase the financial penalties and exposure
applicable to companies that store patient information. [GN]


CONAGRA BRANDS: Inflated Stock Price, Pension Fund Says
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against ConAgra Brands seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Exchange
Act claims allege that certain Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.

The case is a federal securities class action against Conagra and
certain of its officers and/or directors, and the underwriters for
violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Conagra common stock from June 27, 2018 through
December 19, 2018, inclusive.

Under the Securities Act, defendants are strictly liable for the
material misstatements in the Offering Documents for the SPO, and
these claims specifically exclude any allegations of knowledge or
scienter. The Securities Act claims also expressly exclude and
disclaim any allegation that could be construed as alleging fraud
or intentional or reckless misconduct.

The complaint alleges that in Conagra's Offering Documents and
throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, including
the troubled acquisition of Pinnacle Foods, Inc. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts, false and misleading statements and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

In January 2013, Conagra acquired Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a
manufacturer of private branded food, for $6.8 billion including
debt. After trying and failing to address executional shortfalls
and customer service issues, Conagra divested its Private Brands
business in February 2016 to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion,
recognizing a substantial loss.

Less than two years later, Conagra was again acquiring another
large publicly traded food service company. On June 27, 2018,
Conagra announced the acquisition of Pinnacle, in a cash and stock
transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the
"Transaction"). Conagra represented the merger as a combination of
two "growing portfolios" and "a no brainer of a deal" that would
enhance Conagra's multi-year transformation plan and expand its
presence and capabilities in its most strategic categories,
including frozen foods and snacks. Conagra highlighted their due
diligence of the deal, the similar cultures and work ethics of the
two companies, and the tremendous synergies of the deal.

Specifically, Defendants represented that the Company was acquiring
"a portfolio of complementary, leading brands" as "the Pinnacle
team has done an absolutely phenomenal job driving innovation and
growth here, and that meant a lot to us." In addition, Defendants
represented that the Company had a "proven track record of
executing strategic transactions" and "will be able to implement a
smooth integration process," as "we've been very clear-eyed from
the beginning" of the Transaction.

On or about October 9, 2018, in order to partially finance the
pending acquisition of Pinnacle, Defendants effectuated a secondary
public offering of 16,312,057 shares of common stock, priced at
$35.25 per share. In connection with the SPO, Defendants issued the
materially false and/or misleading Offering Documents. The Company
received net proceeds of approximately $612 million after
underwriters exercised their option of an additional 1,631,206
shares of Conagra common stock.

Unbeknownst to shareholders, however, Conagra and its management
were aware or recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not
result in anywhere near the sort of benefits that Defendants had
publicly represented. Just a few weeks after the closing of the
merger, on December 20, 2018, Conagra stunned the market by
releasing its third quarter 2018 results, as well as an update on
the performance of the newly merged company, which revealed that
Pinnacle's performance had been much worse than Defendants had
previously represented. In addition, Defendants revealed that
Pinnacle's three leading brands had "suffered sales and
distribution losses" in 2018, and accounted "for the vast majority
of Pinnacle's current challenges" due to self-inflicted subpar
innovation and executional missteps.

As a result of the disclosure, on December 20, 2018, Conagra's
stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly 17%, wiping
out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market capitalization. On the
next trading day, Conagra's stock declined an additional $2.13 per
share or 8.8%. In fact, in three trading sessions, Conagra stock
declined $8.13 or 30%, to close at $20.96 on December 24, 2018. As
a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., SEAN M. CONNOLLY, DAVID S.
MARBERGER, ROBERT G. WISE, ANIL ARORA, THOMAS K. BROWN, STEPHEN G.
BUTLER, JOIE A. GREGOR, RAJIVE JOHRI, RICHARD H. LENNY, RUTH ANN
MARSHALL, CRAIG P. OMTVEDT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., WELLS
FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BTIG, LLC, HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC., BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP., RABO SECURITIES USA, INC., RBC Capital Markets,
LLC , and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01323 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2019).

Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail
consumers, restaurants and institutions. The Company has a
portfolio of well-known food brands including Reddi-wip, Hunt's,
Healthy Choice, Slim Jim and Orville Redenbacher's. Conagra is
based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street / Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          IL ARDC: 6185530
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer
          Joseph E. White, III
          Lester R. Hooker
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, New York 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Silva Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut dismissed without prejudice the case, GERALD J.
SILVA, Plaintiff, v. D.K. WILLIAMS, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-CV-1770 (MPS) (D. Conn.).

On Oct. 26, 2018, Silva, a pro se inmate currently confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury") in Danbury,
Connecticut, brought a civil rights action under Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, against the warden of FCI
Danbury, D.K. Williams.  Inmates do not know the amount of payment
they will receive until the end of each pay period.  As a result,
they are unable to plan their living situations at FCI Danbury and
are often unable to purchase necessary items through the
commissary.

The practice of garnishing inmate wages at FCI Danbury has been
ongoing since 2015, but it has become more persistent and egregious
over the past year.  Many inmates have voiced their concerns about
the situation, but they fear reprisal if they file suit in the
courts.  Inmates have also alleged that the defendant and her staff
have engaged in "illegal price gouging" of products in the
commissary.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief against the
Defendant for "garnishing inmates' wages" and "price gouging" items
in the prison commissary.  He brings the action against the
Defendant in her individual and official capacities under Bivens.
He requests that the lawsuit be designated as a class action for
all inmates at FCI Danbury who have been affected by the garnishing
of wages and/or the "price gouging" of items in the commissary.

Judge Shea holds that the case must be dismissed because the
Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing standing, and he also does
not state a plausible constitutional claim of "price gouging."
First, the plaintiff fails to establish standing to bring suit
because he never alleges that he suffered any cognizable injury as
a result of the Defendant's conduct.  Second, with respect to the
Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant and her staff are "price
gouging" items in the commissary, he has failed to state a
plausible claim.

Nonetheless, the Judge will dismiss the case without prejudice and
permit the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.  In particular,
the Judge has not been able to identify any regulation that permits
the BOP to withhold earned wages for the purpose of balancing
F.C.I. Danbury's budget.  In other words, absent a regulation or
statute permitting withholding of already earned wages to balance
the budget, it appears that BOP officials do not have meaningful
discretion in paying federal inmates wages already earned.
Accordingly, because it would not be futile, the Judge will allow
the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Shea dimissed without prejudice the
instant action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A.  The Clerk is directed to close the case.  Nonetheless,
within 30 days of the Order, the Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint in which he attempts to address the defects identified in
the ruling or otherwise to plead a cognizable claim.  In
particular, the Plaintiff may replead his claim under Bivens for
the "garnishing" of his earned wages while employed at FCI Danbury,
as well as any other cognizable claim he deems necessary.  Failure
to file an amended complaint by the deadline will result in
dismissal of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7UK6SH from Leagle.com.

Gerald J. Silva, Plaintiff, pro se.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $19.8MM Obligation to be Satisfied in 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the remaining
loss accrual for the settled class action suit initiated by Billy
J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner, totals $19.8 million at December
31, 2018, representing additional settlement obligations expected
to be satisfied in 2019.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District
Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A.
Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other
similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition, as
amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class.


The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was
properly brought as a class action. On June 11, 2015, the trial
court certified a "hybrid" class requested by plaintiffs over the
objections of the Company. The Company appealed the trial court's
class certification order.

On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed
the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

After certification of the case as a class action was reversed the
parties engaged in settlement negotiations.

Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, on February
16, 2018 the Company reached a settlement in connection with this
matter. Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to
make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at
December 31, 2017.

On April 3, 2018, the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma
preliminarily approved the settlement and set certain dates
applicable to the settlement including the timing and content of
Notice, Opt-out, and Objections to Class Members.

On June 12, 2018, the court entered an order formally approving the
settlement, which is not subject to appeal. In the third quarter of
2018, the Company made payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy
the majority of its obligations under the settlement.

The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter totals $19.8
million at December 31, 2018, representing additional settlement
obligations expected to be satisfied in 2019. The accrual for this
matter is included in "Accrued liabilities and other" on the
consolidated balance sheets.

Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces
crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south,
and east regions of the United States. Continental Resources, Inc.
was founded in 1967 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CONTROL GROUP: Hunt et al Sue over Sale of Sealed Criminal Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyanna Walker, Samantha Sanchez, Terry Hunt, Joe Cardenas, Vladimir
Tejada, Roberto Huerta, and Michelle Rice on behalf of themselves
and of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. The Control
Group Media Company, Inc., Instant Checkmate, Inc., Instant
Checkmate, LLC, TruthFinders, Inc. and TruthFinders, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00347-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 20,
2019), targets the Defendants' willful publication and sale of
consumers' expunged, expuncted, and/or sealed criminal records in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Texas Business and
Commerce Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' misconduct was
discovered during multiple audits conducted regarding the
Defendants by a startup expungement service in Central Texas, which
correctly feared that the Defendants continued to publish and
report expunged and sealed records even after receiving legal
notice -- which included individualized court orders -- to
permanently remove these records. The Plaintiffs in this case come
from a group of at least 24 clients of the Texas expungement
service whose expunged or sealed records still appear on the
Defendants' websites and apps despite receipt of court-order
notices as early as July 2017 demanding their immediate removal.

That a single, startup expungement service provider encountered
such a high frequency of improper publications, given its limited
client base and operational history, and that it encountered
violations of such length, certainly indicates there is a massive,
class-action-sized problem before the Court, the lawsuit contends.

About one in three Americans has a criminal record of some kind and
87% of employers, 80% of landlords, and 66% of colleges screen for
criminal records. Background checking has become an intractable
barrier to the fundamental needs of life for huge numbers of people
with criminal records and has become a significant cause of poverty
in this country, a phenomenon known as collateral consequences.

To alleviate this burden, most states have expanded their
expungement or sealing laws in the last decade. For instance, Texas
passed its own protective provisions in 2013, which is today
codified in Texas Business and Commerce Code sections
109.001–.007. These state laws provide additional remedies and
protections to those found in the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, which has long forbidden the publication and reporting of
expunged or sealed records. Despite the efforts of Congress and
state legislatures, however, the commercial screening industry's
continued publication and reporting of expunged cases threatens to
undermine the whole strategy of broadening expungement as a remedy
for the harm of collateral consequences.

Defendants operate background investigation websites that allow
users to search for consumers based on several categories,
including name, date of birth, and state of residence. Those
reports can contain numerous items of information, including but
not limited to age, employer, current and previous addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, arrest and conviction records, the
identity of relatives, property records, marriage and divorce
records, social media accounts, and lawsuit records.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David George, Esq.
          BAKER WOTRING LLP
          700 JP Morgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-980-1700
          Facsimile: 713-980-1701
          E-mail: dgeorge@bakerwotring.com

               - and -

          Kevin D. Green, Esq.
          CONSUMER ADVOCATE OFFICE OF
          KEVIN GREEN
          800 Brazos St. Suite 1309
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 695-3613
          E-mail: kevingreen68@gmail.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

COOK COUNTY COURT: Court Dismisses Nisi Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case, MARY NISI, Plaintiff, v. DOROTHY BROWN, in her
official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 4861 (N.D. Ill.).

Nisi filed the putative class action lawsuit alleging that
Defendant Brown, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA"), by improperly disclosing personal information derived
from motor vehicle records.

In March 2005, Mary Nisi received a speeding ticket which was sent
to the Clerk for processing.  The ticket included identifying
information such as Nisi's gender, date of birth, home address, and
driver's license number.  According to the complaint, the Clerk
allows members of the public to access that personal information
(and the personal information of all others who receive traffic
citations in Cook County) through electronic computer terminals
located at all Cook County courthouses.  Nisi filed suit in 2018,
alleging that such conduct violates the DPPA.  The complaint seeks
both injunctive and monetary relief.

The DPPA prohibits state departments of motor vehicles ("DMVs") and
their employees from disclosing or making available to a
third-party personal information contained in an individual's motor
vehicle record.  State DMVs with policies of noncompliance are
subject to civil penalties imposed by the U.S. Attorney General,
while "persons" in violation of the statute may be sued civilly.
Nisi maintains that the Clerk is a "person" who has violated the
statute and filed suit under Section 2724(a).

The Clerk moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it is barred
by the Eleventh Amendment and fails to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6).

Judge Tharp concludes that Nisi's claim against the Clerk, acting
in her official capacity, must be dismissed -- not because it is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment (a question the Court does not
reach) but because the DPPA does not provide a private right of
action against the Clerk in her official capacity.  Section 2724 of
the DPPA provides an express private right of action against any
"person" who knowingly discloses personal information from a motor
vehicle record for an unauthorized purpose.  Under the statute,
"person" means "an individual, organization or entity, but does not
include a State or agency thereof."  This carve out raises the
question of whether the Clerk, a state official acting in her
official capacity, constitutes the "State" for purposes of DPPA
liability.

Because the DPPA does not provide a private cause of action under
which Nisi can sue the Clerk, the Judge dismissed her complaint.
The dismissal is without prejudice, however, because while a
plaintiff must proffer some legal basis to support her cause of
action, the failure to identify a viable legal theory is not
immediately fatal.  That said, it is not immediately apparent that
the facts Nisi alleges state a claim which could proceed under a
different legal theory.  Nisi should file an amended complaint,
then, only if she can in good faith present a theory of liability
under which she could sue the Clerk in federal court.  If she can
do so, the amended complaint must be filed by March 22, 2019.
Failure to file by that date will result in dismissal with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/rAtwiW from Leagle.com.

Mary Nisi, On behalf of herself and the class described below,
Plaintiff, represented by Roger Zamparo, Jr. --
roger@zamparolaw.com -- Zamparo Law Group, P.C. & Steven J. Uhrich
-- steven@zamparolaw.com -- Zamparo Law Group, P.C.

Dorothy Brown, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Megan
Kelly McGrath, Cook County State's Attorney Office & Sisavanh
Baccam Baker, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr..


COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Flips Summ. Judgment in Korolshteyn Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TATIANA KOROLSHTEYN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION and NBTY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-56435
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants, affirmed the denial of the Daubert motions, and
remanded for further proceedings.

Korolshteyn and the other putative class action Plaintiffs appeal
an adverse summary judgment entered by the district court in favor
of Costco and NBTY and a denial of Daubert motions in a diversity
class action.

The class alleges that appellees violated California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") by
falsely advertising the benefits of TruNature Ginkgo Biloba with
Vinpocetine.  Both parties had introduced expert testimony
supporting their respective claims and the district court denied
the Appellants' Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of three
of the appellees' expert witnesses.

The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.  It
reviews summary judgment de novo.  It reviews a district court's
admission of scientific evidence for abuse of discretion.  Because
the district court did not have the benefit of a recently released
decision of the Court, the Court reversed the district court's
grant of summary judgment, affirmed the denial of the Daubert
motions, and remanded for further proceedings.

Based on the recently released opinion, the Court finds that the
district court erred in granting summary judgment by failing to
apply the appropriate substantive evidentiary standard of a
preponderance to claims brought under California's consumer
protection laws.  The appropriate evidentiary standard must be
applied in determining whether a factual dispute must be submitted
to a jury.  The district court applied a tougher, conclusive
standard, holding that the existence of scientific studies
supporting the alleged benefits of the product precluded the
appellants from conclusively proving falsity in the Appellees'
product labeling.  The Court therefore remanded so that the
district court may apply the newly clarified standard.

It also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the Apellants' Daubert motions and admitting the
testimony of the Appellees' expert witnesses.  Concerns regarding
the admission of "shaky" evidence are resolved through the trial
process through vigorous cross-examination, presentation of
contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.
The Court affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellants'
Daubert motions.

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


COVERALL NORTH: Appeal from Arbitration Ruling in Gonzalez Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55787 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Gonzalez's appeal
from the district court's order granting Coverall's motion to
compel arbitration.

Coverall is a franchisor of commercial cleaning businesses.
Gonzalez is one of Coverall's franchisees.  In November 2016,
Gonzalez filed a class action against Coverall, alleging that he
and other similarly situated individuals are misclassified as
independent contractors, rather than employees of the Appellee, in
violation of California law.

Coverall subsequently filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant
to the parties' "Janitorial Franchise Agreement."  The district
court granted Coverall's motion to compel arbitration and stayed
further proceedings pending a ruling by the arbitrator as to
whether the parties' dispute was subject to arbitration.

Thereafter, rather than proceeding to arbitration, Gonzalez filed a
motion to dismiss his claims, which the district court granted
without prejudice.  Having secured the dismissal of his complaint,
Gonzalez pursued an appeal in the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1291.  Gonzalez seeks reversal of the district court's order
granting Coverall's motion to compel arbitration.

Coverall argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
Gonzalez's appeal because the Plaintiff's attempt to manufacture
appellate jurisdiction violates the final-judgment rule, the
Federal Arbitration Act's explicit bar on interlocutory appeals,
and prevailing case law.

The Court agrees, and dismissed Gonzalez's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.  It explains that the district court's order
directing the parties to arbitration and staying further
proceedings is not an appealable, final decision under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1291.  To appeal from the arbitration order, Gonzalez was
obliged to obtain the district court's permission for an
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  It is
undisputed, however, that Gonzalez failed to seek or secure the
requisite certification from the district court.  It makes no
difference that Gonzalez then secured a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice.  A plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice is
ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may
appeal.  Indeed, Gonzalez made clear that he wished voluntarily to
dismiss his case only so that he could immediately seek review of
the stay order.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/2S5LGZ from Leagle.com.


CVS HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of CVS
Health Corporation ("CVS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CVS).  Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether CVS and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

On February 20, 2019, CVS announced the Company's fourth quarter
and full year financial and operating results and provided 2019
full year guidance.  CVS advised investors that adjusted earnings
in 2019 would be $6.68 to $6.88 per share, compared with the $7.36
average of market estimates, citing rising costs and poor results
related to the Company's 2015 acquisition of Omnicare, Inc.
Following this news, CVS's stock price fell $5.66 per share, or
8.1%, to close at $64.22 on February 20, 2019.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


DAF: Hauliers Urged to Join Class Action Against Truckbuilders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Whiteman, writing for The Loadstar, reports that five
major truck manufacturers which participated in an illegal pricing
cartel are facing a claim of at least GBP1.5billion in damages from
operators.

Led by the Road Haulage Association (RHA), more than 7,800 truck
operators are part of a class action lawsuit against Daf, Daimler,
Iveco, Man and Volvo.

The legal action follows a 2016 European Commission ruling that the
five manufacturers had coordinated on pricing and colluded on
passing on the costs of compliance with emission rules. They were
fined more than EUR2.9billion.

The RHA claims that between 1997 and 2011, they had sold 650,000
new trucks with the price of each truck inflated by GBP6,000.

RHA chief executive Richard Burnett said: "The truck cartel
operated for 14 years and it's likely that its impact on truck
prices continued even beyond that.

"We're working tirelessly to ensure that truck operators who
suffered get the compensation they deserve."

On Feb. 7, it published a legal notice ahead of a Competition
Appeal Tribunal in June, which will decide if the RHA will be
appointed to represent claimants and can proceed. The association
is confident and says more truck operators are signing up to the
class action on a daily basis.

The director of RHA solicitor Backhouse Jones, Steven Meyerhoff,
said: "If the RHA is appointed, this will be the first case of its
kind under the new regime. It will mark an important shift towards
ensuring that those who suffer financial harm at the hands of
competition law infringers get the redress they deserve."

Some estimates suggest that between 60,000 and 90,000 operators may
be eligible to claim.

The RHA noted this was the first fully funded group claim against
the truck manufacturers and called on any affected UK truck owners
to join the action. There will be no cost for hauliers to be part
of the group claim. [GN]


DELTA AIR LINES: Bid to Dismiss Donoff Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc., is seeking dismissal, for failure to state a
claim, of the second amended complaint in the case styled as Judith
Marilyn Donoff v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM
(S.D. Fla.).  Donoff has filed her response.

Delta also filed a joint motion for extension of time of class
certification deadline and to extend time for the airline to
respond to the class certification motion.

Meanwhile, United Airlines, Inc., a non-party in the case captioned
as JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00458 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2019), has asked the
Court in Illinois to quash a subpoena for corporate representative
deposition served on the Defendant by Plaintiff in the case styled
as Judith Marilyn Donoff v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No.
9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.).  According to United, the Subpoena
presents a transparent attempt by Plaintiff's counsel, Leon
Cosgrove, to circumvent the discovery stay imposed by Judge Alonso
in a separate lawsuit brought against United by Leon Cosgrove in
the Northern District of Georgia.  Indeed, another court has
already determined that a similar discovery subpoena by Leon
Cosgrove in the JetBlue Suit was issued for an "improper purpose."
Dolan v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 4:18-MC-023-A, Dkt. 11 (N.D.
Tex. Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff can obtain the information she
seeks in the Subpoena through discovery from Delta in the Delta
Suit. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks information regarding
United's travel insurance-related knowledge, practices, and
competitive strategies, that discovery is not relevant to
Plaintiff's claims against Delta. There is no need in the Delta
Suit for testimony by United, a non-party.  Finally, the
Plaintiff's Subpoena would require United to disclose commercially
sensitive information to United's competitor, Delta, and -- based
on the Plaintiff's counsel's articulated position that discovery
materials designated as confidential in the Delta Suit may be
publicly filed -- to the public.

The class action seeks to redress injuries that Plaintiff and a
class of consumers have suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a
result of Delta's deceptive practices relating to its presentation
of the charge for trip insurance sold on its website.  On its
website, and throughout the online process of purchasing a flight
ticket and trip insurance, Delta leaves the consumer with the false
impression that the charge for trip insurance is a pass-through
fee, i.e., a fee that is passed on to another entity and for which
Delta has no financial interest.  The net impression of Delta's
representations and omissions to its consumers is that, when
consumers purchase a trip insurance policy, the funds to cover the
policy's cost ultimately go to an independent third-party insurance
company, whom Delta identifies as the company brokering the policy
for sale to the consumer.  Indeed, Delta identifies this
third-party insurance company as "the licensed producer," or
insurance agent, for the trip insurance policies. In reality, and
despite lacking a license to broker insurance policies, Delta
retains or ultimately receives an undisclosed kickback from every
policy sold.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. provides scheduled air transportation for
passengers and cargo in the United States and internationally.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

Non-party United Airlines, Inc. is represented by:

          Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq.
          Tal C. Chaiken, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8700
          Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
          E-mail: shemeryck@rshc-law.com
                  tchaiken@rshc-law.com

DIGNITY HEALTH: Removes Van Bebber Case to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Dignity Health removes case, ROBERT VAN BEBBER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and the general public,
the Plaintiffs, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba
MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
the Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-02311 (Filed: July 13, 2017), from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Merced, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Feb. 22, 2019. The Eastern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00149 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) violations of Business and
Professions Code section 17200; (2) unpaid wages and penalties
pursuant to Labor Code sections 218, 226, 510, 511, 1194, and 1998
(i.e. overtime); (3) failure to pay all wages due to illegal
rounding; (4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code
section 226; (6) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
(Labor Code sections 2698-2699); (7) failure to provide rest
periods; and (8) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
          Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
          Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
          Limore Torbati, Esq.
          Natasha L. Domek, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: 213 620 1780
          Facsimile: 213 620 1398

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, is continuing to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (NYSE: DPLO) resulting from allegations
that Diplomat may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On February 22, 2019, Diplomat announced it would be postponing the
release of its fourth quarter and full-year 2018 financial results
because it will need to record a non-cash impairment charge related
to its PBM business. More specifically, Diplomat disclosed the
"charge is expected to be equal to a significant portion of the
PBM's Goodwill and Definite-lived intangible assets, which total
approximately $630 million as of December 31, 2018, prior to
impairment charges." Diplomat also withdrew its preliminary 2019
full-year outlook provided in January. On this news, shares of
Diplomat fell $7.59 per share, or over 56%, to close at $5.87 per
share on February 22, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Diplomat investors. If you purchased shares of
Diplomat, please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1515.html to join the class
action. You may also 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.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in B&R Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services 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, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al., anticipate that class briefing will be complete
by spring of 2019.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
California’s Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company.

