CAR_Public/190321.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 58

                            Headlines

ACTAVIS: Out-of-State Plaintiffs Can Bring Antitrust Class Claims
ADOMANI INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Mollik Class Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action
AES CORPORATION: Lehto et al. Sue over Pollution from Power Plant
AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

AKORN INC: Wickstrom Sues over Misleading Financial Report
ALLIANCEONCE RECEIVABLES: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face Auto Policyholders' Class Action
ALPINE ENGINEERING: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay for Drainage Installers
AMARIN CORP: Lied about Vascepa Drug Trial, Sharma Alleges

AMERICAN INCOME: Removes Case to Central District of California
AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Water Main Break Pending
AMGEN INC: UFCW Sues over Anticompetitive Agreement for Sensipar
AT&T INC: Georgia High Ct. Rules Against Counties in 911 Fee Suit
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

AVONCE CONSTRUCTION: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BANK OF NEW YORK: May 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey
BERSHKA USA: Faces Fischler ADA Class Suit
BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES: Dixon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation

BLC LEXINGTON: Johnson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Kentucky
BLOOMINGDALE ROAD: Miller Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BOOMERANG RUBBER: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CAFE PARIS: Luna Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
CANADA: Class Action Over St-Anne's Hospital Care Can Proceed

CANADA: Court Orders Amendment to Segregation Class Definition
CANADA: Faces Class Action $165MM VA Accounting Error
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Moye Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CARDINGTON YUTAKA: Buskirk Seeks Overtime Pay
CASH CONVERTERS: Class Action Settlement Hits 1st Half Results

CELGENE CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
CEMTREX INC: Settles Consolidated NY Class Suit for $625,000
CENTENE CORP: Ambetter Policies-Related Suit Ongoing
CENTENE CORP: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit
CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set

CLAIRE MERIC: Fails to Pay OT to Counselors, Clark et al. Say
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Parties Await Decision on Petition to Appeal
COLLINS AVENUE: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Hall et al Seek OT Pay for Assistant Managers

CREDIT SUISSE: Must Face Pension Funds' Class Action Over ADRs
CVS HEALTH: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CVS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
DEL MONTE: Sued over "Off-the-Clock" Work Without Pay
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Faces Prentice Securities Class Action in Calif.

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Sues over Drop in Stock Price
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
DIVAN INC: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers
ECOATM LLC: Garey Suit Asserts ADA Breach
ELI LILLY: Medical Mutual Suit Related to Axiron Dismissed

ELI LILLY: Product Liability Suits over Actos Drug Still Ongoing
ELI LILLY: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing-Related Suit Dismissed
ELI LILLY: Viagra and Cialis Product Liability Suit Ongoing
ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation
EPIC GAMES: Sued over 'Fortnite Save the World' Predatory Tactics

EPIC HEALTH: Faces Blackwelder Wage & Hour Lawsuit
ESPN INTERNET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cerros Suit Alleges
ESSENDANT: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Staples Merger
FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Advocacy Groups Call for FTC Investigation
FEDERATION DES INVENTEURS: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action

FEDEX: Removed Robinson Case to Central District of California
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in Ohio
FLIGHT CENTRE: OT Class Action Seeks More Than 100MM Damages
FMR LLC: Wong Sues over Kickbacks from Retirement Savings Plan
FORD MOTOR: Faces Possible Class Actions Over Emissions Figures

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York
FORNOS CORP: Mejia Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks
FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits
GOODRX INC: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE INC: To Drop Forced Arbitration Requirements for Employees

HAIR CLUB: Garey Files ADA Class Suit in New York
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: Removes Mitton Case to C.D. California
HILL'S PET: Faces Class Action in California Over Dog Food Recall
HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Suit over Arrests without Valid Warrants

HSBC USA: Ahmed and Monteleone Seek Court Approval of Settlement
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation
HSBC USA: Nov. 2019 Final Hearing on Credit Card Case Settlement
HSBC USA: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss PGM Fixing Suit