In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire
action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over
certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated
as MDL 1720. On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to
filing a renewed motion. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification on July 16, 2018.

Plaintiffs filed their opening merits expert reports on October 5,
2018, and the parties anticipate that class briefing will be
complete by spring of 2019.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as
a direct banking and payment services company in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods,
Illinois.


E TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Class Action Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------
E Trade 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
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Ty Rayner is now
closed.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E TRADE Financial Corporation and E TRADE Securities as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that E TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and
unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its
customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and
attorneys' fees. On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in Rayner.

The plaintiffs in Rayner appealed and the oral argument was heard
by the Second Court of Appeals on December 7, 2017. On July 31,
2018, the Second Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the
complaint. The class plaintiff did not appeal and the matter is now
closed.

E Trade Financial Corporation, a financial services company,
provides brokerage and related products and services for traders,
investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and
registered investment advisors (RIAs). E Trade Financial
Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.


E TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Class Action Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------
E Trade 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
putative class action lawsuit by Craig L. Schwab is now closed.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E TRADE Financial Corporation, E TRADE Securities, and former
Company executives as defendants.

The complaint alleges that E TRADE violated federal securities laws
in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various
market-makers and exchanges.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and
attorneys' fees.

By stipulation both matters are now venued in the Southern District
of New York. On July 10, 2017 the Court dismissed the Schwab claims
without prejudice. The plaintiff in Schwab filed a third amended
complaint on August 9, 2017, which E TRADE moved to dismiss.

On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Court of Appeals on October
23, 2018. On October 26, 2018, the Second Court of Appeals upheld
the dismissal of the complaint. The class plaintiff did not appeal
and the matter is now closed.

E Trade Financial Corporation, a financial services company,
provides brokerage and related products and services for traders,
investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and
registered investment advisors (RIAs). E Trade Financial
Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.


ELI LILLY: Glucagon Pricing Class Lawsuit in New Jersey Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey relating to glucagon pricing.

The company, along with Novo Nordisk and various pharmacy benefit
managers, are named as defendants in a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to
glucagon pricing.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws, the Federal RICO Act, the Sherman Act, and other
state and federal laws.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are
defending against it vigorously."

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

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Still Defends 535 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to face approximately 535 Byeta product liability-related suits.

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 535 Byetta
product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 795
plaintiffs. Approximately 59 of these lawsuits, covering about 316
plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in
a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 475 of the lawsuits,
covering about 480 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the
majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation
(MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Three lawsuits, representing approximately five plaintiffs, have
also been filed in various state courts. Approximately 525 of the
lawsuits, involving approximately 760 plaintiffs, contain
allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs'
cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer); most others
allege Byetta caused or contributed to pancreatitis.

In addition, two suits involving approximately nine plaintiffs
allege that Byetta caused or contributed to renal injuries and one
case alleges that Byetta caused or contributed to ampullary cancer.


The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in
favor of the company and its co-defendants on the claims alleging
pancreatic cancer. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In
November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment based
on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases for
further proceedings.

In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state
court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery
rulings and remanded for further proceedings.

Eli Lilly said, "We are aware of approximately 20 additional
claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims
allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe
these lawsuits are without merit and are defending against them
vigorously.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Biometrics Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bree Gonzales, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman
has filed a class action lawsuit against Enova Financial Holdings
Inc., claiming the company violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Sandra Diaz filed a complaint, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, on Feb. 7 in Cook County Circuit Court,
alleging Enova unlawfully collected, stored and used her personal
biometric data.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was required by Enova to
use a biometric time clock to keep track of her attendance. The
complaint alleges Enova improperly disclosed employees' data,
including Ms. Diaz's, to out-of-state third-party vendors. Ms. Diaz
claims the company failed to destroy workers' biometric data when
the initial purpose for obtaining such data had been satisfied or
within three years of employee's last interactions with them. The
plaintiff alleges Enova never provided workers with nor ever asked
them to sign a written release permitting the company to obtain and
store their biometrics.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages including
statutory or liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees
and costs, and other relief. Under the statute, the company could
face damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. A violation could be
considered to be each time an employee punched in or out of a work
shift using a biometric time clock.

Ms. Diaz is represented by Brandon M. Wise and Paul A. Lesko of
Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane APLC in St. Louis.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2019CH01642. [GN]


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Gearhart Suit Sustained
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD P. GEARHART, Individually and On Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-2-HRW (E.D. Ky.), Judge Henry R.
Wilhoit, Jr. of the U.S. District Court, for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, Norther Division, Ashland, (i) sustained the
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) dismissed without
prejudice Count V and Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint.

Gearhart filed the putative class action against Express Scripts
claiming that Express Scripts charged him in excess of the
statutory limit for a copy of his prescription records.  In his
Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Express Scripts
is a pharmacy benefit management company.  A pharmacy benefit
manager is a third-party administrator of prescription drug
programs that acts as an intermediary between retail pharmacies and
health benefits providers.  

The Plaintiff, a Kentucky resident, alleges that he requested his
medical records, through his agent, Jones Ward PLC, from Express
Scripts.  In May 2014, as part of a products liability case in
which Gearhart was a plaintiff, Jones Ward requested a copy of his
prescription claims data from Express Scripts in its capacity as
the pharmacy benefit manager for the Plaintiffs health plan.  In
exchange for a $75 fee, Express Scripts compiled information from
its database of claims it maintains for a "network of retail
pharmacies" and provided Jones Ward with a report listing
Plaintiffs various prescription claims.  Jones Ward, understanding
that Express Scripts charged $75 for "processing" the detailed
information from various pharmacies included in the report, paid
the fee.  The Plaintiff did not pay Express Scripts or Jones Ward
for this statement of prescription pharmacy claims.

The Plaintiff then filed the lawsuit against Express Scripts, on
behalf of a purported class of Kentucky citizens, for Express
Scripts' alleged practice of overcharging customers who authorize a
third party to request a copy of their prescription claims data on
his or her behalf.

The third iteration of his complaint alleges claims for violation
of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count I), fraud (Count
II), unjust enrichment (Count III), violation of Kentucky Health
Records Law (Count IV), fraud under the Health Insurance Portal and
Accountability Act ("HIPAA") (Count V), and breach of contract
(Count VI).

The Defendant seeks dismissal of Counts V and VI.


In Count V, the Plaintiff asserts a fraud claim based exclusively
on an alleged HIPAA violation.  However, Judge Wilhoit finds that
HIPAA does not confer a private right of action on an individual.
Nor can the Plaintiff circumvent well settled federal law by using
HIPAA as a basis for a state law claim, which is precisely what
Plaintiff attempts to achieve in Count V. Id. (citations omitted).
The Plaintiff does not, and cannot, defend his claim.  Although he
tries to cast it as one intertwined with his allegations of
violations of certain Kentucky statutes, it is clear that the fraud
alleged in Count V relies solely upon an alleged violation of
HIPAA.  Therefore, there is no viable legal claim alleged in Count
V and it must be dismissed.

In Count VI, Plaintiff asserts breach of contract.  The Judge finds
that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract fails at the
first juncture; the Third Amended Complaint contains no factual
allegations that plausibly suggest the existence of a contract.
Moreover, the Plaintiff fails to point to any express provision of
the contract that Express Scripts purportedly breached.  Nor does
the Plaintiff indicate how Express Scripts breached any such
provision.  The Plaintiff's failure to properly identify the
existence and/or breach of a contract renders his claim
implausible.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Wilhoit (i) sustainted the
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed without
prejudice Count V and Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint.  The
Order is an interlocutory and non-appealable order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/xOWgES from Leagle.com.

Edward P. Gearhart, Individually And On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex C. Davis --
alex@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC & Jasper Duduley Ward, IV --
jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC.

Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham,
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, pro hac vice, Elaina S. Al-Nimri, Bass,
Berry & Sims PLC, pro hac vice, Jaron P. Blandford --
jblandford@mmlk.com -- McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC
& Jason R. Hollon -- jhollon@mmlk.com -- McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie
& Kirkland, PLLC.


FAST LANE: Craggs Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, Dale E. Craggs, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs.
Fast Lane Car Wash & Lube, L.L.C. d/b/a In & Out Carwash, the
Defendant, Case No. 1831-CC01295, from Circuit Court of Greene
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Springfield) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Western
District of Missouri Court Clerk Assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-03081-BP
to the proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,001,000 and alleges
fraud claims. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief District Judge
Beth Phillips.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Christopher Weiss, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1800
          Springfield, MO 65806
          Telephone: (417) 268-4134
          Facsimile: (417) 268-4040
          E-mail: chris.weiss@huschblackwell.com

FITBIT INC: Sued over Defective 'Charge 2' Smart Fitness Bands
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, HILLARY SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01322 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant's design, manufacture and sale of Fitbit Charge 2 smart
fitness bands with screens that are prone to cracking gives rise
the claims alleged for (1) violation of Section 2 of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS
505/2, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (3)
unjust enrichment, in the alternative.

The case is a class action arising out of the Defendant's design,
marketing and sale of Fitbit devices to the Plaintiff and the
class. More specifically, the Fitbit "Charge 2" smart fitness bands
purchased by the Plaintiff and other class members were
manufactured with screens that develop cracks over time. The
devices, introduced in 2016 with a retail price of $149.95 ($179.95
for the Special Edition Series), continue to be sold through major
retailers throughout the United States. When customers such as the
Plaintiff have complained that their Charge screens have cracked,
Fitbit has refused to provide refunds or repairs; instead,
consumers are offered a 25% discount on a replacement product.

As a result of the defect, the Plaintiff and other class members
have overpaid for the Product because the crack significantly
diminishes the value of the Product. Additionally, the Plaintiff
and class members have purchased a Product that they would not
otherwise have purchased, or would have paid less for, had they
known of the defect.  The Plaintiffs and the class members have
consequently suffered actual economic damages as a result of
Fitbit's unlawful conduct.

Fitbit, Inc., is a technology company incorporated under the laws
of Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California. Fitbit designed, manufactured and sold the Charge 2
health and fitness trackers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          Natasha Singh, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com
                  ns@sweetnamllc.com

FLIGHT CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Canada's
largest bricks-and-mortar travel retailer routinely failed to pay
employees overtime and created "unlawful barriers" to claiming
accurate compensation, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit
worth more than $100 million.

The suit launched on Feb. 22 by Toronto-based labour law firm
Goldblatt Partners claims Flight Centre, a well-known travel
company with 150 stores across Canada, "regularly required"
employees to work beyond their scheduled hours but instituted
"unlawful" overtime policies that shortchanged them out of payment
and overtime protections. [GN]


FLORIDA: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Inmates' Media Files
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that the Florida
Department of Corrections is facing a potential class action over
recently forcing inmates to forfeit millions of dollars worth of
mp3 and other multimedia files purchased under a since-axed media
player contract.

William Demler, a 74-year-old incarcerated man at South Florida
Reception Center is the lead plaintiff in the case, which was filed
in the northern U.S. District Court on Feb. 19 with the backing of
the nonprofit legal firm, the Florida Justice Institute.

In 2012, Mr. Demler first bought an MP3 player while incarcerated
at Hamilton Correctional Institution in Jasper. Over the next few
years, he purchased about 335 songs, spending nearly $700 all told
on the player and accessories. He is seeking to form a class with
similarly situated inmates.

Mr. Demler's grievance about losing his music was first reported by
the Times-Union in August after inmates sent scores of letters with
similar complaints to the newsroom.

Over the course of the Access contract, which dates back to 2014,
more than 30,299 media players were sold and 6.7 million songs
downloaded -- about $11.3 million worth of music.

The department ditched the contract in 2017 in favor of a more
lucrative multimedia tablet deal with JPay, rendering all past
purchases irrelevant.

The complaint details the rollout and advertising of the Access
program. It quotes ad copy directed toward inmates promising, "Once
music is purchased, you'll always own it!"

"These men and women relied on representations made by the FDOC and
its vendor that, once purchased, they would own these songs and
books for the duration of their incarceration," Josh Glickman, an
attorney for the Social Justice Law Collective, also backing the
suit, said in a statement.

Mr. Glickman continued, "The FDOC's confiscation of these
individuals' lawfully purchased property -- for no reason other
than to turn a profit -- is simply unconscionable."

The Times-Union has asked the Department of Corrections for comment
on the pending lawsuit.

The Florida Justice Institute has a lengthy track record of
mounting class actions against the department over prison
conditions. The media player complaint alleges violations of the
Takings and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

If certified, the class could be sprawling in scale. Inmates filed
grievances about the mp3 program so frequently that the Department
of Corrections created a separate category in December 2017 to
track hundreds of related grievance appeals at the administrative
level.

The fallout from the media player contract is one example of how
inmates are often on the losing end in the Department of
Corrections' various dealings with the private companies that do
profitable business in state prisons.

The department, meanwhile, has positioned itself to generate more
cash than ever. Commissions from its JPay contract are spiking and
its prison canteens are bringing in about $35 million or more per
year.

Securus Technologies, the department's former phone vendor, sued
the agency in January, claiming it was going around the Legislature
to collect a "wish list of goodies" from its new phone contract
rather than negotiate for lower calling rates.

PROMISES UNKEPT

The Department of Corrections published numerous ads and posted
them in various institutions, the lawsuit claims, in an effort to
encourage prisoners to purchase digital media players, files, and
accessories.

Besides touting the media player's memory capacity, operating
power, and screen size, at least one widely distributed
advertisement, which appeared on the digital media player order
form, promised that inmates would always own the music they
purchased.

"Notably, the same advertisement that promised participating FDOC
prisoners that they would ‘always own' the digital media files
they had purchased listed only one restriction," the lawsuit said,
"that each FDOC prisoner was only permitted to possess one digital
media player at any given time."

A user guide informed inmates that they were allowed to delete and
re-order digital media files they had purchased from a cloud-based
library at any time, with no additional cost, according to the
lawsuit.

"You will never be charged for a song that is ordered from the
Re-Order manager," the guide said. "After all, you have already
paid for the song once, we don't think you should ever have to pay
for it again."

Attorneys were unable to uncover any written warnings or
suggestions that purchases made through the Access program would
only be available for use during the span of the contract,
according to lawsuit.

Media players were first sold in 2011 under a different vendor,
according to the lawsuit. When the department signed its contract
with Access in 2014, it ensured that inmates would be able to
transfer the music purchases they already made.

"It is the intent of the department that the implementation of the
new digital player program have little or no financial impact on
inmates presently participating in the department's current
program," the old contract language said, according to the
lawsuit.

The latest round of media player negotiations with JPay included no
such protections, the lawsuit said.

CUT OFF

The Department of Corrections officially terminated its contract
with Access in April 2017, entering that same month into a new
agreement with JPay that would bring the Florida-based company's
multimedia tablets to every facility.

Beginning in January 2018, inmates lost access to their cloud-based
libraries, preventing them from downloading previously purchased
music and books, according to the lawsuit.

Prisoners who chose not to receive a JPay tablet were given a
deadline of January 23, 2019 to surrender their digital media
players, the lawsuit said.

Inmates who are forced to give up their digital media players and
files were given the option to mail the player back to Access
Corrections to have its security timer removed and mailed to
someone outside of the prison for a fee of $25, or have the files
from the player transferred to a CD and mailed to someone outside
prison for the same fee.

"The option to send the player and/or files to someone outside of
prison does not cure the problem," the lawsuit claims. "...
Prisoners purchased the digital players and music to listen to them
and enjoy them while in prison — not at some unspecified time in
the future."

Beyond that, many of the inmates who purchased media files were
serving life sentences or equivalent sentences, the complaint said.
Others have no family or friends outside prison who would be able
to receive a player or CD, it continued.

"For these prisoners in particular, the option to mail out the
player is completely illusory," the complaint said.

Mr. Demler, for example, is serving a life sentence, and remains in
contact only with his 92-year-old uncle, "who has no use for Mr.
Demler's digital music player and/or files," according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit emphasizes that state prison inmates don't have
internet access, and many don't have access to AM/FM radios, or
meaningful work assignments.

In a 2017 grievance filed with the Department of Corrections, Mr.
Demler complained that the agency "promoted the MP3 Program and
encouraged participation to ensure a larger share in the profits
made by Access Corrections."

"Discontinuing the program and forcing inmates to give up their
players without compensation amounts to an act of fraud," he said.
[GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Certify Class Action in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, 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 is
awaiting a court order on the motion for class certification in a
consolidated class action in Georgia.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert
fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.  

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.  

Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations
and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints.
On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23,
2018.

The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery. On July 23, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The defendants
filed their memorandum of law in opposition to class certification
on October 5, 2018. The court has scheduled a hearing on the class
certification motion for February 28, 2019.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. The company operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery and Warehouse Delivery. The company was
formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FORT MYERS, FL: Buys Contaminated Land to Avert Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Borns, writing for Fort Myers News-Press, reports that
Tony Rodriguez has been coming to Fort Myers since 2005 to mow a
vacant lot he bought on Jeffcott Street during the real estate
bubble -- a lot he has since learned was contaminated by the city
of Fort Myers.

Now the Cape Coral man and two others in the same predicament will
be selling their lots to the city for $15,000 apiece -- a purchase
unanimously approved by the City Council on Feb. 19 to fortify
itself against potential damages from a federal class-action
lawsuit.

"You're telling me we are going to pay $15,000 for property valued
at $8 on the Lee County Property Appraiser website?" said local
activist Anthony Thomas, protesting the purchase of the lots.

"You ought to be embarrassed. For legal reasons you are bribing
people with taxpayer money to get them out of the lawsuit,"
Mr. Thomas said.

Neighbors mounted the lawsuit last year because they had bought
homes without being told about the landfill of contaminated lime
sludge in their midst; not in 2007 when higher than normal arsenic
was found in the soil and groundwater, and not in 2010 when the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection said property owners
should be told.

It took The News-Press report to inform the public in 2017. The
city also did not move to clean up the sludge, dumped in the 1960s
and 1970s, until the suit was filed.

Located in the same block as the landfill, the three lots are
especially burdened by the gooey substance the city inadvertently
dumped. Rodriguez recalled his lawn mower once sinking so deep in
the muck that he had to have help dislodging it.

City Attorney Grant Alley recommended the purchase.

"It's a negotiated price. It's important for the litigation and the
cleanup," Alley said.

Once the city purchases the properties, the owners will dismiss
their claims against the city, plaintiffs' co-council Gary Davis
said.

Claims for property and health damages will continue from other
property owners named in the suit, however, as well as from those
who may join in if the judge in the case -- U.S. Middle District
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell -- decides it may go forward as a
class action.

Most recently the parties failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
The city resurrected its motion to have the case dismissed. If
denied, it will go to trial in December 2019.


"I think it's a reasonable expense," Councilman Fred Burson said of
the purchase.

"It's not so much paying off the people of South Street. It's a
business move. The more we can buffer what used to be a sludge pit
with additional ownership, the less it will continue to be a
liability that hangs over us," Mr. Burson said.

The lots being purchased include:

   -- 3313 Jeffcott Street owned by Noemy Rodriguez of Cape Coral
   -- 3320 South Street owned by Ralph Henry of Miami
   -- 3324 South Street owned by Jerry Benien of Washington.

Meanwhile the cleanup of 30,000 cubic tons of sludge continues, and
Councilman Johnny Streets, whose Ward encompasses the site, has
called for a redevelopment plan of the area based on neighborhood
input. [GN]


G4S SECURE: Court Narrows Claims in J. King's RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH M. KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G4S SECURE
SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18 CV 448
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike Matters Outside the Pleadings, or Alternatively, Motion to
Convert Defendants' Motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment, Vacate
Order Staying Discovery, and Grant Plaintiffs Leave to Supplement
their response upon close of Discovery.

In the First Amended Complaint, 18 Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a class, bring eight claims against Defendant G4S and
three employees of G4S, Chuck Brock, Don Drent, and Kevin Baker.
Defendant G4S "contracts with corporate customers to supply
security personnel to companies in a variety of industries,
including the automobile industry.  It entered a contract to
provide security personnel for General Motors Co. in or around the
fall of 2011.

Beginning in or around January 2012, G4S hired the Plaintiffs to
work in GM facilities located throughout the United States.  No
employment agreements for the other Plaintiffs were provided.  The
remaining 17 Plaintiffs were hired as either salaried or hourly
employees of G4S to work at various GM plants.  The Plaintiffs are
citizens of Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

The Plaintiffs allege that the salaried employees (Plaintiffs King,
Eisenhut, Gregorcic, Howard, Ingram, Lesher, Magrum, Mekolon,
Rohrig and Spires) were provided with copies of various G4S
policies including a policy titled "Paid Time Off ("PTO") for
Personnel Assigned to General Motors" under which eligible salaried
G4S employees were awarded a designated number of PTO hours on
January 1st each year, depending on the employee's number of years
of service with GM, and any unused portion thereof would be paid
out at a discount to the employee by G4S in the event of his/her
termination.

The hourly employees' (Plaintiffs Almanza, Andresen, Baldwin,
Milby, Morgan, Salama, Swetmon and Tomes) PTO policy was set forth
in the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between G4S and the
International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of
America.  Under the CBA PTO Policy, eligible hourly G4S employees
were awarded a designated number of PTO hours, depending on years
of service with GM, on their anniversary date each year, and any
unused portion thereof would be paid out to the employee by G4S
upon their next anniversary date.  Upon termination of employment
with G4S prior to the employee's anniversary date, G4S would pay
prorated termination benefits to the employee for PTO accrued
during the partial year.

In the fall of 2017, G4S lost its bid to renew the GM contract and
as a result, G4S employment for employees assigned to GM terminated
upon expiration of the GM contract on Jan. 31, 2018, triggering
their entitlement to termination benefits under the PTO and the CBA
PTO Policies.

The Plaintiffs allege that prior to the termination of the GM
contract, individual Defendants Drent and Baker, as well as one or
more Doe Defendants participated in several conference calls with
one or more of the Plaintiffs and other G4S employees assigned to
GM to discuss the termination of their employment with G4S and
transition to the winning subcontractor Allied Universal.

The Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants Brock, Drent, Baker
and/or one or more of the Doe Defendants made similar
representations to G4S employees assigned to GM via email and that
on Dec. 11, 2017, Mr. Drent sent a group email to approximately 100
class members, including Plaintiff King, attaching the PTO policy.

The Plaintiffs assert that in reliance on the assurances provided
by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and other G4S employees assigned
to GM elected not to use their accrued PTO or take action to
terminate their employment with G4S prior to the expiration of the
GM contract on Jan. 31, 2018.  After expiration of the GM contract,
G4S did not pay out termination benefits and or other economic
entitlements to the Plaintiffs.  On Feb. 15, 2019, Defendant Brock
notified the Plaintiffs via email that G4S had decided not to make
any payout of termination benefits to employees not covered by GM's
CBA because it would be unable to bill GM therefor.

Although none of the named Plaintiffs worked for G4S at a Chrysler
facility, the Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that G4S
lost its contract with Chrysler in 2017 and after giving the
affected G4S employees similar representations regarding
termination benefits, elected not to make any payout for
termination benefits to former G4S employees assigned to Chrysler.

Based upon these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert claims of
Breach of Contract (Count I); Promissory Estoppel (Count II);
Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Concealment (Count III); Breach of
Fiduciary Duty (Count IV); Civil Theft/Conversion (Count V); Civil
RICO under federal law (Count VI) and Civil Conspiracy (Count
VII).

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.  The Plaintiffs have
moved to strike the exhibits attached to the Defendants Reply Brief
in Support of their Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Nugent granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all
claims related to Chrysler and Count VI (RICO).  He enied the
Motion as to Counts I-V and VII.  

Among other things, he finds that despite the Plaintiffs' professed
knowledge of the industry and anecdotal evidence, not cited in the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs do not know if the G4S employees
assigned to Chrysler had the same or similar contracts and PTO
policies, what representation or promises, if any, were made to
those employees or whether those employees suffered any loss.  What
is clear is that none of the named Plaintiffs here suffered any
injury or loss related to the termination of the G4S/Chrysler
contract.  All of the cases cited regarding accepting "on
information and belief" allegations involved situations where at
least some of the allegations in the claims asserted were made on
personal knowledge.  The Plaintiffs' claims based upon the
termination of the G4S/Chrysler contract are too tenuous and
implausible to remain and those claims as to G4S employees assigned
to Chrysler are dismissed.

As to Count VI, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged
that the Defendants have defrauded the Plaintiffs and breached a
fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs.  As those claims remain, they may
act as the requisite unlawful act for the purposes of the
Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.  He finds that
the exhibits are not authenticated and purport to demonstrate that
the hourly named Plaintiff were paid under the relevant PTO Policy.
As such, these documents support the Defendants' defenses but are
clearly outside the scope of what a court may consider on a
12(b)(6) motion.  The exhibits attached to the Defendants' Reply
Brief are not within these categories and as such, the motion to
strike is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Z5eGAb from Leagle.com.

Joseph M King, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
former employees of G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., E. David
Swetmon, Saiby Salama, James Eisenhut, Jerime Magrum, Donnie Tomes,
Louis J Gregorcic, Michael Morgan, Stephen Baldwin, Robert Howard,
James Milby, Kenneth J. Mekolon, Angel Almanza, Mark Rohrig, Fred
Lesher, Laureen Andresen, Annette Ingram & Bethanna Spires,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark E. Kremser , Wuliger & Wuliger,
William T. Wuliger , Wuliger & Wuliger & Amy A. Wuliger , Wuliger &
Wuliger.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc, Chuck Brock, Don Drent & John Does,
1 - 100, Defendants, represented by Kelly E. Eisenlohr-Moul --
kelly.eisenlohr-moul@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Charles M.
Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Michael B.
Mattingly -- michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl &
Terry P. Finnerty -- terry.finnerty@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore &
Shohl.

Kevin Baker, Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Eisenlohr-Moul,
Dinsmore & Shohl, William T. Wuliger, Wuliger & Wuliger, Charles M.
Roesch, Dinsmore & Shohl, Michael B. Mattingly, Dinsmore & Shohl &
Terry P. Finnerty, Dinsmore & Shohl.


GEE & GEE: Tellez Seeks Payment of Overtime & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO ANTONIO MEMBRENO TELLEZ and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. GEE & GEE PRODUCE, INC,
KAVITA CHADEE, and ASHA CHADEE, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have not paid
their employees overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's duties included the
exportation of fruits and vegetables. As an exporter of fruits and
vegetables, the Plaintiff's job duties required the Plaintiff to
work with fruits and vegetables that were coming and going out of
Florida from containers on a regular weekly basis.

Between the period of on or about January 1, 2005 through on or
about January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff worked an average of 66 hours
a week for the Defendants and was paid an average of $7.57 per hour
but was not paid the half-time rate for the hours worked over 40
hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff therefore
claims the half-time overtime rate based upon the applicable
minimum wage for the hours worked above 40 in a week.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. Zidell, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, Florida 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Case No. 19-cv-01244) against General Electric Company
("GE" or the "Company") (NYSE: GE) on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
between December 27, 2017 and October 29, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased GE common stock during the Class Period and wish
to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than April 2, 2019. You may
contact Lester Hooker, Esq. -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena
White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead
plaintiff or your interest in the class action. Please note that
you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

GE is a 126-year old industrial conglomerate with a number of
primary business units, including Lighting, Aviation, Healthcare,
Power, and Capital.  GE's largest and most important segment is GE
Power.  The majority of GE Power's revenue comes from the sale and
servicing of its Gas Power Systems, including its H-Class gas
turbines that the Company sells to power utilities across the
globe.  In 2017, GE Power was the leading manufacturer of gas
turbines, with more than 50% of global market share.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 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, prospects and financial health. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the design and technology
of GE Power's flagship gas turbines were structurally flawed as
they were plagued with an oxidation problem that caused the blades
in the H-Class gas turbines to fail; (ii) GE Power's goodwill was
materially overstated, in large part because of such structural
issues; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at
www.saxenawhite.com.

         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 206-6708
         Fax: (866) 290-1291
         Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN]


GETSWIFT: 2 Execs Face ASIC Lawsuit Amid Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
GetSwift shares tested record lows as the market reacted to the
Feb. 22 late news that the company and two of its executives, Bane
Hunter and former Melbourne Football Club player Joel Macdonald,
had been sued by the corporate regulator.

GetSwift said it would vigorously defend itself against the
proceedings as its shares, which hit a high of $4.30 in December
2017, plunged 35 per cent to a low of 28¢ by Feb. 25 lunchtime and
finished the day at 30¢.

It has wiped $160 million from the net worth of Mr Macdonald, who
founded the company, which provides last-mile logistics solutions
to business customers.

"The company, Mr Macdonald and Mr Hunter irrefutably deny the
allegations made by ASIC and, collectively, will vigorously defend
the proceedings," the company said in a statement to the ASX on
Feb. 25.

Mr Macdonald and Mr Hunter were not available for further comment.

In February last year, the stock crashed from $2.92 to a low of
98¢ after the company revealed that fewer than half the contracts
it had been publicising were actually generating any revenue.

GetSwift had raised $75 million from investors at $4 a share just
months before the shock announcement.

"ASIC alleges that GetSwift made representations in a series of ASX
announcements relating to client agreements, between February 2017
and December 2017 that were misleading, and that it failed to
notify the ASX of material information in relation to these client
agreements," said the release from the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) on Feb. 22.

The legal bills have already been mounting for GetSwift as it
attempts to have two of the three separate class action law suits
it faces reduced to just one.

Its shares dropped sharply in January after its quarterly
statements revealed slower growth and increased legal costs.

"Administration and corporate costs continued to be significant
cash expenditures due to legal defence costs and increased
governance expenses. These expenses include the aforementioned
costs for defending proceedings before the Federal Court of
Australia," it said.

On Feb. 25, GetSwift said it remained focused on supporting its
customers and continuing to build its business. [GN]


GOLF CLUB: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Vega, et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, LINETTE VEGA and VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE GOLF
CLUB OF PURCHASE, INC.; ROBERT F. WISE; and any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 608665/2017 (NY Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty. Feb. 25, 2019), alleges that the  Defendants unlawfully
withheld and retained portions of gratuities provided to service
employees, including but not limited to those collected as Service
Charges.  The case alleges violation of New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately August 2011
and continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in
a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities
at all of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New
York. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law Article 6 section 196-d.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, ste. 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Jackson Lewis, Esq.
          44 South Broadway 14th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 872-6870

GRAND PRIX: Sosa Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
ADONIS RODRIGUEZ SOSA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND PRIX TRADING CORP.
(D/B/A GRAND PRIX TRADING), ZELJKO MAZIC, SAJID NADEEM, SIMUN
SIMUNOVIC, and WALTER DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01090
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. He was
employed as a general assistant at the distribution center located
at 75A Onderdonk Ave, Ridgewood, NY 11385. The Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended
beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, the
lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a gourmet grocery warehouse
store, located at 75A Onderdonk Ave, Ridgewood, NY 11385 under the
name "Grand Prix Trading".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

HCA MANAGEMENT: Laciste Sues over Alleged Illegal Time Shaving
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LACISTE on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, vs.
HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P.; DBA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER OF SAN
JOSE; and DOES 1-100, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 19CV343206 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and restitution for Defendants' 1)
failure to pay all straight time wages; 2) failure to pay all
overtime wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods; 4) failure to
authorize and permit rest; 5) knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; 6) failure
to pay all wages due at the time of termination of employment; 7)
failure to reimburse/illegal deductions; and 8) violation of unfair
competition law, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed current and
former non-exempt employees with job titles including laboratory
technicians, laboratory assistants (non-exempt employees). The
Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy of not
paying Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours they
worked, including before clocking in for their work shift, after
clocking out for their work shift, and during unpaid meal periods.
Further, the Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy
of shaving the time Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked
(time shaving), the lawsuit says.

HCA Management Services, L.P. was incorporated in 1999 and is based
in Nashville, Tennessee. The company operates as a subsidiary of
HCA Healthcare, Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for William Laciste on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          117428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048

HEALTH INSURANCE: April 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 19
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HIIQ) from February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Health Insurance Innovations investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Health Insurance Innovations class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1511.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) a substantial portion of Health Insurance Innovations'
revenue was derived from third parties; (2) these third parties
used deceptive tactics to sell Health Insurance Innovations'
policies, including overstating the policy's coverage and/or
selling under the licenses of employees who had no involvement in
the underlying sales; (3) regulatory scrutiny of these third
parties would materially impact Health Insurance Innovations'
operations; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Health Insurance Innovations' business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. 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 22,
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-1511.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein 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 an amended complaint has
been filed in the purported class action suit entitled, Kramer v.
Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co.,
and Unnamed Co-Conspirators

On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled
Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental
Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised
of purchasers of dental services from dental practices in
California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott,
price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry
Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged
conspiracy overcharged California dental practices, orthodontic
practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental
supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges
to members of the California class purchasing dental services.  

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices on or after
August 31, 2012."

The complaint alleges violations of California antitrust laws,
including the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section
16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code
Section 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to
be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein 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 remains a
defendant in a class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.  

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period').  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had
made materially false and misleading statements about Henry
Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class
Period, including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust
class action and the FTC action described above, thereby causing
the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay
artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities.  

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.  

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period.  

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share."  

The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from
August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial
performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results
were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume
and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February
13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry
Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust
laws.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under
8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records
relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and
the antitrust suit.

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein 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 plaintiffs have taken
an appeal from the District Court's decision in granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled,
Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and
Co., et al., to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson,
and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force healthcare providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.  

The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes
consisting of all healthcare providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.  

The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.  

On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as an additional defendant.  

On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.  

On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Reached in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein 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 Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action
No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, have executed a settlement agreement
that proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a
classwide basis, subject to court approval.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental
Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each of these complaints alleges, among other things,
that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and
foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations and others that deal with defendants’ competitors.


On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.  

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
("Burkhart") not to compete on price.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and
expert fees.  

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis.  

Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all
persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from
Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart, or any combination
thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including
March 31, 2016.  

Henry Schein said, "As a result, we recorded a charge of $38.5
million in our third quarter 2018 results."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KANEFSKY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INT'L INC., et
al., Defendants, Civ. No. 2:18-15536 (WJM) (D. N.J.), Judge William
J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Charles M. Francisco, III's motion to serve as the
Lead Plaintiff and approved his choice of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as
the Lead Counsel.

Kanefsky brings the putative securities class action against
Honeywell and its corporate officers, Darius Adamczyk and Thomas A.
Szlosek, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Honeywell securities from Feb. 9, 2018 through Oct. 19,
2018.  Kanefsky alleges he acquired Honeywell securities at
artificially inflated prices and suffered damages when the
Defendants disclosed making materially false and misleading
statements to the investing public.

The matter comes before the Court upon the competing motions of
Kanefsky and Francisco to serve as the Lead Plaintiff, and
separately, appoint the Lead Counsel.

Judge Martini finds that Francisco has the largest financial
interest.  During the class period, he purchased 1,425 shares,
expended a net amount of $232,659.75, and suffered $30,638.33 in
losses.  Kanefsky, however, purchased 1,400 shares, expended a net
amount of $224,676, and suffered $26,402 in losses.  Moreover,
after reviewing Francisco's competing motion, Kanefsky replied that
he does not appear to have the largest financial interest in this
action within the meaning of the PSLRA.

The Judge also finds that Francisco meets the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23.  Francisco has expressed his
willingness to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and asserts that he
shares the same claims and injuries as those of Kanefsky and the
potential class.  Specifically, the Defendants' material
misstatements or omissions misled him to purchase Honeywell
securities at artificially inflated prices.  And upon the
Defendants disclosing the statement or omission, Francisco suffered
damages when Honeywell securities dropped in value.  He also finds
Francisco has retained adequate counsel because Levi & Korsinsky
has relevant experience litigating securities class actions.
Finally, there is no evidence of conflict between Francisco and the
members of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LLUoSU from Leagle.com.

DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN DAVID LINDENFELD --
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP.

CHARLES FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY --
ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.


HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the defendants in the
case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v.
Banco Santander S.A., et al., are awaiting the court's decision on
their motion to dismiss the case.

HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSBC Bank USA, HSI, HMUS, as
well as non-U.S. HSBC affiliates, have been named as defendants,
among others, in a putative class action brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2018
relating to the Mexican government bond ("MGB") market (Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Banco Santander
S.A., et al.).

The action alleges that defendants conspired to fix MGB prices
between January 2006 and April 2017 in violation of federal
antitrust laws. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in
September 2018.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Police Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the defendants in the
case, Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, et al. v Bank
of Montreal, et al., are awaiting the court's decision on their
motion to dismiss the case.

HSBC Bank USA, HSBC, HSBC USA, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America,
HSI and HSBC Canada have been named as defendants, among others, in
a putative class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who transacted
in products tied to the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate ("CDOR")
between August 2007 and December 2014.

The complaint, encaptioned Fire & Police Pension Association of
Colorado, et al. v Bank of Montreal, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-00342),
alleges that the defendant banks conspired to suppress CDOR by
making artificially lower submissions and entering into collusive
transactions in the swaps market, thereby fixing the prices of
CDOR-based derivatives for their collective financial benefit.

The defendants are accused of illegal restraint of trade in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and Commodity Exchange Act.

HSBC USA said, "In July 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
and we await a decision."

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Vasquez and Garcia Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the HSBC defendants are
awaiting the court's decision on the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.

Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in
March 2018 against HSBC Bank USA and the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Bank Corporation. Plaintiffs purport to represent those that
invested in a Ponzi scheme allegedly orchestrated by Phil Ming Xu
and certain companies he allegedly controlled, such as WCM777.

Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is alleged to have
accepted wire transfers from plaintiffs to WCM777 from investors in
furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. HSBC Bank USA is alleged to have
acted as Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation's correspondent
bank for certain wire transfers to WCM777. The purported class
period is from June 2013 to May 2014.

Plaintiffs allege claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
conversion.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of $37 million
plus punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2018, the HSBC defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
response, plaintiffs requested and received leave from the court to
file an amended complaint, which was filed in October 2018. The
HSBC defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in December
2018. We await a decision.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Rigged ICE LIBOR, Putnam Bank Alleges
-----------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Putnam Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al.

In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of persons who purchased over the counter instruments paying
interest indexed to Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE") LIBOR (ICE
LIBOR) from a panel bank against HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC
North America, HSBC USA and HSI, as well as other panel banks,
alleging a conspiracy to depress USD ICE LIBOR from February 2014
(when ICE began administration of LIBOR) to the present.

The complaint alleges, among other things, misconduct related to
the suppression of the benchmark rate in violation of US antitrust
and state law. (Putnam Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 19-cv-00439)).

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Suits over Precious Metals Derivatives in Canada Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against several class action suits in Canada.

Beginning in December 2015, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA, HSI,
HSBC Bank Canada and HSBC Securities Canada have been named, along
with other institutions, in several putative class actions filed in
the Superior Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Ontario and
Quebec, Canada.

These suits allege, among other things, that the defendants
conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and silver derivatives.


These claims include: (1) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova
Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Gold
Fix); (2) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al.
(Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Silver Fix); (3)
Benoit v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice,
Quebec Province); and (4) Ayas v. La Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse, et.
al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec Province).

These actions are at an early stage.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


IKE & MIKE: Sirak Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
JASON SIRAK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. IKE & MIKE PIZZA, LLC and STEPHEN
CORONIS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00172 (W.D.
Tex., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's stores under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate several Domino's
Pizza franchise stores.  The Defendants employ delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks
(nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net
wages).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

           J. Forester, Esq.
           Matthew Haynie, Esq.
           FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
           www.foresterhaynie.com
           1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
           Dallas, TX 75202
           Telephone: (214) 210-2100
           Facsimile: (214) 346-5909

                - and -

           Mark Potashnick, Esq.
           WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
           11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
           St. Louis, MO 63141
           Telephone: (314) 997-9150
           Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
           E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: IMMU) and certain of its officers and directors.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
New Jersey, and indexed under 19-cv-05151, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased
or otherwise, acquired Immunomedics securities between February 8,
2018 and January 18, 2019, 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 Immunomedics securities
between February 8, 2018, and January 18, 2019, you have until
February 25, 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.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. Its advanced antibody-drug conjugates are
sacituzumab govitecan and labetuzumab govitecan, which are in
advanced trials for various solid tumors and metastatic colorectal
cancer, respectively. The company focuses on commercializing
sacituzumab govitecan as a third-line therapy for patients with
metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States. The
company also develops IMMU-140, a humanized antibody directed
against an immune response target. Its other product candidates
include products for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune
diseases, including epratuzumab, an anti-CD22 antibody; veltuzumab,
an anti-CD20 antibody; milatuzumab, an anti-CD74 antibody; and
IMMU-114, a humanized anti-HLA-DR antibody.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors (i) Immunomedics' Morris Plains,
New Jersey drug substance manufacturing facility was not in
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
requirements; (ii) the Company's Quality Control Unit did not
possess the authority to investigate and correct critical FDA
violations occurring at the Morris Plains, New Jersey facility;
(iii) the Company suffered a February 2018 data integrity breach at
the Morris Plains, New Jersey facility which, among other issues,
included the backdating records and manipulation of bioburden
samples; (iv) the Company's Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control
data submitted in connection with its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan
was insufficient to support FDA approval; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On December 17, 2018, the FDAnews.com published an article titled
"FDA Hits Immunomedics for Data Integrity Breach." According to
this article, "[t]he FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of
violations -- including its handling of a data integrity breach --
observed at its Morris Plains, New Jersey, drug substance
manufacturing facility between August 6 and 14." The article states
that this breach included "manipulated bioburden samples,
misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch
record, and backdating of batch records, such as dates of
analytical results."

On December 17, 2018, following the publication of the FDAnews.com
story, Immunomedics shares fell from an opening price of $18.54 to
close at $17.86, a decline of 4%.

On December 20, 2018, the truth was fully revealed to the market
when Favus Institutional Research issued a Report (the "Favus
Report") providing additional details regarding the data integrity
breach.

Following the Favus Report, the Company's stock price fell
drastically, from $17.64 at close on December 19, 2018, to $14.17
at close on December 20, 2018, a drop of 20%.

Then on January 17, 2019, the Company announced that it "received a
Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for the Biologics License Application (BLA)
seeking accelerated approval of sacituzumab govitecan for the
treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
(mTNBC) who have received at least two prior therapies for
metastatic disease." In the CRL, the FDA raised issues related to
approvability "focused on Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control
matters."

Following the news of the CRL, the Company's stock price fell
drastically, from $18.09 at close on January 17, 2019, to $13.31 at
close on January 18, 2019, a drop of approximately 26%.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


IQVIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Fax Marketing
-------------------------------------------------
Seth Thomas Gulledge, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that a class action lawsuit has been brought against
Durham-based Iqvia -- for faxing without consent.

According to a court filing submitted by lawyers representing Dr.
Kenneth Thomas, a Connecticut-based doctor, Iqvia (NYSE: IQV)
repeatedly sent multiple faxes to his company over the course of
several years -- rendering the fax machine useless during the
period of incoming faxes and costing the company time, money and
paper.

Dr. Thomas is represented by Ted Johnson, a Greensboro attorney,
and Avi Kaufman and Stefan Coleman -- two Miami-based attorneys.

The filing states that between December 2016 and June 2018, Thomas
received four unsolicited fax advertisements -- three of which
failed to include a proper opt-out notice.

These faxes, according to the case documents recently filed in the
Middle District Court of North Carolina, "announced the commercial
availability and touted the quality of IQVIA's services, including
the National Healthcare Census and another nationally recognized,
HIPAA-compliant research study for the 'benefit' of, among others,
'private-sector establishments across the globe.'"

The filing notes the company "did not have Plaintiff's consent or
permission to send Plaintiff fax advertisements" nor did the
defendant have an existing business relationship with Iqvia.

The filing claims the fax campaign was a violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and caused the plaintiff -- and subsequent
members of the class -- to suffer actual harm, including the
aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use
of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes, and other
expenses.

The plaintiff is seeking an injunction requiring the company to
cease all unauthorized fax-marketing activities, as well as an
award of statutory damages and costs.

The filing states that the fax campaign is part of Iqvia's
Physician Insights 360 service, which uses "cutting edge referral
intelligence" to enable "precision targeting" to find the
physicians and patients that customers want. [GN]


KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Moore"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MITZI JOHANKNECHT, In her official capacity as King County Sheriff,
the Petitioner v. EVA MOORE AND BROOKE SHAW, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Respondents, Case
18-1056 (U.S.), is an appeal filed to the Supreme Court of United
States form a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Case No. 16-36086 (9th Cir.) on Feb. 12, 2019.

Petitioner Mitzi Johanknecht appears before the court in her
official capacity as the elected Sheriff of King County,
Washington.  The petitioner contends that the Ninth Circuit's
decision overtly circumvents Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562
U.S. 29 (2010).  Rather than applying Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) to Respondents' claims for
prospective relief against municipalities as directed by Humphries,
the Ninth Circuit adopts a new, judge made cause of action that
stands apart from both 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Monell
considerations.  The source of its new cause of action is the
Eleventh Amendment doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908),
which the Ninth Circuit extends from state officials to purely
local officials.  The reason for ignoring Humphries and turning Ex
parte Young on its head? -- to allow Respondents to bring an
official capacity action against Petitioner, the King County
Sheriff, for the routine act of faithfully executing Writs of
Restitution, which are Washington Superior Courts orders issued
pursuant to state eviction statutes at the request of landlords.

It has long been the rule that local officials are expected to
promptly and faithfully execute facially valid court orders. Under
the Ninth Circuit's decision, however, local officials are now
required to second guess facially valid court orders -- which
undermines respect for state courts.  A local official like the
Sheriff, directed by the state court to execute a facially valid
order, is caught between a proverbial rock and a hard place. She
risks being hauled into federal court if she follows the commands
of the state court order, but a federal court later invalidates it
under the vagaries of procedural due process. Alternatively, if she
questions the state court order, reviews the record, studies the
law, consults with counsel, and attempts to anticipate possible
constitutional or statutory challenges, the Sheriff risks being
held in contempt by the state court for failing to execute the
order. Whatever problem the Ninth Circuit sought to address with
its decision, its cure creates far greater problems.

This Court's Monell doctrine ensures that municipalities -- whether
sued directly or for the official capacity acts of their officials
-- are liable only for constitutional deprivations caused by the
municipalities' own policies and customs. There is no respondeat
superior liability under Sec. 1983, nor should there be a doctrine
of respondeat inferior, whereby a municipality is held liable for
the unconstitutional acts of its parent state. Yet, this is the
impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Sheriff does not
initiate the Writ process, nor is she a party to it. She is not
responsible for the wording of the Writ, nor the court process that
results in its issuance -- but she is mandated by the state court
to follow the Writ's precise commands. The Ninth Circuit's new
cause of action leaves the Sheriff and her municipality as the
designated defendant to answer for the claimed procedural due
process problems of a Washington State statute that is outside the
Sheriff's discretionary enforcement responsibilities, and a Writ
issued under that statute by a state court judge that operates
independent of the municipality's influence or control.

Because the Ninth Circuit's decision substantially departs from
Monell and twists Ex parte Young into spaces it was never meant to
occupy, the Court should grant certiorari, the petitioner says.

A motion to extend the time to file a response has been granted and
the time to respond has been extended to and including April 15,
2019.[BN]

Attorneys for Mitzi Johanknecht:

          David J. W. Hackett, Esq.
          Prosecuting Attorney's Office
          500 Fourth Avenue Suite 900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          E-mail: david.hackett@kingcounty.gov

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Files Consolidated Amended Complaint in Veal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub 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 lead plaintiffs
in the case, Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., have filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

In May 2018, following the announcement of the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC's) litigation against the Company, putative
shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy
law in securities filings.