HSBC USA: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Executed in Xiang Suit
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Orders Parties in Moses Suit to Arbitrate
LIVE NATION: Underpays Sales Managers, Wellinger Suit Alleges

LMS REINFORCING: Faces Martinez Suit in Kern County
MDL 2492: Ayles Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Barna Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidate
MDL 2492: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Caldwell Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated

MDL 2492: Clement Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Eischens Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Freeman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Garland Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Gholson Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated

MDL 2492: Hawkins Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Hayes Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
MDL 2492: Jarmon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kimbrough Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kunzelman Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Markham Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McGregor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Randall Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Ritenour Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rycroft Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Tabb Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wilson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3626 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MEC GENERAL: Marin Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
MICHIGAN: HHS Faces Class Action Over Child Mental Health Care

MID-ATLANTIC SPORTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIRAGE OPERATIONS: Valdivia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Pension Plan Suit Underway
MOLSON COORS: Sussberg Says Financial Report Misleading

MONSANTO COMPANY: Capps Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sheehan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Todds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walkers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl Files Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana
NATIONAL HEALTH: Cain and Wood Sue over Telemarketing Calls

NCAA: Niemi Sues over Health & Safety of SCSU Student-Athletes
NCAA: Rodgers & Pruitt Sue over Safety of USM Student-Athletes
NCAA: Solomon-Jett Sues over Safety of BUP Student-Athletes
NEW LINK: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Breached Disabilities Act, Allen & Mullen Allege

PERRIGO COMPANY: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
PETROMAR INTERNATIONAL: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
PG&E: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Hurt Wildfire Victims
PRIMARK: Settles ADA Breach Class Action in New York
PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Insurance

SAG MARBLE: Marti Seeks Overtime Pay for Granite Installers
SANTA MONICA: Removes Valentine Suit to C.D. California
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Jackson et al. Sue over Contaminated Pet Foods
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Seeks OT Pay for Calif. Employees
SHREVEPORT, LA: Water, Sewer Overcharges Class Action Can Proceed

SMASHBURGER IP: Galvan Sues over Mislabeled Triple Double Burgers
SPECIALTY LAWN: Petty Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Suit Removed to C.D. California
TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
TESLA INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Tentatively Set for June 20

TESLA INC: Suits over Model 3 Vehicle Production Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Failed to Warn over Opioids Risks, Kassab Says
TNT CABLE: Rougeau Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians
TOTAL AIRPORT: Nedialkova Sues over Biometric Data Collection
TW CONSTRUCTION: Alameda, Perez Seek Overtime Pay

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Terror Watchlist
UNITED STATES: VA Faces Class Action Over Emergency Care Denials
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Sheahan Class Action in California
VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime

WEBER TRUCKING: Prater Seeks Overtime Pay for Truck Driver
WELLS FARGO: Court Okays $30MM FHA Loan Class Action Settlement
WORK NOW: Bailey et al. Sue over Collection of Biometric Data

                            *********

ACTAVIS: Out-of-State Plaintiffs Can Bring Antitrust Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Cynthia Rufe of Philadelphia ruled that employee healthcare
plans, labor unions, private health insurers and independent
pharmacies can proceed with most of their state-law antitrust,
consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against
pharmaceutical manufacturers accused of conspiring to jack up the
prices of six widely prescribed generic versions of prescription
drugs. These so-called indirect purchasers can't bring claims for
money damages under federal antitrust law because of the U.S.
Supreme Court's embattled 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v.
Illinois, so Judge Rufe's decision means drugmakers can be held
liable for whatever unwarranted expense consumers bore as a result
of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy.

Significantly, the judge ruled that the health plans (which she
calls "end-payer plaintiffs") and independent pharmacies (known as
"indirect reseller plaintiffs") have constitutional standing to
bring state-law class action claims even when none of the named
plaintiffs is based in the state or bought supposedly overpriced
generic drugs in the state. On the threshold question of standing,
Judge Rufe said, named plaintiffs can represent the interests of
absent plaintiffs with similar claims under parallel state laws.
For cases alleging vast nationwide price-fixing conspiracies,
that's important analysis.