The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
litigation in November 2018.

On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of
action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations.

LendingClub said, "This lawsuit is in the early stages. The Company
denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. The company was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Lexicon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Lexicon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LXRX)
between March 11, 2016, and January 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Lexicon shareholders may, no later than April 1, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Lexicon and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statementsand/or failed to disclose that: (1) the data
from Lexicon's Phase 3 clinical trials assessing the safety and
efficacy of Sotagliflozin in treating type 1 diabetes were not as
positive as Lexicon represented; (2) the health risks posed by
Sotagliflozin were severe enough to threaten its FDA approval
prospects; and (3) as a result, Lexicon's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the Endocrinologic and
Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had "voted eight to eight on the question of whether
the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product] Zynquista
(sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval."  On news
of the advisory committee's stalemate, Lexicon's stock price fell
$1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to close at $5.96 per share on January
18, 2019.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 1,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed 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.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this please;

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


MARGOLIN SHOES: Sued for Collecting Biometric Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison Record, reports that an
employee of a footwear company filed a class action lawsuit
alleging employees' biometric information was collected and
transferred to third parties without the employees' knowledge or
consent.

Keshia Tyson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on Feb. 7 in the Madison County Circuit
Court against Margolin Shoes Inc., alleging that the footwear
company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the defendant
unlawfully extracted biometric information from its employee's
fingerprints and subsequently transferred the information to third
parties without informing the employees in writing that their
biometric information was collected and used.

As a result, Tyson alleges she suffered damages in the form of
diminution in the unique identifying value of her biometric
information and costs associated with identity protection and
account monitoring.

The plaintiff seeks an order certifying the case as a class action
and appointing Tyson and her counsel as representatives. She also
seeks an award for actual, statutory and punitive damages,
litigation cost and expenses and all other relief deemed just and
equitable. She is represented by Lanny Darr of Darr Law Offices
Ltd. in Alton.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-172 [GN]


MDL 2179: Court Dismisses E. Brown's Claims With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, SECTION: J(2). This Document
Relates To: Eddie Brown v. Global Safety Medics, LLC, et al, MDL
2179, No. 19-00023 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (i) granted
Tiger's Motion for Disposition of Claim, and (ii) dismissed with
prejudice all claims by Eddie Brown asserted in No. 19-00023.

Before the Court is the Modern Group, Ltd. and Tiger Rentals, LLC,
doing business as Tiger Safety's ("Tiger") Motion for Disposition
of Claim.  The motion concerns member case No. 19-00023, an action
by Brown against Tiger and another entity, Global, for personal
injuries he allegedly sustained from exposure to oil-related
chemicals while employed as a cleanup worker during the response to
the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Well oil spill.

The case was originally filed in Louisiana state court, then
removed to the Western District of Louisiana and subsequently
transferred to this Court where it was consolidated with
Multidisrict Litigation No. 2179.  While the case was pending in
the Western District, Tiger filed a motion for summary judgment on
the basis of res judicata or claim preclusion.  Tiger's instant
motion requests information on the disposition of Brown's claims so
that it may further support its res judicata/claim preclusion
defense.  The Court grants this motion and provides the following
information regarding Brown's claims.

On Jan. 11, 2013, the Court entered an Order and Judgment granting
final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement and
confirmed certification of the Medical Benefits Settlement Class.
Pursuant to the Order and Judgment and the Medical Settlement, the
class members who did not timely opt out of the Medical Class are
deemed to have released and are barred from pursuing in litigation
all "Released Claims" against any "Release Parties," as those terms
are defined under the Medical Settlement.

Judge Barbier finds that it appears from the allegations in Brown's
petition that he is a member of the Medical Class, specifically, a
Clean-Up Worker, and Brown's name does not appear among the list of
valid opt-outs.   Furthermore, Brown's petition alleges "Released
Claims," and Tiger is the "Released Parties."  Indeed, the Judge
has inquired with the Claims Administrator for the Medical
Settlement who informs that Brown (born April 15, 1965) submitted a
claim for a Specified Physical Condition to the Medical Settlement,
the Claims Administrator determined Brown was a member of the
Medical Class, and the Claims Administrator deemed Brown eligible
for payment at the A2 level.  Accordingly, it appears that Brown's
claims against Tiger are barred by the Medical Settlement's
class-wide release.

Brown's petition also alleges claims against Global.  Global is not
explicitly identified as a "Released Party" in the Medical
Settlement.  Judge Barbier will assume for the time being that
Global Safety Medics, LLC is not a "Released Party," although this
might not be the case.  Nevertheless, even if Brown's claims
against Global are not precluded by the Medical Settlement's
class-wide release, such claims were dismissed by the "PTO 63
Compliance Order."

On April 20, 2012, Brown filed a short form joinder in the Court
that asserted chemical exposure claims and specifically identified
Global as his employer.  Such claims are in the B3 pleading bundle.
On Feb. 22, 2017, the Court issued Pretrial Order No. 63, which
required that all the Plaintiffs who had timely filed a claim in
the B3 pleading bundle and who had not released their claims to
file an individual lawsuit and complete, serve, and file the Sworn
Statement attached to PTO 63.  PTO 63 warned that the Plaintiffs
who failed to timely comply with PTO 63 would have their B3 claims
dismissed with prejudice without further notice.

On July 18, 2017, the Court issued the PTO 63 Compliance Order,
which identified 960 Plaintiffs that complied with PTO 63.  The PTO
63 Compliance Order dismissed with prejudice the B3 claims of those
Plaintiffs who did not comply PTO 63.  Brown did not comply with
PTO 63, consequently, his claim against Global was dismissed by the
PTO 63 Compliance Order (assuming that claim was not already
released by the Medical Settlement).

Accordingly, Judge Barbier (i) granted Tiger's Motion for
Disposition of Claim as set forth, and (ii) dismissed with
prejudice all claims by Brown asserted in No. 19-00023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/RbDO1i from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy --
jimr@wrightroy.com -- Domengeaux -- john Wright, Roy & Edwards &
Stephen J. Herman -- sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman &
Katz, LLC.

Marine Spill Response Corporation, Dispersant defendant, Defendant,
represented by Alan Mark Weigel -- aweigel@blankrome.com – Blank
Rome LLP.

Airborne Support, Inc., Dispersant defendant & Airborne Support
International Inc, Dispersant defendant, Defendants, represented by
Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@neunerpate.com -- NeunerPate,
Ben Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, and Jed M. Mestayer,
NeunerPate.

Dynamic Aviation Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Leo Raymond
McAloon, III -- lmcaloon@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse,
LLC & Michael D. Cangelosi -- mcangelosi@glllaw.com -- Gieger,
Laborde & Laperouse, LLC.

International Air Response Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin
Richard Tully -- krtully@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney,
LLP & Howard Carter Marshall, Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

Lane Aviation, Defendant, represented by George Edmond Crow, Law
Office of George E. Crow.

National Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Lyle -- mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Eric C. Lyttle -- ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward O'Keefe --
pokeefe@couhigpartners.com -- Couhig Partners, LLC, Philip S.
Brooks, Jr. -- pbrooks@gamb.law.com -- Gordon, Arata, Montgomery &
Barnett & Sylvia E. Simson -- sylviasimson@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

DRC Emergency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold J.
Flanagan -- hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners,
LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre -- adupre@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan
Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com
-- Flanagan Partners, LLP.

Tiger Rentals Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by David J. Beck --
dbeck@beckredden.com -- Beck, Redden & Secrest, LLP, pro hac vice,
Deborah DeRoche Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Donald E. Godwin, Godwin
Lewis PC, pro hac vice, J. Andrew Langan --
andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Kerry J.
Miller -- kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann, LLC & Thomas Lotterman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Federal Government Interests, Interested Party, represented by R.
Michael Underhill, U. S. Department of Justice.

State Interests, Interested Party, represented by Luther J.
Strange, III, Attorney General's Office.

Lynn C. Greer, Transition Coordinator, Interested Party, pro se.


MDL 2492: Asby vs. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Paul Asby, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00303 (Filed Jan. 28,
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
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01274 to the proceeding.

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

The Asby 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: Benditt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Russell Benditt, II, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Albright College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00433 (Filed Jan. 28, 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 Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01116 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 Albright College
Student-Athletes.

The Benditt 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: Blunt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Byron Blunt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No.  1:19-cv-00403 (Filed Jan.
28, 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-01031 to
the proceeding.

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

The Blunt 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: Booker Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, JONATHON BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00409 (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-01046 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 Millikin University
Student-Athletes.

The Blunt 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: Brantley Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Johnathan Brantley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00408 (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-01044 to
the proceeding.

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

The Brantley 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: Briggs Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, JOSEPH BRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.  1:19-cv-00410 (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-01048 to
the proceeding.

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

The BRIGGS 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: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, Philip Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00430 (Filed Jan. 28,
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-01081 to
the proceeding.

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

The 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: Chambliss Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MYRON CHAMBLISS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00413 (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-01055 to
the proceeding.

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

The Chambliss 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: Davis-Moab Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case,Rodne Davis-Moab, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00432 (Filed Jan. 28,
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-01113 to
the proceeding.

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

The Davis-Moab 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: Delts Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DAMIEN DELTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Robert Morris University, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00421 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01065 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 Robert Morris
University Student-Athletes.

The Delts 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: Drake Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, James Drake, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Miles College, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00423 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01069 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 Miles College, Inc.
Student-Athletes.

The Drake 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: Flamish Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, John Flamish, IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00407 (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-01041 to
the proceeding.

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

The Flamish 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: Hurd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jeremy Hurd, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Western New England University, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00424 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01071 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 Western New England
University Student-Athletes.

The Hurd 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: Mackey Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Damian Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00404 (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-01035 to
the proceeding.

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

The Mackey 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: Newbern Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MICHAEL NEWBERN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00426 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01074 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 Lehigh University
Student-Athletes.

The Newbern 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: Phillips Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Paul Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00429(Filed Jan. 28,
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-01080 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 Lehigh University
Student-Athletes.

The Phillips 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: Porras v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ROBERTO PORRAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Fort Lewis College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-309 (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-00986to 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 Fort Lewis College
student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Rasmussen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, JASON RASMUSSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and and TRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-325 (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-01004 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 Hamline
student-athletes.

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Rizzo Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Anthony Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and IONA College, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00418
(Filed Jan. 28, 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-01061
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 IONA College
Student-Athletes.

The Rizzo 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: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Michael Scott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and McMurry University, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00427 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01078 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 McMurry University
Student-Athletes.

The Scott 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: Shadwick Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Michael Shadwick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Quincy University Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00428 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01079 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 Quincy University
Corporation Student-Athletes.

The Shadwick 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: Sunday Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DAVID SUNDAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and CURRY COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00422 (Filed Jan. 28, 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-01067 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 Curry College
Student-Athletes.

The Sunday 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: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jay Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Fisk University, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00383 (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-01187 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 Fisk University
Student-Athletes.

The Taylor 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: Williamson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JAMES WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Muskingum University, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00381 (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-01185 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 Muskingum
University Student-Athletes.

The Williamson 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. 3619 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. 3619, 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. 3619 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. 3619.  When it was filed, the ECF No. 3619 motion covered
14 separate cases; each had been filed in Minnesota state court, by
counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA").  Most of the cases
have since been voluntarily dismissed; only three remain
outstanding.

VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3619 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. 3619 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. 3619 complaints each include nine state-law claims
against VWGoA and VW AG.  The claims are for violation of
Minnesota's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Consumer Fraud Act and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for fraud, breach of an express
warranty and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability
and fitness for a particular purpose, and for making negligent
misrepresentations and false statements in advertising.

The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "incidental,
consequential, and actual damages," punitive damages, "rescission
and repurchase of the subject vehicle[s] 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.  It apparently
was not served and did not join the notices of removal.  The
Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3619 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.

As to actual damages, the Judge finds that the fact that 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. Plaintiffs have put the full
amounts that they paid to buy 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
$20,850 to $26,720 per case.

As to punitive damages, the Judge finds 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
amounts of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, it is
clear that the answer to the question is yes.  At least $50,000 in
punitive damages is at stake in each of the ECF No. 3619 cases.

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. 3619 cases.

Finally, as to the total amount in controversy, the Judge finds
that 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. 3619 cases range from $100,586 to $106,456.  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. 3619 cases, and denied
the motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NKyoeB 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. 3647 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. 3647, 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. 3647 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. 3647.  The ECF No. 3647 motion covers five separate cases,
each of which was originally filed in California state court and
then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") to
federal court.

VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3647 cases on the basis of diversity
subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs, in their motion to
remand, have argued that diversity jurisdiction is lacking.  

Each of the ECF No. 3647 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,
VWGoA admitted that it had equipped the cars with
emissions-cheating software.  VWGoA also admitted that the same or
similar software had been installed in 11 million diesel cars
worldwide.

The ECF No. 3647 complaints each include three to four state-law
claims against VWGoA.  All of the complaints include an implied
warranty claim, under California's Song-Beverly Act, and two common
law fraud claims (one based on fraudulent misrepresentations and
the other based on fraudulent concealment).  Some of the complaints
also include a claim for violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA").

The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "general, special and
actual damages according to proof at trial," "rescission of the
purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended,"
injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

VWGoA removed Plaintiffs' cases to federal court on the basis of
diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs responded by
filing the ECF No. 3647 motion to remand.

As to actual damages, Judge Breyer 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 $12,238 to $61,199 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
amounts 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. 3647 cases.

Multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $350 leads to an
estimate of $35,280 in attorneys' fees per case.  At least that
amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of
the ECF No. 3647 cases.

Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $35,280 in
attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000.  And when
actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the
ECF No. 3647 cases range from $97,518 to $146,479.  The Judge holds
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 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. 3647 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/wiVKid 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. 3654 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. 3654, 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. 3654 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. 3654.  The ECF No. 3654 motion covers 34 separate cases,
each of which was originally filed in California state court and
then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") to
federal court.

With one exception, VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3654 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. 3654 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.

The ECF No. 3654 complaints each include three to four state-law
claims against VWGoA.  All of the complaints include an implied
warranty claim, under California's Song-Beverly Act, and two common
law fraud claims (one based on fraudulent misrepresentations and
the other based on fraudulent concealment).  Some of the complaints
also include a claim for violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA").

The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "general, special and
actual damages according to proof at trial," "rescission of the
purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended,"
injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  Some Plaintiffs also seek civil
penalties in the amount of two times their actual damages.

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. 3654 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 $10,250 to $71,739 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
amounts 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. 3654 cases

Multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $350 leads to an
estimate of $35,280 in attorneys' fees per case.  At least that
amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of
the ECF No. 3654 cases.

Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $35,280 in
attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000.  And when
actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the
ECF No. 3654 cases range from $95,530 to $157,019.  The Judge holds
that Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is
satisfied.

Judge Breyer holds that WGoA 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. 3654 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/GcMjRE 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 2873: Jackson vs. 3M over Water Contamination Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, KRISTA JACKSON, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.,
successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD INC.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00167 (Feb. 5, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston) on Feb. 21, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00522-RMG to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Richard M Gergel. The lead case is
Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

Jackson brings the lawsuit for medical monitoring and property
damage as a result of the plaintiff's exposure to water
contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants'
harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF")
and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS.  The
chemicals were released onto the ground, into the environment and
infiltrated the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable
water.

The Jackson case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer
goods.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Janissa Ann Strabuk, Esq.
          Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1700 Seventh Ave., Ste 2200
          SEATTLE, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

MDL 2879: Barkley Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Raymond J. Barkley Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00206
(Filed Jan. 10, 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 Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 21, 2019. The
District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00526-PWG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of customers' privacy rights.

The Barkley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re:
Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These
actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer
class actions -- share factual issues concerning a
recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database from 2014 to 2018.  In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is
substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they
all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify
the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is
8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN]

MDL 2879: Grady Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Brian Grady and Mark Kleiman,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07358
(Filed Dec. 6, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 21, 2019. The
District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00505-PWG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of customers' privacy rights.

The Grady case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re:
Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These
actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer
class actions -- share factual issues concerning a
recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database from 2014 to 2018.  In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is
substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they
all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify
the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is
8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN]

MICRO FOCUS: Araiza Labor Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that case entitled, Araiza vs.
HP Inc. and HPE has been stayed.

On December 29, 2015, former PPS (HP Inc.) employee Daniel Araiza
filed a California class action against HP Inc. and HPE in Santa
Clara County Superior Court.

Plaintiff alleges failure to (a) compensate Field Technical Support
Representatives with minimum and overtime wages for all hours
worked, (b) failure to pay exempt and non-exempt employees all
accrued vacation and/or floating holidays upon separation of
employment, (c) to provide meal breaks, and (d) derivate claims for
inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair business
practices, and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties.

Plaintiff seeks to certify three groups of California employees
from December 29, 2011 to the present. The parties have exchanged
limited written discovery.  

On January 28, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
have not yet settled the matter. The case is stayed until at least
March 22, 2019, which is the date of the Court's Case Management
Conference.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in Wall Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the Court overseeing the
case, Wall vs. HPE and HP Inc., has granted final approval of a
settlement.

This certified California class action and Private Attorney General
Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January17,
2012 and the fifth (and operative) amended complaint was filed
against HP Inc. and HPE on June 28, 2016.

The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive
compensation late and failed to timely pay incentive compensation
upon termination of employment. On August 9, 2016, the court
ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to
amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify.

The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the
parties' notification to the court that they had reached an
agreement to resolve the dispute. The parties subsequently
finalized and executed a settlement agreement and received
preliminary approval of that agreement on June 29, 2018.  

After giving notice of the settlement to the class, to which there
were no objections or opt-outs, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement on December 21, 2018.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Court Stays Jackson Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the case entitled,
Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been
stayed.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
United States District Court in San Jose.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of 40.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. On
September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add an
additional plaintiff and a claim alleging that defendants engaged
in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in hiring. On
January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the
United States District Court in the Northern District of Georgia.

Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July
11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this
action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck
certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate
venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.


On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs
filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of
Georgia, which was granted by the court.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the Forsyth, et al. vs. HP
Inc. and HPE, remains stayed.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended (and operative) complaint was filed on December
19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, against HP Inc. and HPE alleging defendants
violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"),
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public
policy and the California Business and Professions Code by
terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers.


Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the
Court granted the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and
administratively closed the case pending resolution of the
arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017, three named
plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen additional
plaintiffs later joined the arbitration.  

On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of the arbitration named
plaintiffs have now been resolved.  The Forsyth class action
remains stayed.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the case, In re Micro
Focus International plc Securities Litigation brought before the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, has been
stayed.

In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is a
putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus filed on
March 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo against Micro Focus International plc and certain current and
former directors and officers, among others.

Five additional purported holders of Micro Focus ADS filed putative
class actions in the same court, and the court consolidated all
cases. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act.  The
court has stayed this lawsuit pending disposition of the lawsuit in
the Southern District of New York.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the company intends to
file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, In re
Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation, pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is
another putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus
ADS filed on May 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Micro Focus and certain
current and former directors and officers, among others.  

On July 26, 2018, the court transferred the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and of the
Exchange Act. On November 9, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Micro Focus and other defendants intend to move
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Connor FDCA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKI LYN CONNOR, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-23023-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in
part and denied in part Midland's motion to dismiss.

The putative class action concerns the allegedly questionable
debt-collection practices of Midland before the now-defunct
National Arbitration Forum ("NAF") and Florida state courts.  In
2009, following a lawsuit by the Minnesota Attorney General and an
investigation by a U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee, the
NAF agreed to stop arbitrating claims.  Plaintiff Connor alleges
that Midland, which was not registered as a debt collector in
Florida until shortly before the NAF ceased to function, used a law
firm with close financial ties to the NAF to obtain, without proper
notice, thousands of arbitration awards and final judgments against
consumers in Florida.

Connor alleges that she became a victim of Midland's practice in
2005 when it obtained, by default, an arbitration award against her
before the NAF.  Midland then had that award confirmed in Florida
state court in 2007, also by default.  At neither of those times
was Midland registered as a debt collector under Florida law (as
Midland first registered as a Florida debt collector on Jan. 1,
2009).  Several years later, in November 2017, Midland issued writs
of garnishments to Connor's employer.

On July 25, 2018, approximately 10 months after the writs issued,
Connor sued Midland, raising four claims: violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e (Count I) and Section 1692f (Count II) of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") (Count III); and unjust
enrichment (Count IV).  Connor later amended her complaint to add a
fifth claim: violation of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")(Count
V).

Midland's motion to dismiss the amended complaint raises five
issues: (1) whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the Court
of subject-matter jurisdiction over some of the FDCPA and FCCPA
claims; (2) whether Connor's claims are either barred by the
statute of limitations or are meritless (depending on whether the
claims are based on pre-registration events); (3) whether Connor is
bringing an impermissible private cause of action for failure to
register, which the FCCPA does not allow; (4) whether Connor's
unjust enrichment claim fails for that same reason; and (5) whether
the FAA's 90-day statute of limitations bars the claim to vacate
the arbitration award.

Magistrate Judge Goodman granted in part and denied in part
Midland's motion to dismiss.  First, he dismissed without prejudice
Count I, III, and IV as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Second, he dismissed without prejudice Count I as falling outside
the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations.  The same ruling
applies to those allegations in Count II that are duplicative of
Count I, but he otherwise denied the motion to dismiss as to Count
II on limitations grounds.  Third, the Magistrate dismissed without
prejudice Count III based on the additional reason that, as pled,
Connor raises an impermissible private cause of action under the
FCCPA for failure to register.  Fourth, and last, he denied the
motion to dismiss as to Count V.  Although the question is a close
one, the Magistrate declined to dismiss Count V at this time given
that Connor has alleged that she and Midland never entered into an
arbitration agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RFWrW3 from Leagle.com.

Jacki Lyn Connor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren R. Newhart --
darren@cloorg.com -- Consumer Law Organization, P.A., Jack Dennis
Card, Jr. -- DCard@Consumerlaworg.com -- Consumer Law Organization,
P.A. & James Lawrence Kauffman -- jkauffman@baileyglasser.com --
Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory
William Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP
& Philip E. Rothschild -- Phil.Rothschild@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight.


MOLSON COORS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston based securities litigation firm
representing investors nationwide, informs investors that it has
filed a securities fraud class action against Molson Coors Brewing
Co. ("Molson" or the "Company") (NYSE: TAP) and certain of its
officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Class
members interested in serving as lead plaintiff are required to
move for appointment by April 16, 2019, and are encouraged to
contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

The Complaint filed in the United States District Court, District
of Colorado, located at 901 19th Street, Denver Colorado, and
captioned Segalis v. Molson Coors Brewing Co, et al., Case No.
19-cv-00455, alleges that throughout the Class Period the
Defendants repeatedly and materially misstated Molson's financial
condition in filings with the SEC, while falsely representing that
Molson's financial statements complied with GAAP and that its
internal controls were effective. The case alleges a class period
between February 14, 2017 and February 12, 2019, inclusive. A judge
has not yet been assigned to the case.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Molson securities and
have questions about your legal rights, or possess information
relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact
Attorney Dan DeMaria at (617) 398-5660, by email at
dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/molson.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.

         Contact:
         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660
                    (888) 868-2385
         Website:  https://blockesq.com
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Allen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
BILLY H. ALLEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00330 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's 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, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: Cantus Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
CANDELARIO CANTU AND FELEITAS CANTU, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00331
(E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by
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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's 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, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: Lubbens Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID C. LUBBEN and ESTHER LUBBEN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00275 (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 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, 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: Lumpkins Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD C. LUMPKIN and MURIEL E. LUMPKIN, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00277 (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 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, 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: Moore Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE MOORE, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00279 (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 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, 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: Perry Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA L. PERRY, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00281 (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 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, 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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Reeds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS REED AND LYNN REED, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and
JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00324 (E.D. Mo.,
Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's 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, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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: Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Heads to Trial
----------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that the controversial Roundup weed killer was set to
go on trial again on Feb. 25 in the US, six months after a
groundskeeper won the first-ever lawsuit accusing the chemical of
causing cancer.

Roundup, a brand owned by German chemical and pharmaceutical giant
Bayer after its purchase of US-based Monsanto last year, contains
glyphosate that environmentalists and other critics have long
maintained leads to cancer.

Glyphosate is used in weed killers made by several companies, and
is currently the most used herbicide around the world.

Jurors in August unanimously found that Monsanto acted with
"malice" and that its weed killers Roundup and Ranger Pro
contributed "substantially" to Dewayne "Lee" Johnson's terminal
illness.

Now another Californian, Edwin Hardeman, accuses Roundup of
contributing to his cancer, which is of the same type as Johnson's
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

Mr. Hardeman, of Sonoma County -- north of San Francisco -- says he
used Roundup extensively to treat his property from the 1980s until
2012, according to his lawyers.

He filed a complaint against Monsanto in early 2016, a year after
being diagnosed with cancer.

According to the complaint, the company "knew or had reason to know
that Roundup was defective and unsafe" and that exposure to the
product "could result in cancer and other severe illnesses and
injuries."

Information that Monsanto provided or communicated "failed to
contain adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled
Mr Hardeman, and similarly situated individuals, to utilize the
product safely and with adequate protection," Mr. Hardeman's
lawyers added.

Instead, the company "disseminated information that was inaccurate,
false, and misleading," they alleged.

Monsanto, which has sold Roundup worldwide for more than 40 years,
is holding firm to its line of defense. The products are not
dangerous if the conditions of use are followed, as proven by
hundreds of scientific studies, it says.

Like the Johnson trial, the new case will take place in San
Francisco but it will be the first heard in a federal court, where
some legal technicalities differ from the state level where Johnson
won his case.

Mr. Hardeman's is the leading case in a multi-district litigation
of hundreds of similar cases which are legally linked, but will be
heard separately.

Although not a class action lawsuit, the outcome of the Hardeman
case will provide a signal for the other jurisdictions.

The Johnson precedent will also hang over the new trial which
should last four or five weeks.

Mr. Johnson was diagnosed in 2014 with NHL, a cancer that affects
white blood cells. He said he repeatedly used Ranger Pro while
working at a school in Benicia, California.

US$78 million in damages

Jurors in his case last August ordered Monsanto to pay $250 million
in punitive damages along with compensatory damages and other
costs, bringing the total award to nearly US$290 million (RM1.2
billion).

Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who presided over the case in California
State Court, later denied Monsanto's request for a new trial –
but cut the damages to US$78 million (RM318 billion) to comply with
a law regarding how such awards must be calculated.

The ruling sent Bayer shares tumbling on fears that a wave of
costly litigation could be about to break on the firm.

In November, Bayer said it would slash 12,000 jobs in a
restructuring after the takeover of Monsanto, which asked a US
appeals court to toss out the Johnson verdict.

At Bayer's request, the Hardeman trial will be conducted in two
stages. The first phase will seek to determine whether Roundup is
responsible for the complainant's cancer.

If the jury concludes that it is, the next step will be to decide
whether or not Monsanto has a liability and, if so, what
compensation should be paid.

For the judge, the two-stage process aims to help the jury decide
the possible liability of glyphosate without being influenced by
the reputation of Monsanto, which has a controversial image all
over the world, accused of having manipulated studies.

Praised by farmers for its effectiveness and low cost, glyphosate
is under particular scrutiny in Europe and especially in France,
where authorities in January banned a form of the herbicide,
Roundup Pro 360.

But the chemical has been subject to contradictory decisions around
the world.

The European Union renewed its authorization of glyphosate for five
years in November 2017, but President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to
outlaw its use in France by 2021.

A 2015 study by a World Health Organization agency concluded that
glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic."

Environmental groups including Greenpeace have called for an
outright ban in Europe for glyphosate but Monsanto insisted the
herbicide meets EU licensing standards. [GN]


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Tax Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Shah, writing for WSHU, reports that a class action lawsuit
against Nassau County alleges a tax assessment freeze in 2010
discriminated against non-white homeowners.

The lawsuit says county policies on grieving assessments allowed
wealthier, white residents to shift a $1.7 billion property tax
burden onto lower income, non-white communities since 2010.

Proponents say non-white residents are less likely to grieve their
property taxes.

A similar case was brought against Nassau in 1997, which led to a
new tax assessment system that was based on fair market value.

This new lawsuit alleges that the tax assessment freeze in 2010
abandoned that system.

County Executive Laura Curran has tried to fix the system and
recently completed a reassessment of property values in Nassau.
[GN]


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Discriminatory Tax Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------
Teri West, writing for The Island Now, reports that three Nassau
residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the county on
behalf of non-white property owners who they contend were forced to
bear the property tax burden of wealthier, white communities due to
county policies beginning in 2010.

Former County Executive Edward Mangano froze the tax assessment
roll in 2011. Two years ago, Newsday reported the move shifted the
tax burden to lower-income communities because individuals living
in higher-income communities were the ones who primarily used the
tax grievance process.

The county policy shift was "illegal, discriminatory conduct," the
lawsuit says. It seeks compensation of an amount that the court
deems just.

"You can't balance your books based on phony assessments and
sticking it to the weakest citizens," said David Bishop, an
attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The issues at stake directly overlap with those of a 1997 lawsuit
against Nassau County, the lawsuit says.

That case, Coleman v. Seldin, challenged the county over racial
discrimination in its tax assessment. It led to a consent decree,
requiring Nassau to maintain an equitable tax assessment and a new
county policy that required the tax assessment to be updated
annually.

Compliance with that policy lapsed when Mr. Mangano, a Republican,
was in office, Mr. Bishop said.

"The system got so out of whack and the taxes are so high in Nassau
that doing the right thing, that making the system correct is
politically unpalatable," Mr. Bishop said. "It's painful
politically, so weak politicians like Mr. Mangano are tempted to do
the wrong thing, and they did the wrong thing."

Though the lawsuit does not designate how much the plaintiffs are
seeking, the monetary damage is "enormous," Mr. Bishop said, "and
it speaks to the irresponsibility of the county."

If the plaintiffs win, it should not bankrupt the county, he said.
Lawsuits like this were bonded to be paid out over decades during
his time in Suffolk County politics, he said.

Presiding Officer Richard Nicolello (R-New Hyde Park) said he
believes the lawsuit is a political tool for Nassau Democrats to
change the narrative around the reassessment currently taking
place.

In his argument, Mr. Nicolello pointed to plaintiff Wayne Hall's
Democratic Party affiliation and the fact that the lawsuit does not
demand a stay on the reassessment's five-year phase-in as reasons
that the legal action is "suspicious."

He also said the firm representing the plaintiffs also represents
county Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs, which Jacobs said is
untrue.

He has no connection to Kirby McInerney, the law firm that
represents the plaintiffs, Jacobs said, and does not know Bishop.

"I had no knowledge of the lawsuit before it was filed," he added.
"Nobody asked me about it, nobody presented the idea to me, I never
thought about it. I had read it in the paper, I spoke to [County
Executive] Laura Curran when I read about it in the paper. She had
no knowledge of it, so I think [Nicolello]'s getting ahead of
himself."

The county executive's office does not comment on pending
litigation, a spokeswoman said.

Wayne Hall, one of the lawsuit's plaintiff's and a former Village
of Hempstead mayor, also rebutted Nicolello's statements.

"It's not a Democratic plot," Hall said. "They all colluded along
with Mangano to shift the tax burden to senior citizens, disabled
veterans and minority communities and they just have to pay for it.
Pay for the wrongs that they did. So it's not a Democratic plot."

He had read about a woman who had a $2 million house and was paying
taxes as if it was worth $1 million, Hall said, which was one
reason he decided to engage in a lawsuit.

"I felt that there's some kind of retribution that needs to be made
for the wrongs that Mangano's administration did," he said.

The class-action lawsuit was filed Feb. 15, and it took about six
months to prepare all 62 pages, said Bishop, a former Suffolk
County legislator and Babylon councilman. His firm, Kirby
McInerney, which is based in New York City, specializes in class
action lawsuits and is constantly scanning the news, he said.

What was happening in Nassau County was "an extraordinary situation
that caught our attention," he said.

The named plaintiffs besides Hall are Reina Hernandez and
Floridalma Portillo. Both live in the Village of Hempstead, Bishop
said. [GN]


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Removes Soward Case to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Distribution Centers LLC removes case, RODNEY SOWARD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. MOORE ADVANCED, INC. d/b/a "Moore Advanced," an
entity, form unknown; NFI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1900029,
from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:19-cv-00318 to the proceeding. National Distribution
Centers LLC is erroneously sued as "NFI, L.P."

The action alleges wage and hour, and misclassification claims.
There are no current motions pending and there have been no further
proceedings in Riverside County Superior Court, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          George A. Stohner, Esq.
          Michael Jaeger, Esq.
          Andrew Murphy, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 310 500 2090
          Facsimile: 310 500 2091
          E-mail: george.stohner@faegrebd.com
                  michael.jaeger@faegrebd.com
                  andrew.murphy@faegrebd.com

NCAA: Lett Sues over Health & Safety of NCAT Student-Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE LETT, as attorney-in-fact of Earl Lett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00815-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of North Carolina A&T
State University (NCAT) 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, NCAT 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 NCAT 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 NCAT 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: Talley Sues over Safety of Catawba Student-Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------
LAQUANE TALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and CATAWBA COLLEGE, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00784-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Catawba
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, Catawba 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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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

NEBRASKA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Prison Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Young, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that it's
been 18 months since 11 Nebraska prisoners sued the state
Department of Correctional Services over conditions and crowding
they say endanger the health, safety and lives of prisoners and
staff on a daily basis.

On Feb. 19, the ACLU of Nebraska, which represents the prisoners,
took a step to increase the reach of the complaint by filing a
motion in federal court for class-action status on behalf of the
thousands of men and women in the state's prisons.  

To do that, the organization enlisted at least six experts with
experience in treatment of prisoners with mental health, medical
and dental needs and their disability rights.

One of those, Craig Haney, a social psychologist and noted expert
on the psychological impact of imprisonment and prison isolation,
said in his filing that Nebraska inmates subjected to excessive and
inappropriate solitary confinement -- especially those with mental
illness -- face significant risk of psychological harm.

Nebraska prisons have a far higher suicide rate than other state
prison systems, he said, and records show multiple suicide attempts
at the prisons in recent years.

He noted two suicides in restricted housing at the Tecumseh State
Correctional Institution. Adrian Eagle Elk, 29, hanged himself in
his cell last year, after two months in restricted housing, and in
2016, Aslin Nabarro, 44, killed himself after four months in
isolation.

Mr. Nabarro suffered from depression and an adjustment disorder,
Mr. Haney said, and had not been seen by mental health providers
for 40 days prior to his death. On a request to prison officials
for aid, Mr. Nabarro had written: "I can't stand it any longer.
Nobody helps."

The experts who documented their observations after interviewing
prisoners and staff, touring facilities and reading documents and
records, detailed in hundreds of pages problems they said extended
far beyond just those 11 inmates who had filed the lawsuit.

The problems included bad policies and practices of the department,
crowding, lack of appropriate access to medical, mental health and
dental care, and failure to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

"Their conclusions make clear that Nebraska remains an extreme
outlier, and human rights and legal abuses are rampant," said ACLU
of Nebraska executive director Danielle Conrad.

David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union
National Prison Project, said the class certification is necessary,
in part, for efficiency and because prisoners come and go from
custody and can't be involved in the complaint once they have been
released.

"Our burden on the motion for class certification is to show that
there are common issues in their case and that we're bringing a
case that's not about the situation of individual people, but about
statewide policies and practices that put everybody at risk of
harm," Mr. Fathi said.

In addition to a general class of complainants, the lawsuit denotes
subclasses for those in solitary confinement or those who have
disabilities. The affidavits brought by the experts are "quite
scathing," Mr. Fathi said.

"This case is an attempt to fix a profoundly broken prison system,"
he said. "This is a system that is in perpetual crisis, that poses
an imminent risk of injury or death, not only to prisoners but to
people who work in the prisons."

Attorney General Doug Peterson said his office is reviewing the
filings.

"It is important to remember that these remain allegations and the
Attorney General's Office looks forward to showing the court the
quality of care provided at NDCS," he said.

The experts gave examples of what they observed as dangerous
conditions:

* While all restrictive housing units appear capable of having
harmful impacts on prisoners, Haney said, the "South Forty" control
unit at the State Penitentiary is more toxic than others. He
described conditions in the unit as shocking and the plight of many
of those prisoners are "truly dire." The cells are small, dirty,
essentially windowless and infested with insects and rodents. Staff
must navigate through a utility chase, or "tunnel," between units
and peer through an opening in the rear of individual cells to
communicate with prisoners and assess their health needs.

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site
constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
Haney interviewed several dozen prisoners at multiple facilities,
some who spent months, even years, in restricted housing and who
described enforced idleness and inactivity, oppressive security and
surveillance and starkly deprived conditions that can create
cognitive, emotional and behavioral impairments. Those damages can
be permanent and life-threatening, he said.

* Dentist Jay D. Shulman reported allegations of inadequate
policies, procedures and staffing in the dental department that
result in consistently inadequate care. There is a one-year
quarantine during which prisoners are not eligible to receive
treatment for dental disease until the conditions cause pain. There
is a two-year restriction from receiving dentures, even for those
who have pain and discomfort in chewing. An available waiver
process is "highly problematic," he said, because the basis for
approving such a waiver is not stated.  

* Eldon Vail, formerly with the Washington State Department of
Corrections, described the "two-headed monster" of overcrowding and
understaffing that leads to over-reliance on solitary confinement.
In spite of a stated reform of restricted housing policies, the
practice has increased rather than decreased, he said.

And the practice of putting two prisoners together in restricted
housing cells is dangerous, he said, as shown by the murder of
Terry Berry by his cellmate, Patrick Schroeder. Vail said Chief of
Operations Diane Sabatka-Rine has said she didn't believe
double-celling, in and of itself, impacts safety or the mental
well-being of individuals. Corrections Director Scott Frakes said
double-bunking in restrictive housing can be as safe as in general
population.


* Dr. Pablo Stewart, a psychiatrist, declared in his filing the
systems for prescribing and adjusting medication, and for detecting
and treating dangerous side effects of powerful psychotropic
medication, are not functioning at the level needed to prevent
serious harm and death. Prisoners taking powerful psychotropic
drugs are not properly monitored for side effects, he said.

* Dr. Marc Stern found what he called improper use of nursing
staff; inappropriate use of inmate "porters," who provide direct
clinical care and are given access to other prisoners' confidential
medical records; poor clinical decision-making and practice by
health care professionals; and failure to have a reliable system in
place to ensure medical orders are followed.

Poor decisions could in some cases be life-threatening, Stern said.
One patient at the women's correctional center at York who was
recommended for additional X-rays for an abnormal and concerning
mammogram didn't get the followup care for six months, at which
time she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

* Margo Schlanger, an expert in law, policies and procedures
affecting prisoners with disabilities, reported the department has
no written policies governing the provision of assistive devices
beyond a cursory reference they will be provided subject to
"medical necessity, safety, and security." The department does not
inform prisoners of their rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act or about how to access services, she said. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoenaed Docs in Sabata Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HANNAH SABATA; DYLAN CARDEILHAC; JAMES CURTRIGHT;
JASON GALLE; RICHARD GRISWOLD; MICHAEL GUNTHER; ANGELIC NORRIS; R.
P., a minor; ISAAC REEVES; ZOE RENA; and BRANDON SWEETSER; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs,
v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; SCOTT FRAKES, in
his official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services; HARBANS DEOL, in his official capacity as
Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services; NEBRASKA BOARD OF PAROLE; JULIE MICEK, in
her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole
Administrator; and DOES, 1 to 20 inclusive; Defendants, Case No.
4:17CV3107 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Michael D. Nelson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the motion of
Marshall Lux, Public Counsel for Nebraska, to quash the subpoena
duces tecum served on him by the Defendant Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services ("NDCS").

The Plaintiffs, inmates within the custody and control of the NDCS,
filed the proposed class action on Aug. 15, 2017, against
Defendants NDCS and its administrators and medical staff, asserting
violations of the Plaintiffs' civil and constitutional rights.  The
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of their allegations that Nebraska
state prisons are overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed,
and that prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health
care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied
accommodations for their disabilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by a number of attorneys from
various firms and organizations, including the National Prison
Project of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), the
National Association of the Deaf Law & Advocacy Center, and the
Nebraska Appleseed Center. The NDCS seeks documents from the office
of the Public Counsel regarding communications with these firms and
organizations.

The Nebraska legislature established the office of Public Counsel
to perform certain duties, including investigating any
administrative act of any administrative agency, such as the NDCS.
In addition, the Inspector General of the Nebraska Correctional
System was created within the office of the Public Counsel to
conduct investigations, audits, inspections, and other reviews of
the Nebraska correctional system.

The subpoena served by the NDCS on the Public Counsel requests all
communications and contents of such communications, including
emails and messages sent by or from the office of Public Counsel
(including the Inspector General) to the Plaintiffs' counsel and
their respective firms and organizations.  The subpoena states the
request is limited in scope to communications or contents of such
communications sent from Jan. 1, 2014, to the present regarding any
of the individually named Plaintiffs.

The Public Counsel provided the Court with a Privilege Log listing
eight emails either from the Public Counsel or the Inspector
General with ACLU counsel as either an addressee or a recipient.
The Public Counsel represents the eight emails are all the
documents responsive to the NDCS's subpoena.  He has filed the
instant motion to quash the subpoena for two reasons: (1) the NDCS
has not made a threshold showing of relevance of the requested
documents and (2) the requested documents are privileged under Neb.
Rev. Stat. Sections 81-8,253 and Section 47-916.

Magistrate Judge Nelson finds that the privilege log submitted by
the Public Counsel indicates that the documents responsive to the
subpoena concern matters within his official cognizance.  The eight
items in the privilege log are emails either from the Public
Counsel or the Inspector General with the ACLU counsel as either an
addressee or a recipient.  The email replies concern ACLU counsel's
request for documents that an individually named incarcerated
Plaintiff had previously submitted to the Public Counsel; three
replies concern ACLU counsel's inquiry about records that another
Plaintiff had previously provided to the Public Counsel; one reply
is in response to ACLU counsel's concerns related to a Plaintiff's
segregation/solitary confinement; two replies relate to a referral
ACLU counsel made on behalf of one of the Plaintiffs about solitary
confinement; and one reply instructs the Public Counsel's staff to
open an investigation file for one of the Plaintiffs showing ACLU
counsel as referring party.  

The Judge holds that these replies concerning individuals
incarcerated at the NDCS and potential complaints and
investigations related to those individuals are matters that
clearly fall within the "official cognizance" of the Public Counsel
and Inspector General.  Accordingly, neither the Public Counsel and
Inspector General will be required to produce documents in response
to the NDCS' subpoena.

Upon consideration, Magistrate Judge Nelson granted the Public
Counsel's Motion to Quash.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4pTGZ4 from Leagle.com.

Hannah Sabata, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Dylan Cardeilhac, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, James Curtright, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Jason Galle, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Richard Griswold, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael Gunther, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Angelic
Norris, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Isaac Reeves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Zoe Rena, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Brandon Sweetser, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron T.
Goodman -- aaron.goodman@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice, Amy Fettig, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL
PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day --
andrew.day@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW &
ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Benjamin Bien-Kahn --
bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Young -- christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins --
dawn.jenkins@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY
CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- ROSEN,
BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge --
jennifer.eldridge@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Kara J. Janssen -- kjanssen@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith -- ksmith@neappleseed.org -- NEBRASKA
APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha Arulanantham --
rarulanantham@aclusocal.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION-NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen,
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

R. P., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron T. Goodman, DLA PIPER LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Amy Fettig , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION -
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day, DLA PIPER US LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Benjamin
Bien-Kahn, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Christopher M.
Young, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice,
David J. Tarrell, Berry Law Firm, Dawn M. Jenkins, DLA PIPER LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF
LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest Galvan, ROSEN, BIEN LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Kara J. Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth
M. Smith, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien , ROSEN, BIEN
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha Arulanantham, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E.
McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Scott Frakes, In his
official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services, Harbans Deol, In his official capacity as
Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services & Nebraska Board of Parole, Defendants,
represented by Benjamin M. Goins, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Danielle L. Rowley, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, David A. Lopez,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Jessica M. Forch, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE, Katherine O'Brien, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Ryan S.
Post, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Julie Micek, In her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting
Parole Administrator, Defendant, represented by Benjamin M. Goins,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Danielle L. Rowley, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE, David A. Lopez, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Jessica M.
Forch, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Katherine O'Brien, ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE & Ryan S. Post, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Marshall Lux, Movant, represented by Shawn D. Renner --
srenner@clinewilliams.com -- CLINE, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM.


NEBRASKA: Expert Witnesses Condemn Prison Conditions
----------------------------------------------------
Paul Hammel, writing for BH News Service, reports that expert
witnesses hired by the ACLU of Nebraska condemned conditions inside
Nebraska's prisons in court filings on Feb. 19 as dangerous to
inmates due to inadequate health care, "perpetual overcrowding" and
understaffing.

The civil rights organization, which sued the State of Nebraska in
August 2017, unveiled preliminary opinions from its experts in
asking a federal judge to authorize the lawsuit as a class action
for all of the 5,500 prison inmates incarcerated in Nebraska.

ACLU officials said gaining class-action status would give them
more leverage in their lawsuit and in possibly obtaining an
out-of-court settlement.

State attorneys, in court filings, have denied assertions by the
ACLU and the 10 inmates now named in the lawsuit that prison
facilities are so overcrowded that they violate constitutional
rights.

The ACLU's lawsuit, which is still in the pretrial stage, alleges
that inmates are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment due to
inadequate health and mental health care, overuse of solitary
confinement and lack of adequate accommodations for handicapped
inmates.

The ACLU experts maintained that overcrowding, combined with
inadequate staffing, made conditions worse by forcing the use of
solitary confinement to maintain order, delaying needed mental
health evaluations and treatment, and creating unsafe conditions
for inmates.

Nebraska has the second-most-overcrowded prison system in the
country, housing about 2,100 more inmates than its design capacity.
ACLU officials, in a press release, compared conditions to
California where, in 2011, a federal court sided with the ACLU and
ordered inmates to be released to ease crowded conditions.

Danielle Conrad, director of ACLU of Nebraska, said on Feb. 19 that
the organization is still open to working with the state to improve
conditions and avoid an expensive legal battle. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Sabata, et al. Seek to Certify Class & SubClasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit HANNAH SABATA, et al., the Plaintiffs,
vs. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03107-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
action
      under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), and
      23(b)(2) as to each of Plaintiffs' causes of action;

   2. certifying a NDCS Class of:

      "all persons who are now, or will in the future, be
subjected
      to the health care (including medical, mental health and
      dental care) policies and practices of NDCS" and certifying
      all named Plaintiffs as representatives of the NDCS Class";

   3. certifying an Isolation Subclass of:

      "all NDCS prisoners who are now, or will in the future be,
      subject to conditions of confinement that provide limited
      contact with other prisoners, strictly controlled movement
      while out of cell, and out-of-cell time of less than twenty-
      four hours per week" and certifying named Plaintiffs Hannah
      Sabata, Dylan Cardeilhac, Jason Galle, Michael Gunther,
      Richard Griswold, Angelic Norris, R.P., Isaac Reeves, and Zoe

      Rena, as representatives of the Isolation Subclass";

   4. certifying a Disability Subclass consisting of

      "all persons with disabilities who are now, or will in the
      future be, confined at any NDCS facility" and certifying
      named Plaintiffs Hannah Sabata, Dylan Cardeilhac, James
      Curtright, Jason Galle, Richard Griswold, Michael Gunther,
      Angelic Norris, R.P., Isaac Reeves, and Brandon Sweetser, as

      representatives of the Disability Subclass;

   5. certifying counsel of record for Plaintiffs as Class Counsel

      for the NDCS Class and the Isolation and Disability
      Subclasses.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Kara J. Janssen, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: kjanssen@rbgg.com

NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Fails to Provide Proper Notice Prior to Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Harris, writing for The Morning Call, reports that the federal
WARN Act, generally speaking, aims to protect workers by requiring
employers to provide them with 60-days notice ahead of a closing or
mass layoff.