The law on constitutional standing to assert out-of-state class
action claims is, to cite the quotation Judge Rufe included in her
ruling, "surprisingly difficult." The defendants -- including
Actavis, Sandoz and Perrigo -- argued that named plaintiffs only
have constitutional standing to bring state law claims in
jurisdictions where they were allegedly injured. (The defendants
asserted many other reasons to dismiss plaintiffs' claims but I'm
focusing on the Article III arguments.) And as Judge Rufe
explained, there's case law in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to back those arguments. The appeals court ruled in 2015's
Neale v. Volvo that as long as a named class member has standing, a
proposed class action meets Article III requirements. But in a
subsequent decision in pay-for-delay antitrust litigation over the
drug Niaspan, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois held that even after
Neale, named plaintiffs did not have standing to assert class
claims based on the laws of states where they had not been
injured.

Judge Rufe said, however, that the weight of precedent backs
arguments by plaintiffs in the generics MDL, who contended that
they meet threshold standing requirements for all of their state
claims -- and that class certification, not dismissal on the
pleadings, is the appropriate stage of litigation to winnow out
unwarranted class claims. In a 2018 case involving wheelchair
access claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mielo v.
Steak 'n Shake, the 3rd Circuit teased out Article III and Rule 23
inquiries, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring class
claims but that the certified class was too broad because it
included claims against restaurants where no plaintiff had suffered
an injury.

The 1st and 2nd Circuits have been even more explicit in recent
decisions about the distinction between establishing constitutional
standing to bring out-of-state class claims and meeting Rule 23
predominance and typicality requirements. In 2018's Langan v.
Johnson & Johnson, the 2nd Circuit explicitly said that as long as
the named plaintiff has standing to sue, "any concern about whether
it is proper for a class to include out-of-state, nonparty class
members with claims subject to different state laws is a question
of predominance under Rule 23, not a question of 'adjudicatory
competence' under Article III." The 1st Circuit's 2018 decision in
In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation created a stir because of its
holding on class certification and uninjured class members, but its
analysis of standing and Rule 23 predominance parallels that of the
2nd Circuit: Named plaintiffs have standing to assert out-of-state
claims on behalf of the class as long as they meet Article III
requirements.

In the generics case, Judge Rufe pointed out that the defendants
aren't challenging indirect purchasers' standing to assert claims
based on the laws of states in which they allegedly suffered an
injury. The laws of the few jurisdictions in which no named
plaintiff was allegedly injured, the judge said, are substantially
similar. So, she held, those claims can't be dismissed on standing
grounds, but will be analyzed anew at the class certification stage
of the litigation.

Reuters' Ms. Frankel reached out to Fine Kaplan & Black, which
represents the end-payer plaintiffs, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, which
represents the indirect reseller plaintiffs and Pepper Hamilton,
which serves as liaison counsel for the defendants. Fine Kaplan
declined to comment. The other firms did not respond. [GN]


ADOMANI INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Mollik Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, 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 a second amended
complaint has been filed in the class action entitled, M.D. Ariful
Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al.

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, and the two underwriters of its  offering of common stock
under Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the Company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court. Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently
filed a first amended complaint and a second amended complaint.

Adomani said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.


ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, 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 29, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the the United States District Court, District of
Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about our financial well-being, business
relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case is still in its
preliminary stages.

Advance Auto said, "We strongly dispute the allegations of the
complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously."

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

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


AES CORPORATION: Lehto et al. Sue over Pollution from Power Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY LEHTO; AND JAMESSA HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AES CORPORATION;
AESSOUTHLAND ENERGY, LLC; AESSOUTHLAND ENERGY HOLDINGS II,LLC; AES
REDONDO BEACH, L.L.C.;ERIC PENDERGRAFT; STEVENWINTERS; AND DOES I
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04396 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) alleges that the Defendants failed to
maintain their natural gas burning power plant.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have completely failed
to maintain their facility located at 1100 Harbor Drive, Redondo
Beach, California, which emits particulate matter such as acids,
chemicals, metals, and soil particles into the air and water of the
surrounding area. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the class'
properties have been harmed, suffered significant losses, and
caused real risk to their health.