That heads-up didn't happen at New England Motor Freight, allege
hundreds of the company's employees -- including some from the
Carbon County terminal -- in a class-action complaint filed against
the Elizabeth, N.J., firm.

Many of New England Motor Freight's 3,450 full- and part-time
employees worked their last day at the company, Friday, Feb. 15,
only four days after the trucking carrier filed for bankruptcy and
announced plans to wind down its operations. The company's Mahoning
Township terminal, at 457 Mahoning Drive, employed around 200
people, officials in Carbon County said.

"Even if you qualify that as notice, they were still owed another
55 days notice," said Chuck Ercole -- cercole@klehr.com -- a
partner at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP in Philadelphia and
one of the attorneys representing the employees.

Mr. Ercole, chairman of the firm's labor and employment law
practice group, said about 250-300 employees are now involved in
the action, a number that could grow.

"The story behind the scenes is supposedly the company didn't think
they had violated the WARN Act, but I'm not sure what their defense
is," Mr. Ercole said.

Vincent Colistra, New England Motor Freight's chief restructuring
officer, did not respond to a call seeking comment on Feb. 19. In a
statement, Mr. Colistra said the company worked hard to explore
options but, following two years of losses with rises in overhead
and a shortage of truck drivers, New England Motor Freight opted to
wind down its operations to maximize its assets for employees and
creditors.

But, Mr. Ercole noted, the challenges the business faced did not
pop up out of nowhere, and bankruptcy is not a way out of providing
proper notice. For example, on Feb. 18, Payless ShoeSource
announced that it filed for bankruptcy and planned to wind down its
roughly 2,500 stores in North America, though many of the
retailer's stores will remain open through the end of May.

Mr. Ercole has been involved with trucking cases before, perhaps
most notably in 2009, when a class-action lawsuit was filed against
Arrow Trucking, which abruptly shut down just before Christmas that
year. The company shut off its fuel cards, which left drivers
stranded across the country. Mr. Ercole said about 400 drivers were
involved in that action, a two-year case that ended with the
plaintiffs getting their requested wages and benefits.

Mr. Ercole, who met with some New England Motor Freight drivers in
Cherry Hill, N.J., on Feb. 18, expects this case to take at least a
year, though he's had some actions resolve faster. In the
complaint, the employees are looking to get eight weeks pay and the
value of their health benefits.

In the meantime, Mr. Ercole noted, many of the affected workers he
spoke with are applying for unemployment benefits.

"We'll see how it all plays out," he said. [GN]


NIKE: 1st Hearing in Gender Discrimination Class Action Held
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kish, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that
an attorney for current and former Nike employees on Feb. 19 argued
during a court hearing that a sweeping gender discrimination
lawsuit against the sportswear giant should be allowed to proceed.

The lawsuit was filed in August in the wake of reports about a
"boys' club" culture at Nike. Current and former employees allege
widespread gender and pay discrimination. The lawsuit seeks
class-action status.

Nike filed a partial motion to dismiss the case in December,
arguing the lawsuit is overly broad and lacks sufficient facts. The
lawsuit had its first hearing on Feb. 19. The telephonic hearing
focused on Nike's arguments to have three of the lawsuit's four
claims dismissed. Nike's attorney also argued the lawsuit doesn't
have enough evidence to be certified as a class action.

Arguing for current and former Nike employees, Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho attorney James Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- said the
lawsuit has enough statistical and anecdotal evidence to survive
Nike's motion to dismiss. He also noted Nike has publicly
acknowledged its workplace problems.

"The combined panoply of fact can support an inference of
discriminatory intent," Mr. Kan said.

Arguing for Nike, Paul Hastings attorney Felicia Davis said the
statistics in the lawsuit are "very, very high level and they're
very general and I don't think they meet the pleading standards."

The statistics in the lawsuit include the percentage of Nike vice
presidents who are male (71 percent) and the percentage of Nike
directors and senior directors who are male (62 percent).

Ms. Davis described the statistics as "vague" and not proof of
gender discrimination. She also argued the lawsuit should not be
certified as a class action because the proposed class is too broad
and includes "hundreds of job titles and thousands of current and
former employees across every area of Nike's business."

"The scope is unbridled," she said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Kan said Nike is getting ahead of itself by
asking the court to rule on the proposed class certification,
saying it was "not appropriate at this stage of the litigation."

"We're not trying to jump ahead," Davis said. "The court has the
authority and should exercise the authority to manage cases that
are on their face unnmanageable and not likely to lead to any kind
of certification down the line."

The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. At the
conclustion of the hearing, Russo said she expects to issue a
ruling on the motion to dismiss shortly.

The lawsuit was the first of two expansive lawsuits related to the
claims about a toxic workplace at Nike. The other was filed on
behalf of shareholders who allege the company's board didn't do
enough to protect investors. Nike has filed a motion to dismiss
that lawsuit, calling it "contorted," "nonsensical," and
"illogical." [GN]


NISOURCE INC: Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident in Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource 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 a special judge in the
consolidated class action lawsuit related to the so-called Greater
Lawrence Incident granted the parties' joint motion to stay all
cases for 90 days to allow mediation.

On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the
delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts.  Various
lawsuits, including several purported class action lawsuits, have
been filed by various affected residents or businesses in
Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or Columbia of
Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident.

A special judge has been appointed to hear all pending and future
cases and the class actions will be consolidated into one class
action. On January 14, 2019, the special judge granted the parties'
joint motion to stay all cases for 90 days to allow mediation.

The parties are in the process of filing a request with the special
judge to extend this period. The class action lawsuits allege
varying causes of action, including those for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activity, negligence, private nuisance, public
nuisance, premises liability, trespass, breach of warranty, breach
of contract, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, consumer
protection act claims, negligent and reckless infliction of
emotional distress, and gross negligence, and seek actual
compensatory damages, plus treble damages, and punitive damages.
Many residents and business owners have submitted individual damage
claims to Columbia of Massachusetts.

NiSource said, "We also have received notice from three parties
indicating an intent to assert wrongful death claims. In
Massachusetts, punitive damages are available in a wrongful death
action upon proof of gross negligence or willful or reckless
conduct causing the death. In addition, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and North
Andover are seeking reimbursement from Columbia of Massachusetts
for their respective expenses incurred in connection with the
Greater Lawrence Incident. The outcomes and impacts of the private
actions are uncertain at this time."

NiSource Inc., an energy holding company, operates as a regulated
natural gas and electric utility company in the United States. The
company operates in two segments, Gas Distribution Operations and
Electric Operations. The company was formerly known as NIPSCO
Industries, Inc. and changed its name to NiSource Inc. in April
1999. NiSource Inc. was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in
Merrillville, Indiana.


NUVASIVE INC: No Longer Has Liability in Mauss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NuVasive, 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 no longer has
any remaining liability related to class action lawsuit spearheaded
by Brad Mauss, as of December 31, 2018.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers for allegedly making false and materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper
submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The operative
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22,
2008 to July 30, 2013.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on
August 25, 2016, and discovery commenced. The plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the
Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class
certification. The Company filed a petition to appeal the order
granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on April 5, 2017 and the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition. On August 15, 2017,
the Ninth Circuit denied the Company’s petition. The Company
filed a motion for summary judgment on September 8, 2017. On
February 1, 2018, the court entered an order denying the
Company’s motion for summary judgment.

On February 13, 2018, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the case for $7.9
million. On March 23, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the court on June
11, 2018.

On December 6, 2018, the court issued an order and judgment
granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement of $7.9
million was fully funded by insurance proceeds and includes the
dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named
individuals in the lawsuit without any liability or wrongdoing
attributed to them. The Company no longer has any remaining
liability related to this matter as of December 31, 2018.

NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets
minimally disruptive surgical products and procedurally integrated
solutions for spine surgery. Its products focus on applications for
spine fusion surgery, including ancillary products and services
used to aid in the surgical procedure. NuVasive, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Juan Sierra Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
A case, JUAN E. SIERRA and other similarly-situated individuals,
vs. Plaintiff(s), OTTOMAN RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a/ SULTAN RESTAURANT
and GURSEL SEZGIN, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20689-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation, which
constitute violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a Mediterranean
restaurant which operates under the name of SULTAN RESTAURANT at
1903 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33139, where Plaintiff worked.
The Defendants SULTAN RESTAURANT and GURSEL SEZGIN employed the
Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly, full-time restaurant employee
approximately from March 05, 2018 to February 05, 2019, or 48
weeks. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a Prep Cook. He was paid
$12.00 an hour, and after January 01, 2019 Plaintiff's wage rate
was $13.00 an hour. The Defendants, Plaintiff maintained an
irregular schedule. The Plaintiff had 1 day off, but he worked 5, 6
and sometimes up to 7 days per week.

When Plaintiff worked 5 days, he completed 55 working hours, when
Plaintiff worked 6 days, he completed 66 working hours. Thus,
Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours every week. Plaintiff was
unable to take bona-fide lunch breaks.  Plaintiff was paid for all
his working hours at his regular rate. Defendants paid Plaintiff 40
regular hours with checks by direct deposits, and the overtime
hours with cash and at his regular rate. Plaintiff was not paid for
overtime hours. Therefore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime at the rate of time and a half his regular rate.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

PACIFIC GAS: York County Sues over Violation of Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Pacific Gas seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933. The case is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons or entities that acquired PG&E
senior notes in or traceable to the Company's Notes Offerings.

PG&E is a California utility that provides electricity to central
and Northern California. Since March 2016, PG&E has issued over $4
billion worth of senior notes registered with the SEC. After
selling billions of dollars' worth of bonds, PG&E has been
implicated in several of the most destructive wildfires in history.
In October 2017, a series of devastating fires, which became known
as the Northern California Fires, ravaged at least 245,000 acres of
land and killed 44 people. At the time, the fires were the most
destructive in California history and were responsible for over $13
billion in damages. Then, little more than a year later, the
tragedy of the Northern California Fires would be surpassed by an
even more destructive and deadly blaze, the Camp Fire, which
ignited in November 2018 in Butte County, California. This
catastrophic event claimed the lives of at least 86 people and
caused an estimated $16.5 billion in damages. The Camp Fire was
reportedly the world's costliest natural disaster in 2018.

As investigators sort through the wreckage of these devastating
fires, a picture of PG&E's shocking failure to take proper fire
mitigation measures, at the same time that it was selling billions
of dollars' worth of bonds, has come to light. These events
directly contradict the representations made by defendants in the
offering documents for the Notes Offerings. For example, of the
first 18 major Northern California Fires for which the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Cal Fire") has
determined a cause, all 18 were found to have been started by PG&E
equipment. Of these, Cal Fire concluded that to follow applicable
laws and regulations regarding vegetation management. The agency
referred these cases to the appropriate District Attorney's offices
for possible criminal prosecution. Similarly, PG&E's failure to
properly maintain a transmission tower has been cited as the most
likely source of the Camp Fire, meaning that PG&E has been
implicated in directly causing the two most destructive wildfire
events in California history in a span of only 13 months.
Prosecutors have stated that PG&E's conduct could amount to
implied-malice murder, depending on the conclusions reached by
ongoing investigations.

In addition, in-depth reporting has exposed the Company's lax
wildfire safety practices. From June 2014 through December 2017,
PG&E equipment was found to have caused over 1,500 fires across
almost the entirety of the Company's service area, or more than one
fire per day on average. In addition, the Company reportedly had
not improved its fire prevention measures as represented and failed
to even produce a fire mitigation report as mandated by California
state law. Regulators have also concluded that the Company
falsified safety and reporting data, further demonstrating the
Company's systemic aversion to basic risk mitigation measures. Now,
PG&E has declared bankruptcy, as it faces a slew of criminal
probes, regulatory investigations and civil lawsuits, with the
Company's potential liability estimated to reach as high as $30
billion.

As a result of these tragic events, the prices of PG&E bonds have
plummeted, adding hundreds of millions of dollars' in investor
losses to the devastation wrought by the Company's conduct. This
action seeks recompense for those losses under the federal
securities laws, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF
YORK RETIREMENT FUND, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and MID-JERSEY TRUCKING INDUSTRY & LOCAL NO. 701 PENSION
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. BARBARA L. RAMBO, GEISHA J. WILLIAMS, NICKOLAS
STAVROPOULOS, DAVID S. THOMASON, DINYAR B. MISTRY, LEWIS CHEW,
ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR., FRED J. FOWLER, MARYELLEN C. HERRINGER,
RICHARD  C. KELLY, ROGER H. KIMMEL, RICHARD A. MESERVE, FORREST E.
MILLER, BARRY LAWSON WILLIAMS, ROSENDO G. PARRA, ANNE SHEN SMITH,
ERIC D. MULLINS, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MUFG  SECURITIES AMERICAS, INC.
f/k/a MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL
GROUP, L.P., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, MIZUHO
SECURITIES USA LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS,
LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
TD SECURITIES (USA LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., GREAT PACIFIC
SECURITIES, CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES
AMERICA, INC., U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., LEBENTHAL & CO.,
LLC, MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC, SAMUEL A.
RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC. and MFR SECURITIES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00994 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: 313 578-1200
          Facsimile: 313 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

PARAMETRIC SOUND: April 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Parametric Sound Corporation Shareholders'
Litigation:

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
    
In re PARAMETRIC SOUND
CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS'  
LITIGATION

Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B
Dept. No. XI

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

All holders of Parametric Sound Corporation ("Parametric") common
stock who held shares on January 15, 2014, at the time Parametric
issued shares in the Merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Eighth
Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark
(the "Court"), that you may be a member of a Class Action pending
in the Court.

The lawsuit captioned In re Parametric Sound Corporation
Shareholders' Litigation, Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B was recently
certified as a Class Action, and Kearney IRRV Trust was appointed
as Class representative. If any benefits are eventually obtained
for the Class as a result of this lawsuit, eligible Class members
may be entitled to a payment.

Class members may choose to exclude themselves from the Class. If
you exclude yourself, you will not be entitled to a payment if any
benefits are obtained for the Class. If you do not exclude
yourself, you will be bound by any judgment in this litigation,
whether favorable or unfavorable. To remain a Class member and
eligible for a payment if any benefits are obtained, you are not
required to do anything at this time. To request exclusion, you
must submit a written request for exclusion to In re Parametric
Sound Corporation Shareholders' Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked on
or before April 1, 2019, setting forth your name and address. The
deadline to exclude yourself is April 1, 2019. [GN]


PENINSULA INFINITI: Unger Sues over Vehicle Order Deposits
----------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY B. UNGER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons and the general public, as applicable,
the Plaintiff, v. PENINSULA INFINITI LLC, a California limited
liability company doing business as Peninsula Infiniti; and DOES
1-10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CIV01021 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks legal and equitable relief resulting
from Infiniti's alleged violation of the requirements of California
Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants affirmatively
represented that vehicle order deposits are non refundable when it
is illegal to do so and/or failing to inform customers that it is
unlawful to collect deposits for vehicles not then available, and
imposing unconscionable and illegal penalites regarding vehicle
orders, based on violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the prohibition against imposing liquidated damages clauses in
consumer contracts, and provisions of the California Vehicle Code,
California's Automobile Sales Finance Act, and California Leasing
Act.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of advertising, selling,
distributing, and warranting motor vehicles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          John W. Hanson, Esq.
          Elisa M. Swanson, Esq.
          THE HANSON LAW FIRM
          7752 Fay Avenue, Ste. F
          La Jolla,CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 451 0291
          Facsimile: (858) 451 0281
          E-mail: john@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          206 Park Blvd. Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341—5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Oral B Mouthwash Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Times of Israel reports that reading the instructions is always
good practice, but reading them in both Hebrew and English led an
astute lawyer in Ramat Gan to file an $8 million class-action
lawsuit against the importer of a popular mouthwash.

Attorney Yossi Beitner, a regular user of Proctor & Gamble's Oral B
mouthwash, peeled off the Hebrew language instructions label on his
bottle and noticed that the English version concealed underneath
was different, the Ynet news website reported.

The Hebrew version told customer to use the product twice a day and
gargle for 30 seconds each time, but the English instructions told
users to gargle once a day for 60 seconds.

The difference in versions meant Israeli customers used the product
twice as fast, prompting Mr. Beitner to file a NIS 30 million
(about $8.3 million) class-action lawsuit against the local
importer.

Mr. Beitner's lawsuit claims the Israeli company conspired to cause
Israeli consumers to use double the amount of product they actually
needed. Customers outside of Israel, or those who peeled off the
Hebrew language sticker on top of their bottle and paid attention
to the English instructions, would use half the amount.

The lawyer did the math and realized that as a constant user of
mouthwash he would be out-of-pocket an extra 1,398 shekels (about
$375).

"The connection between the non-disclosure of additional usage
instructions and the damage caused to the consumer was ostensibly
proven," said Judge Shoshana Almagor, who approved the petition for
the class-action and gave the company 45 days to file a defense.

Proctor & Gamble's Israeli representative said the company would
respond according to legal procedures. [GN]


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP regarding the In re ProNAi Shareholder Litigation
Settlement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

IN RE PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates To: All Actions.

Case No. 16-CIV-02473

Class Action

Assigned to:  Hon. Richard H. DuBois
Department 16

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

Date Action Filed:  November 18, 2016

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC., NOW KNOWN AS
SIERRA ONCOLOGY, INC ("SIERRA" OR THE "COMPANY") IN THE COMPANY'S
JULY 15, 2015 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO"), OR AT ANY TIME
BETWEEN JULY 15, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 18, 2016 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"),
INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS").

IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, YOU MUST TIMELY
SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") BY MAY
30, 2019.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 24,
2019, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Richard H. DuBois at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 16,
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether:
(1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $7,200,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered;
(3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
(4) to pay Plaintiffs a service award for the time and expenses
they incurred in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund;
and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock
of Sierra pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for Sierra's IPO, against Sierra, certain of its key
executives and directors, and underwriters of Sierra's IPO
(collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly
misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration
Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the IPO concerning, among other things, the success
and viability of the development of Sierra's drug candidate,
PNT2258.  Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and
misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's stock,
resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SIERRA COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 15,
2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 18, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than May 30,
2019) or electronically (no later than May 30, 2019).  Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by May 30, 2019, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If you are a
member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final
Judgment or Alternative Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof
of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other
settlement documents, online at
www.ProNAiShareholderLitigation.com, or by writing to:

         In re ProNAi Shareholder Litigation Settlement
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 5053
         Portland, OR 97208-5053

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         Mark C. Molumphy
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA  94010
         Telephone:  650-697-6000

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY APRIL 30, 2019,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND
BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT OF A SERVICE AWARD TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND
EXPENSES.  ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
PLAINTIFFS' LEAD COUNSEL BYAPRIL 30, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: February 8, 2019   

HONORABLE RICHARD H. DUBOIS
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO

1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.ProNAiShareholderLitigation.com.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence
Health & Service 403(b) Value Plan, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH
& SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1779-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement.

The litigation involves claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with
respect to Defendant Providence's management of its
employer-sponsored retirement plans.

Having received and considered the Unopposed Motion and supporting
papers, including the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release
dated Jan. 25, 2019 and the declarations of the counsel, Judge
Coughenour preliminarily approved the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, subject to further consideration at the
hearing conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).  He approved the retention by the Class Counsel of Rust
Consulting as the Settlement Administrator, and the Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1), the
Judge certified, solely for the purposes of effectuating the
proposed Settlement on a non-opt-out basis, the Settlement Class
described as all Current and Former Participants in the Providence
Health & Services 401(a) Service Plan, the Providence Health &
Services Multiple Employer 401(k) Plan, the Providence Health &
Services 403(b) Value Plan, or in any plan merged into the 401(a),
401(k), or 403(b) Plans, or in any successor plan into which
401(a), 401(k), or 403(b) Plans may be merged, who maintained a
balance of any amount in the Plans from November 28, 2011 to the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.  He appointed the
Plaintiff as the class representative, and the Plaintiff's Counsel
as the Class Counsel.

Upon request of the Settlement Administrator and within a
reasonable period before the issuance of the Notice, the Defendants
will provide the Settlement Administrator with the names and last
known addresses and email addresses (if available) of the
Settlement Class Members.

Within 30 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will cause copies of the Notice to be sent by
first-class mail or electronic mail (if available) to all
Settlement Class Members through the notice procedure described in
the Settlement Agreement.  Not later than seven business days after
sending the Notice to the Settlement Class Members, the Settlement
Administrator will provide to the Class Counsel and to the
Defendants' Counsel a declaration attesting to compliance with the
sending of the Notice, as set forth.  All reasonable costs incurred
by the Settlement Administrator for providing the Notice as well as
for administering the Settlement will be paid as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement without further order of the Court.

The Fairness Hearing is set for July 9, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.  Not
later than 30 days before the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel
will submit their papers in support of final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, and of the Class Counsel's applications for
attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and a Case
Contribution Award.

Anyone who files and serves a timely, written comment or objection
in accordance with the Order may also appear at the Fairness
Hearing either in person or through qualified counsel retained at
their own expense.  Those persons or their attorneys intending to
appear at the Fairness Hearing must effect service of a notice of
intention to appear setting forth no later than 15 days before the
Fairness Hearing.  The Parties may file written responses to any
objections no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing.

The Order will become null and void, ab initio, and will be without
prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom will be deemed
to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of
Nov. 7, 2018, if the Settlement is terminated in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nb4p2e from Leagle.com.

Jenny M Johnson, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health &
Service 403(b) Value Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P.
Needham, IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter
-- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice,
Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice, Mark George Boyko --
mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice, Mark K.
Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD,
KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Clifford A. Cantor & Michael L.
Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Providence Health & Services, Providence Health & Services Human
Resources Committee & John and Jane Does, Defendants, represented
by Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS, pro hac
vice, Meaghan VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP,
pro hac vice & Medora A. Marisseau -- mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com --
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.


QWEST CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order in Seifert for Review
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDAN SEIFFERT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A/
CENTURYLINK QC AND CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. CV-18-70-GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Judge Brian Morris of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division,
denied the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's Dec. 14, 2018,
Order for Interlocutory Review.

Seiffert, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated,
brought a collective action against the Defendants.  The Defendants
moved to dismiss the out-of-state Plaintiffs and putative
Plaintiffs, or, in the alternative, transfer the case to the
Western District of Louisiana where CenturyLink is headquartered.

The Defendants argued that the United States Supreme Court's ruling
in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Ct. of Cal., applies to FLSA
collective actions and deprives the Court of specific personal
jurisdiction.  The Court determined that Bristol-Myers did not
apply to FLSA collective actions and denied the Defendants' motion
on Dec. 14, 2018.

Bristol-Myers involved group of plaintiffs that brought a mass tort
action against Bristol-Myers Squibb in California state court in
which they alleged state law claims.  The plaintiffs included 86
people who resided in California, and 592 people who resided in 33
other states.  The United States Supreme Court determined that the
California state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the state
claims brought by the out-of-state plaintiffs as no connection
existed between the forum in California and the claims.

The Defendants argue that the issue of whether Bristol-Myers
deprives a district court of specific personal jurisdiction over
the claims of the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs in a FLSA
collective action presents a controlling question.  They argue,
therefore, that the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order denying their
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue should be
certified for interlocutory appeal.

Having considered the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's
Dec. 14, 2018, Order for interlocutory review, Judge Morris
determines that exceptional circumstances do not exist to warrant
such review.  The Defendants have demonstrated that the issue of
whether Bristol-Myers applies to the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs
is a controlling issue of law in the case.  They have failed to
show, however, that there is substantial ground for a difference of
opinion on the controlling issue.  The Defendants have further
failed to show that resolution of whether Bristol-Myers applies to
the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs would materially advance the
litigation. The 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) three-factor test weighs
in favor of the Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, Judge Morris denied the
Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's Dec. 14, 2018, Order for
Interlocutory Review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/GZtGAx from Leagle.com.