The AES Corporation operates as a diversified power generation and
utility company. It owns and/or operates power plants to generate
and sell power to customers, such as utilities, industrial users,
and other intermediaries. The company was formerly known as Applied
Energy Services, Inc. and changed its name to The AES Corporation
in April 2000. The AES Corporation was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq.
          Alexander H. Winnick, Esq.
          TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP
          29191/2 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310)210-9302
          Facsimile: (310)921-5616


AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Akorn, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRX) from
August 1, 2018 through January 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Akorn investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Akorn class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1497.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Akorn's management
misled investors concerning the severity of Akorn's manufacturing
violations at its Decatur, Illinois facility; (2) Akorn's responses
to the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Form 483 -- which
contained a list of observations made by the FDA during its
inspection of Akorn's Decatur, Illinois facility in April and May
2018 -- would be deemed inadequate by the FDA; (3) Akorn repeatedly
failed to correct manufacturing violations at this facility; (4)
the foregoing would subject Akorn to heightened regulatory scrutiny
by the FDA; and (5) as a result, Akorn's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 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-1497.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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]


AKORN INC: Wickstrom Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY WICKSTROM, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AKORN, INC., RAJAT RAI, and
DUANE A. PORTWOOD, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01299 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Akorn from August 1, 2018
through January 8, 2019, inclusive.

On August 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2018 with the SEC, which provided the Company's
second quarter 2018 financial results and position. The 2Q 2018
10-Q stated that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of June 30, 2018. The 2Q 2018 10-Q was signed by
Defendant Portwood. The 2Q 2018 10-Q contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
by Defendants Rai and Portwood attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud.

On November 6, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2018 with the SEC, which provided the Company's
third quarter 2018 financial results and position. The 3Q 2018 10-Q
stated that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were
effective as of September 30, 2018. The 3Q 2018 10-Q was signed by
Defendant Portwood. The 3Q 2018 10-Q contained signed SOX
certifications by Defendants Rai and Portwood attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud, the lawsuit says.

Akorn purports to develop, manufacture, and market specialized
generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug
products, and animal health products in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

ALLIANCEONCE RECEIVABLES: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutman.com -- John C.
Lynch, Esq. -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. --
ethan.ostroff@troutman.com -- and Elizabeth Flowers, Esq., of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on
February 7, 2019, AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.
("AllianceOne"), a debt collector, agreed to pay $2.2 million to
settle a nationwide class action alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") for obtaining consumer reports on
individuals with outstanding parking tickets without a permissible
purpose.

The parties moved to approve the settlement after more than three
years of litigation and propose that AllianceOne will pay $2.2
million to a class fund, plus $5,000 to the named Plaintiff and up
to $733,333.33 in attorney's fees. The settlement follows the
district court's grant of partial summary judgment in Plaintiff's
favor and certification of a nationwide class of individuals.

In the case, Rodriguez v. AllianceOne, filed in 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Rodriguez alleged that AllianceOne's purpose in pulling consumer
reports on individuals with outstanding parking tickets -- to
obtain contact information and identify assets -- was not
"permissible" under § 1681b of the FCRA.

The District Court agreed with Rodriguez's theory, granting partial
summary judgment in his favor, finding that AllianceOne did not
have a permissible purpose to obtain consumer reports under §
1681b because a vehicle parking violation is not a credit
transaction "initiated" by a consumer. However, the District Court
also held that Rodriguez failed to prove any actual damages; thus,
leaving only the possibility of statutory damages based on a
willful violation of the FCRA. The Court further found that whether
AllianceOne's conduct was "willful" is a question of fact for the
jury.