Jordan Seiffert, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Philip L. McGrady --
Philip@mcgradylawfirm.com -- McGRADY LAW, Rowdy B. Meeks, ROWDY
MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC, pro hac vice & Tracey F. George, DAVIS
GEORGE MOOK LLC, pro hac vice.

Qwest Corporation, d/b/a CenturyLink QC & CenturyLink
Communications, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian Mumaugh --
bmumaugh@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, pro hac vice, Brianne
C. McClafferty -- bcmcclafferty@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART,
Chris R. Pace -- chris.pace@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice, Justin M. Dean --
justin.dean@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART,
P.C., pro hac vice & W. Scott Mitchell -- smitchell@hollandhart.com
-- HOLLAND & HART.


REVEL SYSTEMS: Settlement in Bisaccia FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH BISACCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REVEL SYSTEMS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02533-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On May 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  They allege
that they and other inside sales representatives ("ISRs") employed
by the Defendant regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
but did not receive overtime compensation.  Instead, the Defendant
classified them as "exempt" employees who were not entitled to such
overtime compensation.

On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs sought conditional certification
of a collective action as to all inside sales employees, across
sales titles and across the Defendant's various offices.  The
Defendant eventually stipulated to conditional certification and
distribution of judicial notice to the collective action members.
Judicial notice was distributed pursuant to the parties' agreement,
and the case now includes approximately 149 opt-in Plaintiffs.

On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting putative class action claims under California and New
York law in addition to the FLSA claims asserted in the original
complaint.  On Aug. 16, 2018, the parties jointly filed a notice of
settlement.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
mediator, the parties eventually entered into a settlement
agreement on Sept. 6, 2018.

The key terms are as follows:

     A. Class Definition: The settlement includes all opt-in
Plaintiffs who have filed consent to join forms, as well as three
Rule 23 settlement classes, defined as follows:

          i. The California Class: All ISRs employed by Defendant
who worked for Defendant in its California locations and who did
not receive payment in exchange for a release of California claims
through the Chatfield v. Revel class action settlement from May 30,
2013 through and until Jan. 15, 2017 and who do not communicate a
timely written request for exclusion from the settlement.

          ii. The California Travel Class: All ISRs employed by
Defendant who worked for Revel outside of California but who
traveled to, and performed work in, California from May 30, 2013
through and until Jan. 15, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely
written request for exclusion from the settlement.

          iii. The New York Class: All ISRs who were employed by
Defendant in New York from May 30, 2011 through and until Jan. 15,
2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request for
exclusion from the settlement.

     B. Settlement Benefits: the Defendant will pay a total
settlement amount of $2.75 million, including settlement payments
to all Class and Collective Members, administrative costs,
incentive awards, any attorneys' fees and costs award, and all
individual settlement payments, including employee taxes but
excluding employer taxes.  Individual settlement payments will be
calculated proportionately based on individualized damages
calculations using payroll data provided by Defendant.  Individual
settlement amounts will range from $248.12 to $53,244.24. The
settlement is non-reversionary.

     C. All settlement class members will release:

          i. For New York Class Members, any statutory claims for
unpaid wages (including but not limited to overtime pay, minimum
wage, and regular wages), and claims for interest, penalties, or
premiums in connection therewith, as well as any claims under the
New York Labor Law, alleged or which could have been alleged under
the facts plead in the Complaint during the Class Period.  The
Class Members who are not FLSA Collective Members will not release
FLSA claims.

          ii. For California Class Members and California Travel
Class Members, any statutory claims for unpaid wages (including but
not limited to overtime pay, minimum wage, and regular wages), and
claims for interest, penalties, or premiums in connection
therewith, as well as any claims under the California Labor Code or
California Wage Orders alleged or which could have been alleged
under the facts plead in the Complaint during the Class Period
arising from work performed in California.  The Class Members who
are not FLSA Collective Members will not release FLSA claims.

          iii. For FLSA Collective Members, the claims released
also include all Fair Labor Standards Act claims against the
Released Parties for work performed during the Class Period.

     D. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
send class notices via U.S. mail to each member of the classes,
using a class list provided by the Defendant.  The notice will
include: the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement
terms, and instructions on how to object to and opt out of the
settlement, including relevant deadlines.

     E. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative
class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement
must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion to the
settlement administrator no later than 60 days after the date
notice is mailed.

     F. Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiffs will apply for
incentive awards of no more than $5,000 each, subject to the
approval of the Court.

     G. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiffs will file an
application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the settlement
fund, and costs not to exceed $20,000.

Having weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam preliminarily
finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and granted preliminary approval of the class action and
FLSA collective action settlement.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted to
the Court within seven days of the date of the Order: (i) Deadline
for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative class
members; (ii) Filing Deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion;
(iii) Filing deadline for incentive payment motion; (iv) Deadline
for class members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or
application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment;
and (v) Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness
hearing and hearing on motions.

The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yHg4co from Leagle.com.

Joseph Bisaccia, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland --
helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, Kevin R. Allen, Velton
Zegelman PC, Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney Group & Daniel S.
Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.

Rosie O'Brien & Joshua Michi, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel S.
Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP & Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney
Group.

Revel Systems Inc., Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks
-- mburks@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Sara Allison Moore --
smoore@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP & Sat Sang S. Khalsa --
skhalsa@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP.


RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Padgett Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN PADGETT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
AMIT MANTSUR, YOSSI BEN HAROSH, ERAN EROV, and MOTTI HANIA,
Defendants, Civ. No. 16-4579 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin
McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint in the putative class action asserts claims
under the federal securities laws against senior officers of RiT,
as well as the Company itself.  The claims arise from allegedly
false or materially misleading statements made by the Defendants in
press releases and public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC").  The Plaintiffs assert that these false and
materially misleading statements violate Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The crux of the Plaintiffs' claims is that the Defendants
materially misled investors by failing to disclose the full extent
of RiT's reliance on an agreement with RiT CIS Ltd.  That agreement
provided that RiT CIS was a non-exclusive distributor of RiT
products and services in the Commonwealth of Independent States
region ( "CIS").  The language RiT used to describe the agreement,
though accurate, is alleged to have been deceptively incomplete.

The Plaintiffs allege that the public statements referred were
materially false or misleading because they failed to disclose
that: (1) RiT 015 was RiT's major distributor in Russia and the 015
region; and (2) RiT 015 was vital to the viability of RiT.  Those
omissions, which downplayed the significance of the Distributor
Agreement with RiT CIS, also allegedly concealed the full extent of
RiT's dependence on Stins Coman.

With respect to scienter, the Plaintiffs allege that given RiT CIS'
importance for the Company's continued viability, the Individual
Defendants were aware of both RiT 015's status as the Company's
major distributor in Russia and the CIS region and RiT 015's
indispensability for the Company's viability.  In other words, the
Defendants acted with scienter because they allegedly knew the
public statements were materially misleading when they participated
in the dissemination of those statements.

The Plaintiffs allege that throughout 2016 RiT progressively
revealed the true nature of RiT's relationship with RiT CIS.  The
Amended Complaint also notes press releases from later in 2016
which expressed doubt about RiT's ability to continue its
operations as a going concern, disclosed the resignation of its
president and CEO, Defendant Harosh, stated that it was delisted
from trading on the NASDAQ, and revealed that a group of RiT's
employees had filed petitions with the Tel Aviv District Court to
liquidate the Company.

Count I asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule lob-5 promulgated thereunder against RiT and the individual
Defendants.  Count II asserts controlling person liability under
Section 20(a) against the individual Defendants only.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants disseminated or approved the
allegedly false statements described, knowing that they were
misleading.

The original complaint, filed on July 28, 2016, named Padgett as
the Lead Plaintiff.  Padgett withdrew his motion to be the Lead
Plaintiff after it became apparent that others had a larger
financial interest in the outcome of the case.   Thereafter the
Court approved the appointment of Martin and Hershel Smilovich as
the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  The Smiloviches then filed an Amended
Complaint, which is the currently operative pleading and the
subject of the Defendants' current motion to dismiss.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently plead the first and second elements.  Judge McNulty
agrees.  All in all, the Amended Complaint fails to plead
sufficient facts to support an actionable inference that the
March-April 2015 SEC disclosures were misleading in the sense of
significantly altering the mix of information available to the
investor.  Consequently, the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 claim for failure to plead
materiality is granted.

The Defendants assert that the Amended Complaint does not plead the
strong inference of scienter necessary to survive a motion to
dismiss.  Considering the alleged facts holistically, the Judge
does not find that the allegations in the Amended Complaint satisfy
the PSLRA requirement that there be a strong inference that the
Defendants acted with scienter.  Consequently, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, to the extent it is based on failure to plead
scienter, is granted.

As to Count II, because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead such a
violation, the Section 20(a) claim is correspondingly insufficient
and is dismissed.

For the reasons he stated, Judge McNulty granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Because itis an initial dismissal, it is
without prejudice to the filing of a properly supported motion to
amend within 45 days.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/8U4qdQ from Leagle.com.

Theodore Ivanco, Movant, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY --
ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

Martin Smilovich & Hershel Smilovich, Lead Plaintiffs, represented
by NEIL GROSSMAN -- neil@bgandg.com -- BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, ESQS.

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

AMIT MANTSUR, YOSSI BEN HAROSH, ERAN EROV & MOTTI HANIA,
Defendants, represented by SARA BESS CANNON --
sara.cannon@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.


SAMSUNG: Aug. 6 Washing Machines Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Streit, writing for simplemost, reports that in late 2016,
Samsung recalled 2.8 million high-efficiency top-loading washing
machines due to a problem with the top detaching, breaking apart or
exploding during the spin cycle.

Nine related injuries related to the problem were reported. Now,
Samsung -- as well as Best Buy, Lowe's and Home Depot -- have
agreed to a preliminary settlement of a class-action lawsuit for
$6.55 million related to the recall, though Samsung denies that the
products are defective.

"This settlement only applies to certain washing machines produced
until 2016, that have long been off the market," a Samsung
spokesperson told Consumer Reports. "The company chose to settle to
avoid the distraction and expense of litigation."

The retailers also deny the allegations that they continued to sell
defective products after the problem was identified.

"The parties thought that settling this was the most expeditious
thing to do, rather than continuing to incur the costs and
disruptions of litigation and taking the time of the court system,"
Margaret Smith, a spokesperson for Home Depot, told Consumer
Reports.

Melissa Thaxton of Dallas, Georgia says she was almost seriously
injured by one of the washers.

"All of the sudden, without warning the washing machine just
exploded," she told ABC News in 2016. "It was the loudest sound. It
sounded like a bomb went off in my ear."

The washers were made between March 2011 and October 2016. The
model number and 15-digit serial number can be checked on this site
to see if your model was affected. Consumers who are believed to
have purchased one of the washers are being notified by mail. If
you do not receive a notice but think you purchased an affected
product, you can still file a claim online or download the form
from the Case Documents page and send it in by mail. All claims
must be filed by Aug. 6, 2019.

Class members may be eligible for a number of benefits, including a
rebate or a repair. [GN]


SARBANAND FARMS: Court Partly Okays Class Notice Plan in Rosas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUP TAPIA, as individuals and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC, NIDIA PEREZ, and CSI VISA
PROCESSING S.C., Defendants, Case No. C18-0112-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion to approve their proposed class notice
plan.

On Dec. 20, 2018, the Court certified a class and two sub-classes
of Mexican national migrant farm workers.  The Plaintiffs now move
for approval of their proposed notice plan, which includes notice
by text message, a radio campaign in Mexico and in U.S. farm worker
communities, online publication on two web platforms, and
Facebook.

The Plaintiffs propose to individually notify class members by text
message.  They claim to possess 96 of the class members' phone
numbers, but less than 2% of their email addresses.  The proposed
text message would include a link to the full class notice, how to
access the opt-out form, and the class counsel's contact
information.  

Since the class members do not have permanent addresses in the U.S.
and the class counsel has 96% of their phone numbers, Judge
Coughenour finds that notifying the class members by text message
is the best practicable individualized notice under the particular
circumstances of the case.

The Plaintiffs propose to provide notice via a radio campaign that
would air in Mexican states where class members have resided and in
U.S. cities where migrant farm worker populations are concentrated.
Radio notice would be made in collaboration with Centro de los
Derechos del Migrante ("CDM").

Although the Plaintiffs have proposed notice by text message, they
acknowledge the lack of consistent cell service or the internet in
rural Mexican communities.  The use of a radio campaign in
conjunction with sending class members individual text messages is
appropriate in the event that some class members do not have
reliable cell phone or internet service despite having provided
their phone number.  Therefore, the Judge finds that the radio form
of notice is appropriate.

The Plaintiffs have proposed notice via publication on two web
platforms.  CDM would post the publication notice, which is a
one-page, condensed version of the full class notice, on its
"online forum for migrant workers."  Additionally, the class
counsel would provide the publication notice to a national farm
worker advocate listserv.

Given the ease with which parties may post additional documents to
a web forum, the Judge finds that full notice should be posted in
addition to the publication notice to fully inform the class
members about the lawsuit and their rights.  Therefore, he finds it
reasonable to post the publication notice to the two web platforms
after the content is modified pursuant to the Order, and orders the
Plaintiffs to include the full notice form.

The Plaintiffs propose to use Facebook as a form of the class
notice, but provide no details as to the method or contents of such
notice.  Posting to social media platforms can constitute
over-inclusive notice, especially if the Court has approved other
notice formats.  Given that he has already approved notice by text
message, radio, and publication to two web platforms as the best
practicable notice plan, the Judge finds that the Facebook posting
is unnecessary, and denies the Plaintiffs' request to use this form
of notice.

The Judge also finds that both the proposed full notice and
proposed publication notice satisfy the elements of Rule
23(c)(2)(b).  The full notice and publication notice explain the
nature of the action, the claims or defenses, the class members'
right to appear individually through an attorney, the right to be
excluded from the class upon request, how a member can request
exclusion, and the preclusive effect of any class judgment.  In
order to adequately notify the class members of their legal rights,
the Plaintiffs are ordered to change the content of the proposed
publication notice to mirror the FJC's publication notice form.
Given the proposed publication notice's neutral language and
substantial similarity to the FJC's model form, the Judge approves
the publication notice with the modifications ordered.

The Plaintiffs propose an opt-out procedure that requires the class
members to mail the completed form to the Court in order to be
excluded.  The Judge finds that it would be incongruent to expect
the Mexican mail system to be any more reliable for enabling the
class members to send opt-out forms to the Court than it would be
for providing class notice.  In order to provide convenient opt-out
procedures, he finds an additional method to opt-out is necessary.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an alternative
opt-out method by text message, email, or by another format
allowing members to contact the class counsel.  The class counsel
is directed to assist the class members who wish to opt out in
completing the opt-out forms as necessary and to file such forms
with the Court before the end of the opt-out window.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughnour grantad in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the class
notice.  He approved the following forms of providing notice to the
class: text message, radio advertisement, and publication on two
web platforms.  The Plaintiffs are ordered to modify the content of
the notices and opt-out form in accordance with the Order.  The
Plaintiffs are granted leave to move the Court for additional forms
of notice if necessary, after conferring with the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vVA7xD from Leagle.com.

Barbaro Rosas & Guadalupe Tapia, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J.
Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Joachim Morrison -- joe.morrison@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA
LEGAL SERVICES, Bernardo Rafael Cruz --
bernardo.cruz@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Lindsay
Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lori Isley
-- lori.isley@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES & Tony
Gonzalez -- tony.gonzalez@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL
SERVICES.

Sarbanand Farms LLC, Munger Bros LLC & Nidia Perez, Defendants,
represented by Christopher E. Hawk -- chawk@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI & Derek Allan Bishop -- dbishop@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

CSI Visa Processing, S.C., Defendant, represented by Adam S.
Belzberg, STOEL RIVES, Christopher T. Wall, STOEL RIVES & Ryan R.
Jones, STOEL RIVES.

Washington State Employment Security Department, Interested Party,
represented by Mary Maureen Tennyson, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.


SIDELINE MARKETING: Saul Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, STEVEN SAUL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SIDELINE MARKETING INC.
d/b/a BLOWOUTPICKS.COM, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60476-WPD
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Blowoutpicks.com in
negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, Blowoutpicks.com is a website which
offers sports betting advice and sells memberships for that advice.
Blowoutpicks.com uses a business model whereby it promotes its
sports gambling prediction services, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users.

Blowoutpicks.com utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS
marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and
advertising of Blowoutpicks.com's sports gambling prediction
services, including at least 6 unsolicited text messages to the
Plaintiff.

For example, on or about November 13, 2017, at approximately 3:09
p.m. (EST), and on or about November 16, 2018, at approximately
3:56 PM. (EST), Blowoutpicks.com sent the following unsolicited
text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in
"6564:" The Plaintiff was at no time given an option to "opt-out"
of receiving future unsolicited text messages from
Blowoutpicks.com. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the
Plaintiff's cellular phone number to Blowoutpicks.com through any
medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such an
unsolicited text message.

The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used,
Blowoutpicks.com's services, and has never had any form of business
relationship with Blowoutpicks.com. Through the unsolicited SPAM
text messages, Blowoutpicks.com contacted the Plaintiff several
times on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an
unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system," as
defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) and prohibited by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 524-2820
          Facsimile: 954 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

SIX FLAGS: Seasonal Employees' Unpaid OT Class Action Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Casey, Esq. -- acasey@nutter.com -- and Ashley Paquin, Esq.
-- apaquin@nutter.com -- of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that Judge Sanders certified a class of
more than 18,000 Six Flags seasonal employees complaining that the
amusement park failed to pay overtime.

The park pays its seasonal employees on an hourly basis, but not
overtime. In support of this policy, Six Flags relied on G.L. c.
151, § 1A(20), which excuses amusement parks from paying overtime
if they do not operate more than 150 calendar days a year. The
plaintiffs countered that in recent years Six Flags recorded
attendance at the park on 150 days or more -- in addition to days
when the park is open for private or special events. Judge Sanders
granted the motion for class certification because the plaintiffs'
claim that Six Flags operated more than 150 days of the year was
common to all members of the overtime class.

Judge Sanders, however, declined to certify a class of seasonal
employees complaining of unpaid meal breaks. The plaintiffs alleged
that Six Flags requires its employees to take meal breaks inside
designated areas, which under state law, would also require the
meal break to be compensated. But the park denied these
allegations, asserting that its handbook requires employees take
meal breaks only out of the sight of guests. Judge Sanders denied
certification of the meal-break class because of a lack of
commonality among members. Because the employee handbook did not
require employees to eat in a certain area, she reasoned, the
plaintiffs' claim that there was a restriction on meal locations
turned on what park staff told each class member, a factual issue
that varies among employees.

Dakota Hickman & Matthew D'Agostino, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Riverside Park Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Six Flags New England et al. (November 7, 2018) [GN]


SOUTH FLORIDA MGS: Wijesinha Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, LAURA WIJESINHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA MGS, LLC d/b/a
MASSAGE GREEN SPA OF SOUTH FLORIDA, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20744-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Feb. 26, 2019), contends that the Defendant owns massage and spa
locations throughout South Florida and, to promote its services, it
engages in unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process.  The Defendant sent unauthorized text
messages to cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with
prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786 496 4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.400.4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

SOUTHLAND HVAC: Bolotnikov Sues over Time-Shaving Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR BOLOTNIKOV, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHLAND HVAC &
CONSTRUCTION, INC. a California corporation, E & A MECHANICAL,
INC., a California corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a
Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06391 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages owed,
pay all minimum wages owed, provide meal periods, provide accurate,
itemized wage statements, and pay all wages owed upon termination
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately 2003 through
on or about March 13, 2018, at which time he commenced a medical
leave of absence. Then, on or about January 14, 2019, Plaintiffs
employment with Defendants was terminated. The Plaintiff was based
out of Defendants' facility in Tujunga, California and held the
position of "Sheet Metal Worker."

During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
typically scheduled to 10 work from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. However,
Plaintiff often commenced work before the start of his scheduled
shift and would also often work several minutes after his shift was
scheduled to end. Indeed, Defendants' timekeeping policy expressly
states, "employees should clock in no sooner than five minutes
before their scheduled shift and clock out no later than five
minutes after their scheduled shift." Defendants would keep track
of Plaintiffs time worked through handwritten timesheets and would
unlawfully shave Plaintiff s work time and/or round Plaintiffs work
time such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all time
worked. This time-shaving and/or rounding practice utilized by
Defendants was not even handed over time and would almost
exclusively round and shave in Defendants' favor such that
Plaintiff was routinely unpaid for his time worked. As a result,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all required minimum and
overtime wages, the lawsuit says.

Southland HVAC & Construction, Inc. provides mechanical contracting
services. The Company designs, installs, and repairs furnace, heat
pump, and refrigeration, chiller, boiler, and air conditioning
systems, as well as offers data cabling, electrical upgrade, energy
saving audit, wiring, plumbing, and sheet metal fabrication
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Drew, Esq.
          Paul K. Haine, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

TEXAS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lynn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARROLL RAY LYNN JR, v. LORIE DAVIS, Civil Action No.
M-18-162 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Micaela Alvarez of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, denied
Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification.

The Petitioner's Motion had been referred to the Magistrate Court
for a report and recommendation.  On Jan. 28, 2019, the Magistrate
Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
Petitioner's Motion be denied.  On Feb. 11, 2019, the Court adopted
the Report and Recommendation believing that the Petitioner's only
response was a request that the case remain on the docket as a 28
U.S.C. Section 2254 motion.  The docket now reveals that the
Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has made a de
novo determination of those portions of the report to which
objections have been made.  As to those portions to which no
objections have been made, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the report for clear error.
Finding no error whatsoever, the Court again adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.  Accordingly, Judge Alvarez denied
Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/IddXdf from Leagle.com.

Carroll Ray Lynn, Jr, Plaintiff, pro se.

Lorie Davis, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Graham Lancaster,
Office of the Attorney General & Edward Larry Marshall, Office of
the Attorney General.


TIGER BRANDS: No Summons Yet for Listeriosis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Fin24 reports that Tiger Brands, which had to shut down a number of
its factories and issue a massive recall of cold meat products due
to a deadly listeriosis outbreak early in 2018, said in a note to
shareholders on Feb. 20 that it has not as yet received a summons
in terms of an intended class action suit against it.

In December 2018, the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg
Local Division granted an order certifying the four classes of
claimants in a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands.

Tiger Brands said on Feb. 20 that it has product liability
insurance cover appropriate for a business of its scale. Coverage
has been confirmed by the insurers, subject to the terms and limits
of the policy.

The policy will accordingly respond to the claim within its terms
in the event that the group is held liable.

Trading update

The latest information is part of a voluntary trading update for
the four months to 31 January 2019 that Tiger Brands released on
Feb. 20.

According to the update, group revenue from continuing operations
was up 1% compared with the corresponding period last year.

The four months to January 2019 had 85 trading days versus 82 days
last year. Excluding value added meat products (VAMP), group
revenue from continuing operations was 8% higher, driven by overall
price inflation of 2% and volume growth of 6%.

The group is pleased with volume performances recorded in wheat,
maize, groceries, snacks and treats, beverages, baby and in
particular, home and personal care.

With the exception of sorghum-based products, pasta, maize and
rice, all categories recorded selling price inflation although
price increases were not sufficient to fully recover cost
increases, resulting in gross margin compression.

According to Tiger Brands, the re-launch of the VAMP business has
been well received by customers and consumers, however challenges
in managing the factory start-ups have resulted in the inability to
fully meet demand in this period, which has had a significant
negative impact on VAMP's operating performance.

The group said, however, that good progress is being made to
resolve these challenges.

It expects the trading environment to remain challenging for the
remainder of the financial year, with ongoing pressure on consumer
spending.

Unbundling

The group announced previously that the board has decided to pursue
an unbundling of its shareholding in Oceana Group. There is a
proposed sale of 8 000 000 Oceana shares to Brimstone Investment
Corporation.

Subject to the fulfilment of all the conditions, this sale will
take place prior to the unbundling date.

The process of unbundling the remaining 49 104 774 shares is on
track and expected to be completed by the end of April 2019,
according to Tiger Brands. [GN]


TIGER NATURAL: $3.7MM Settlement in Fishman Suit Has Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY FISHMAN and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL
GAS INC., an Oklahoma corporation; COMMUNITY GAS CENTER INC., a
Colorado corporation; JOHN DYET, an individual; and DOES 3-100
Defendants, Case No. C 17-05351 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of a proposed class settlement.

Defendant Dyet owned several telemarketing companies, including
Defendant Community Gas Center ("CGC").  Beginning in 2014, CGC
called PG&E customers to promote Defendant Tiger's capped-rate
program, pursuant to which program Tiger's supply rate for natural
gas would be capped at $0.69 per therm.  The case stems from
alleged misrepresentations made during these phone solicitations to
PG&E's customers.  The Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants
recorded these sales calls without customers' consent.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Fishman filed her initial
complaint in August 2017.  The Plaintiffs' most recent iteration of
the complaint contained 13 claims for relief, including for
violations of California's Recording Law, California's Unfair
Competition Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  

A November 2018 order certified the following class only with
respect to the Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim, denying without
prejudice certification as to the Section 17200 and CLRA claims:
Tiger/PG&E Customer Class described as all California consumers and
businesses that were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in
Tiger's capped-rate price protection program after receiving a
telemarketing call advertising the program between Aug. 18, 2013,
and the present.

With respect to the Section 17200 and CLRA claims, the class
certification order explained that although the Plaintiffs had
claimed they could show the existence of damages on an aggregate,
classwide basis using PG&E's data, they had failed to show that
such information existed or was available and, as a result, the
Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing that FRCP
23(b)(3)'s requirements had been met as to their CLRA and Section
17200 claims.  The order further provided that if the Plaintiffs
obtained the necessary proof from PG&E, the Court would consider a
supplemental motion for class certification.

Following a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
Laporte, the parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs'
Recording Law claim.  The parties also reached a class-wide
settlement of the Plaintiffs' not-yet-certified Section 17200 and
CLRA claims.  The Plaintiffs now move for preliminary approval of
the class settlement.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim, the proposed
settlement establishes a gross settlement fund of $3.7 million, to
be distributed evenly amongst the 26,637 class members.  Because
California's Recording Law provides for $5,000 in statutory damages
per violation, this settlement amounts to 2.78% of the $133 million
in statutory damages that the Plaintiffs contend are owed to the
class.  This is before any deductions from the settlement fund,
which deductions will include any future awards for the Plaintiffs'
attorney's fees and litigation expenses, any incentive award, and
payments to the claims administrator.  

With respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 17200 and CLRA claims, the
proposed settlement provides for injunctive relief prohibiting
Tiger from engaging in the misleading business practices alleged in
this case but does not provide for additional monetary
compensation.  The Plaintiffs do not provide an estimated amount of
class-wide damages stemming from these statutory claims.

Although the settlement fund reflects a huge discount on the
Plaintiffs' claims, there exists a serious risk that the Defendants
would go bankrupt and the class would be left with much less (if
anything) even if the Plaintiffs did succeed at trial.  In
connection with the motion, the Defendants have demonstrated their
limited financial resources and inability to pay a more reasonable
settlement.

In the event that any class member does not cash their settlement
check, leftover funds will go to a cy pres recipient.  The
Plaintiffs propose that leftover funds be distributed to The
Utility Reform Network, a nonprofit engaged in protecting consumers
from overreach by utilities in California.  Tiger disagrees that
The Utility Reform Network should be a cy pres recipient, but does
not propose a specific alternative.  Judge Alsup overrules Tiger's
objection and finds that TURN is an appropriate choice for a cy
pres recipient.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims administrator will use
contact information obtained from Tiger to send the settlement
notice via first-class mail.  The proposed class notice satisfies
the requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), as it clearly
describes of the nature of the action, the estimate for each class
member's expected recovery, the implications of objecting to the
settlement, and the process for opting out of the settlement.

Judge Alsup preliminarily approved the terms of the parties'
settlement agreement as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the
members of the class, subject to further consideration at the final
approval hearing.  The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement is granted.

He appointed the Angeion Group as the claims administrator.
Provided that all missing information in the proposed notices is
filled out, the proposed form of notice for the class is approved.
Tiger will provide the claims administrator with the information
necessary to conduct the mailing of the notices.  The class notice
should be distributed by March 11, 2019.

The deadline to opt out of the settlement or to file objections to
the settlement is MAY 9, 2019.  The parties will respond to any
objections to the settlement by May 16, 2019.  The class counsel
will file a motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and
enhancement award by April 11, 2019.  By May 16, 2019, the
Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the class
settlement.  A hearing to consider whether the class settlement
should be given final approval, and on the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs and enhancement awards, is set for June 20,
2019 at 11:00 a.m.

The Judge vacateed the final pretrial conference and trial dates,
and will be reset if final approval is not granted.

The Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to
file under seal in support of their motion for preliminary approval
on the grounds that the information sought to be sealed is either
duplicative or relates to confidential settlement negotiations.  He
denied Tiger and Dyet's administrative motions.  Tiger and Dyet
will re-file their declarations and related exhibits on the public
docket by Feb. 29, 2019 at noon.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TWUawx from Leagle.com.

Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam --
calbar@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob N.
Harker -- harkerjacob@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker,
Kathleen Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law,
P.C. & Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com --
Kralowec Law, P.C.

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant,
represented by Janet Chung -- janet.chung@hklaw.com -- Holland and
Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- john.canale@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta -- Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew Leland -- Thomas.Leland@hklaw.com
-- Holland and Knight LLP & Vince Lee Farhat --
vince.farhat@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP.

Community Gas Center Inc., a Colorado corporation & John Dyet, 1301
Seminole Blvd., Suite 155, Largo, FL 33770, Defendants, represented
by Christine Marie Reilly, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP & Emily
Marie Speier, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips LLP.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Objector, represented by Elliott
Thomas Seals, Pacific Gas and Electric.


TRANSPORTATION AMERICA: Thadal Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANOUCHEKA THADAL, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. TRANSPORTATION
AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, SUPER NICE STS, INC, a
Florida corporation doing business as TRANSPORTATION AMERICA, and
RAYMOND GONZALEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20767-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2019), relates that the
Defendants paid Thadal an hourly rate of $12.63 per hour, but
failed to pay the plaintiff an overtime rate for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week,  in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

During the approximate time period of February 23, 2016, up through
February 27, 2017, the plaintiff was employed as a driver,
transporting individuals on behalf of the Defendants.

In addition, the Defendants did not allow Thadal to take lunch
breaks, and was aware that the plaintiff was not taking lunch
breaks, but the lunch breaks were auto-deducted during each shift
Thadal worked for Defendant, resulting in the loss of anywhere
between 2-3 hours of time deducted from THADAL's (and the putative
class') pay each week. Such deducted hours should have been paid as
overtime hours because they required THADAL to exceed 40 hours per
week.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Thadal for the time driving
to the first job of the day and home from the last job of the day,
even though she was still in the Defendants' vehicle, resulting in
the loss of anywhere between 2 to 4 hours of time from Thadal's
(and the putative class') pay each week.

Transportation America advertises itself as "South Florida's
Largest Transportation Company."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Kristy M. Johnson, Esq.
          Jason R. Alderman, Esq.
          Caleb Sugg, Esq.
          THE ALDERMAN LAW FIRM
          9999 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 211
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: 305 200-5473
          Facsimile: 305 200-5474
          E-mail: kjohnson@thealdermanlawfirm.com
                  jalderman@thealdermanlawfirm.com

TRUEACCORD CORP: Rohrbach Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Rohrbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Trueaccord Corp., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00330 (D. Nev., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

According to the complaint, sometime before October 2018,
Plaintiff's identity was fraudulently used by an unknown identity
theft criminal to take out numerous loans with online payday
lenders, including Bright Lending, and Inbox Loans. These alleged
obligations were primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and are therefore a "debt" as that term is defined by 15
U.S.C. 25 section 1692a(5). Whether a debt is actually owed by
Plaintiff is irrelevant to this FDCPA action.

The alleged debt was thereafter assigned, placed, or otherwise
transferred, to Defendant for collection. In or around October
2018, the Defendant began sending emails to Plaintiff to collect
debt. The Plaintiff immediately informed the Defendant that she was
a victim of identity theft, did not authorize the loan, and that
she therefore disputed the debt. The email also gave some tips on
how to deal with identify theft and concluded with the notice:
"This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to
collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that
purpose."

The Plaintiff disputed the debt several times and received at least
four email responses from Defendant with substantially the same
language: "If we don't receive documentation within 21 days,
collection efforts will resume." At one point, the Defendant
acknowledged that the debt was the result of identity theft and
agreed to "cease" its collection efforts but nevertheless continued
to send emails to Plaintiff to attempt to collect the debt, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Cindy Rohrbach Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NE 89148
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against United
Airlines, Inc., alleging that the company failed to lawfully
calculate and pay their employees the correct overtime. The class
action lawsuit against United Airlines is currently pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court, Case No.
37-2019-00008533-CU-OE-CTL.

The class action lawsuit alleges that DEFENDANT's uniform policy
and practice to not pay the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS the
correct overtime rate for all overtime worked in accordance with
applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT's business records. State
and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime at
one-and one- half times their "regular rate of pay." PLAINTIFF and
other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate
plus incentive pay that was tied to specific elements of an
employee's performance.

Additionally the complaint alleges PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Member are also from time to time unable to take off duty
meal breaks and are not fully relieved of duty for meal periods due
to having such rigorous work schedules. California labor laws
require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work
for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30)
minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's
fifth (5th) hour of work.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against United
Airlines call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California
employment attorney today.

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


UNITED STATES: Ex-Trump Campaign Staffer Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that a former Trump
campaign staffer filed a class action on Feb. 20 seeking to
invalidate all of the nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements
that the Trump campaign required all staffers to sign.

The claims brought by former campaign staffer Jessica Denson
represent the broadest attack to date on the Trump campaign's
practice of having staffers, volunteers, and contractors sign
agreements barring them from ever publicly criticizing Trump, his
company, or his family, and from disclosing private or confidential
information.

The Trump campaign has gone after several former staffers who
publicly aired their grievances against Trump, his administration,
or his campaign, including Omarosa Manigault Newman and Cliff Sims,
who recently wrote a book about his time in the White House called
Team of Vipers.
Ms. Denson was ordered to pay nearly $50,000 to the campaign after
filing a workplace discrimination and harassment lawsuit in 2017.

Ms. Denson has been tangling with the Trump campaign on multiple
fronts in court and in arbitration. Her class action case was filed
before the American Arbitration Association on Feb. 20. Individual
arbitration proceedings normally take place in secret, but class
action cases are public.

Ms. Denson's lawyers estimate thousands of campaign staffers,
volunteers, and contractors signed NDAs and could be covered by the
case. If the nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that
they signed were thrown out, these former staffers would be free to
talk about their time on the campaign -- and to criticize the
campaign or the president without fear of facing financial
penalties.

Ms. Denson's lawyers argue the campaign's standard NDA is unlawful
because it penalizes employees for exercising their right to sue
for things like workplace discrimination and harassment, unpaid
wages, and violations of workplace safety laws, and for claiming
violations of campaign finance laws, corruption, or fraud.

"The Form NDAs effectively strip employees, contractors, and
volunteers of their ability to pursue any of their rights to
redress workplace misconduct," Ms. Denson's lawyers wrote in the
arbitration filing. "Anything and everything they could do will of
necessity contain some information that a Trump Person could find
disparaging or a disclosure of confidential information."

Her lawyers are also arguing that the language of the NDA is too
vague -- it gives Trump himself discretion to decide what is
"private" and "confidential" -- doesn't have any time or geographic
limits, "lacks a legitimate purpose," and is void because it allows
a government actor -- in this case, the president -- to restrain a
person's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

"Indeed, any person who has ever signed the Form NDA, whether or
not he or she has entered into government service, subjects himself
or herself to grievous financial penalty for the mere act of
engaging in constitutionally protected criticism of the sitting
President of the United States," Ms. Denson's lawyers wrote.

The NDA that Ms. Denson signed, which her lawyers contend was the
same document used for other campaign staffers, volunteers, and
contractors, applies not only when staffers worked for the
campaign, but also "at all times thereafter."

Ms. Denson, who has claimed she was a victim of discrimination and
harassment while she worked for the campaign, declined an interview
request. Her attorney David Bowles told BuzzFeed News that although
their case only involves the version of the NDA that Trump campaign
workers signed, a ruling for Denson could affect other campaign
workers or Trump administration staffers who may have signed
similar agreements.

"[Denson] was deeply disappointed by the way she was treated by the
campaign. She's been deeply disappointed by the way the Trump
campaign has used the NDA against her and she fears that similar
things are being done to other campaign workers. She wants to put
it right," Mr. Bowles said.

Ms. Denson's case comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed earlier in
February by Sims, who is challenging an arbitration demand filed by
the campaign accusing him of violating an NDA that he signed.

The Trump campaign also previously sued former campaign consultant
Sam Nunberg in the summer of 2016, claiming a breach of his
nondisclosure agreement; Mr. Nunberg and the campaign later reached
a confidential settlement. The campaign announced last year that it
had brought an arbitration case against Manigault Newman, a former
White House official and campaign aide, for allegedly breaching her
NDA, but there hasn't been any public information about the status
of that case since. A spokesperson for Manigault Newman did not
return a request for comment on Feb. 20.

A Trump campaign spokesperson and lawyers for the campaign did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Denson was hired by the campaign in August 2016 as a national
phone bank administrator, and she was later promoted to director of
Hispanic engagement; Federal Election Commission records show that
Denson was on the campaign's payroll through the fall of 2016.

In November 2017, Ms. Denson sued the campaign in New York County
Supreme Court. She claimed she was discriminated against and
cyberbullied by campaign officials -- she did not raise any claims
against Trump himself -- and was subject to a hostile work
environment. She asked for $25 million in damages.

In December 2017, the Trump campaign took Ms. Denson to
arbitration, claiming she had breached her nondisclosure agreement
by bringing the lawsuit in state court. In March 2018, Ms. Denson
sued the Trump campaign in federal district court in Manhattan,
challenging the NDA as invalid.

In state court, the judge found that Denson's claims of workplace
discrimination and harassment fell outside of her NDA, and allowed
Denson to go forward with the case. In federal court, the judge
dismissed her lawsuit, finding that any attempt to invalidate the
NDA had to go to arbitration.

Denson did not participate in the arbitration case filed by the
campaign. An arbitrator concluded that Denson did breach her
agreement, and she was ordered to pay just under $50,000 to the
campaign (in October, the arbitrator entered a partial award in the
campaign's favor, ordering Denson to pay $24,808 in damages, and
then in December he ordered Denson to also pay $24,699 in legal
fees and costs).

In the state court case, Ms. Denson is now asking the judge to
throw out the arbitration order. In the federal court case, the
campaign is asking the judge to uphold the arbitrator's award and
Ms. Denson is challenging it. Neither judge has ruled so far. [GN]


VERYABLE INC: Scott Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, SHARON SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VERYABLE, INC., and MEDLINE
INDUSTRIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00472-N (N.D.
Tex. Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that all of the warehouse laborers
placed to work at Defendant Medline's Wilmer distribution center
have been denied payment of overtime compensation when their work
hours exceeded 40 in a workweek.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff works for Defendants as
an hourly-paid warehouse laborer. Before January 2019, she
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and the
Defendants did not pay her an overtime premium of at least one and
one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff is not alone in being a victim of Defendants' illegal
pay practices. She is one of more than 100 warehouse laborers
misclassified as an independent contractor and denied overtime pay
at Defendant Medline's Wilmer, TX distribution center.

According to its website, Medline is the largest privately held
manufacturer and distributor of medical supplies. It operates over
50 distribution centers worldwide, including an 800,000 square foot
distribution warehouse at 1 Medline Dr., Wilmer, TX 75172, which is
situated in Dallas County, TX. In the past three years, the
Defendant Medline has employed over 100 warehouse laborers at the
Wilmer location it classified as independent contractors to pick
and pack customer orders. The Defendant Veryable is a labor
placement firm that purports to use an app to place laborers in
manufacturing, distribution, and logistics jobs located in its
customers' workplaces.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Opt Ins:

          Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LAW FIRM, PC
          3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
          Dallas, TX 75219-5133
          Telephone: (214) 303-1022
          Facsimile: (214) 550-8170
          E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com

WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Irresponsible Lending
------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au's Frank Chung and The Australian Associated Press
report that Westpac has been hit with the first class action
against one of the big four since the banking royal commission's
final report earlier in February.

The claim filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn in the Federal Court
alleges Westpac breached responsible lending laws by providing
unaffordable loans, leading to "substantial losses" for many
customers.

Lead plaintiff Michelle Tate told a media conference in Brisbane on
Feb. 21 she and her husband Ian were ruined after the bank lent
them more than $1.8 million across five properties, despite the
family having just one income.

Ms Tate said Westpac trusted a loan broker who provided information
about her family's financial position, and did not independently
verify the situation. She said her family would now lose all of
their properties save for a block of land.

"Dealing with Westpac has devastated us," Ms Tate said.

"Everything we were trying to achieve is lost. Instead of striving
for financial independence, we are back living pay cheque to pay
cheque, tax return to tax return. We have gone backwards after
years of hard work and struggle. It is worse than being back to
square one."

Maurice Blackburn expects thousands of customers given unsuitable
loans after January 1, 2011 will sign up for the class action,
which has been "undergoing careful preparation for months" and is
being backed by global litigation funder Harbour.

The law firm will allege Westpac failed to properly check if
customers would be able to meet their repayments or wrongly
assessed their capacity to repay through the use of the
controversial HEM benchmark.

The HEM, or Household Expenditure Measure, is a tool used by banks
to determine whether customers can afford to pay off a loan, but in
nearly all cases is not a true reflection of someone's actual
financial situation.

It will also be alleged that Westpac failed to properly assess if
customers would cope after interest-only periods on their loans
ended.

The Tate family appeared on the ABC's 7.30 program last year. They
said the bank grossly underestimated their expenditure.

They bought their first home in 2008 but decided to invest in a
further three in 2013 and 2014 while Mrs Tate was a full-time mum,
all funded through Westpac loans they locked in as interest only
and secured against their first property.

Unaware the interest only period would eventually end, they were
faced with $1.6 million in debt they couldn't afford.

The couple said they had been forced to borrow from relatives to
get by and sold their home to build a new property, but Westpac
woulnd't release the funds because the home was securing the
investment properties they couldn't cover anyway.

"We're losing it all," Ms Tate told the program.

Maurice Blackburn Principal lawyer Ben Slade said Westpac was
"required to comply with strict obligations which are specifically
designed to protect consumers from irresponsible lending and the
risk of financial hardship".

"This case will seek to prove that Westpac failed to comply with
these obligations and that this failure caused substantial losses
for many consumers," he said.

Westpac said in a statement on Feb. 21 was aware of the class
action being brought against it.

"Westpac takes its responsible lending obligations very seriously
and will be defending the claims against it," a spokesman said.

"Westpac works closely with customers who experience financial
difficulty to provide tailored assistance as required."'[GN]


WW GRAINGER: S. Rangel Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SELINA RANGEL, an individual, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., an
Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02867-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J.
Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended
Complaint.

Judge Mueller has considered the Joint Stipulation requesting Entry
of an Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to File a First Amended
Complaint and staying further proceedings in the action pending the
parties' completion of mediation on July 29, 2019 filed by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees of the Defendant and the Defendant, and the proposed
First Amended Class Action Complaint.

With good cause appearing, and pursuant to the Joint Stipulation,
she approved the Joint Stipulation, and granted the Plaintiff leave
to file her First Amended Complaint.  She stayed the action,
including any conferences, the filing of further pleadings, and
proceeding with formal discovery, pending the parties' completion
of mediation

The Initial Status Conference scheduled for March 14, 2019 in the
action is continued to Aug. 29, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom
Three.  The parties will file their Joint Status Report under Rule
26(f) by Aug. 22, 2019.  The Defendant will file its responsive
pleading to the First Amended Complaint, if necessary, within 21
days following the continued Initial Status Conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/80yGHO from Leagle.com.

Selina Rangel, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. & David
Harmik Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian &
Associates, Inc.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Henry F. Galatz, W.W. Grainger, Inc., pro hac vice,
Ryan H. Crosner -- ryan.crosner@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.c. & Michael John Nader --
michael.nader@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Has Not Named Lead Plaintiff in Lewis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that court in Christina Lewis
v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., has not yet appointed lead plaintiff
or lead counsel for the case.

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers. The complaint was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14,
2018.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to its freight
billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint
described above.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Management believes
it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action.
The court has not yet appointed lead plaintiff or lead counsel for
this case.

YRC Worldwide said, "Given the early stage of the proceedings at
this time we are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any."

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


[*] Class Actions Target Companies in Agricultural Sector
---------------------------------------------------------
Growing Produce's Frank Giles in January wrote about "connected
consumers" and how they can peer into the world of agriculture
through their smartphones and other digital media to learn more
about the food they purchase and who is growing it. This can offer
opportunities. But it also can present challenges -- negative news
and misinformation can spread as easily and as fast as true
information.

For example, what started as an off-shoot of the anti-GMO movement
has blossomed into a class action lawsuit bonanza. You may have
seen the commercials from law firms trolling the waters for people
who have developed a certain form of cancer as a result of exposure
to glyphosate. This was fueled by digital connectivity and the
spread of information via social media platforms, blogs, and
websites.

A retracted study suggesting GMOs and glyphosate caused cancer in
rats made its rounds on social media long after it was debunked.
Photos of rats with baseball-sized tumors on their sides painted a
scary picture to unknowing consumers.

Later, the World Health Organization's International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) statement that glyphosate was "probably
carcinogenic" added fuel to the fire. Cherry-picked by opposition
activists, the IARC designation was controversial because it
opposed many global regulatory/safety agencies that deemed the
herbicide not a risk.

The study was further called into question in 2017 when Reuters
reported that the head of the IARC glyphosate review board withheld
information, showing no link between the chemical and cancer. More
recently, Health Canada stood by its position that glyphosate was
safe, stating: "After a thorough scientific review, we have
concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be
scientifically supported when considering the entire body of
relevant data. The objections raised did not create doubt or
concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation
decision for glyphosate. Therefore, the Department's final decision
will stand."

While this debate now moves into the legal system, it is certain to
remain fodder for social media. This is unfortunate because it can
be used to paint agriculture in a negative light.
Other news out of North Carolina reports how urban definitions
applied to farming via various digital connections can have a
negative impact. Another round of class-action lawsuits targeting
hog farms allege they are a nuisance to neighbors who have moved
into more rural areas near farms.

During the recent American Farm Bureau Convention, a panel took up
the topic. Andy Curliss, CEO of the North Carolina Pork Council,
said four recent trials in North Carolina have resulted in more
than $550 million in damages for 26 plaintiffs, with hundreds more
plaintiffs awaiting trials.

In July 2018, a North Carolina jury awarded more than $25 million
in a lawsuit against Smithfield Foods, alleging a hog farm owned by
Joey Carter was a nuisance, even though Mr. Carter met or exceeded
state laws regarding manure.

While Smithfield Farms is a target of the "big ag is bad" social
media meme, it is the farmer who is taking the hit. While this is a
hog farm in North Carolina, it should be a concern to Florida
growers, too, if this class action lawsuit frenzy continues, driven
by urban consumers who don't understand the realities of farming.

"If it can happen to Joey Carter, it can happen to anyone,
anywhere," Mr. Curliss said. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***