Recognizing that "there is no assurance that the jury would find a
willful violation," the parties agreed to settle the case on a
class-wide basis and moved for approval of the class settlement.
The certified class contains nearly 15,000 people. Assuming no
opt-outs, the proposed settlement contemplates about $98 per class
member for the alleged FCRA violation. This nears the minimum
statutory penalty of $100 for a willful violation of the FCRA but
is far less than the maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. The
District Court is expected to approve the settlement. [GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face Auto Policyholders' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in a
split decision, an Illinois appeals panel stripped Allstate
Insurance of its defenses against a class action that alleged the
company unfairly billed long-term auto policyholders more than it
charged new ones.

The panel said Illinois insurers can't protect their rates from
lawsuits because their rates are not controlled by the Illinois
Department of Insurance.

The Jan. 29 ruling was delivered by Justice Judy Cates with
concurrence from Justice Melissa Chapman of Illinois Fifth District
Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon. Justice James Moore dissented.

The ruling favored Illinois residents Jeffrey A. Corbin, Margaret
A. Corbin and Anna Tryfonas in their class action complaint against
Allstate. They brought the suit in 2016 to downstate Madison County
Circuit Court, which is known as a venue favorable to plaintiffs.

Allstate, which is one of the country's largest insurers, is
headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Northbrook. All plaintiffs
said their vehicles were covered by Allstate for 20 years.

Plaintiffs alleged Allstate had been violating the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act since at least
2012 by charging its longtime customers higher auto insurance
premiums than it charged newer customers. Allstate figured out
loyal policyholders would tolerate higher premiums than would new
customers, plaintiffs alleged.

Further, Allstate allegedly told neither the Illinois Department of
Insurance nor existing customers of this practice.

Allstate moved to dismiss the suit, citing the so-called filed rate
and primary jurisdiction doctrines. Madison County Judge Barbara
Crowder refused to dismiss, prompting Allstate to ask the appellate
panel to address whether the doctrines served as defenses to the
suit.

By a 2-1 margin, the appellate court ruled the doctrines were not
applicable.

The filed rate doctrine protects public utilities and other
regulated entities from lawsuits involving rates if the rates must
first be filed and pass muster with a regulatory agency.

Justice Cates found the legislature decided to leave insurers free
to fix rates according to market conditions without approval from
the Department of Insurance. As a consequence, the filed rate
doctrine is useless for Allstate.

"Illinois has embraced open competition in regard to rate-setting
for auto insurance," Justice Cates observed. [GN]


ALPINE ENGINEERING: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay for Drainage Installers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MANUEL RAMIREZ and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. ALPINE ENGINEERING AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., and EDUARDO O HERNANDEZ, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-20679-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sewage pipe and
drainage installer from on or about June 5, 2016 through on or
about February 13, 2019. The Plaintiff was a sewage pipe and
drainage installer and his duties included but were not limited to
installing drainage and digging to install the drainage system and
sewage system as well. As a sewage pipe and drainage installer, the
Plaintiff's job duties required the Plaintiff to use goods and
materials such as PVC pipes which were produced outside of the
country, steel pipes, plastic pipes, and commercial excavating
machines, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff (i.e. at
least 14 employees who do both cement work and installing drainage)
who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this
complaint back three years.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the
Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
recklessly failed to investigate whether the Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

AMARIN CORP: Lied about Vascepa Drug Trial, Sharma Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, DEBENDRA SHARMA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, JOHN
F. THERO, and STEVEN KETCHUM, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendants'
violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities
of Amarin Corporation plc between September 24, 2018 and November
9, 2018, who were damaged thereby.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements about a clinical trial of a drug called
Vascepa intended to treat cardiovascular disease. Specifically,
Defendants issued a press release stating that the study, called
REDUCE-IT, had shown a 25% relative risk reduction for patients
taking Vascepa.

As a result of these statements, the price of Amarin's securities
increased from $2.99 to $12.40 the next trading day, an increase of
more than 414%. This increase was a result of the artificial
inflation caused by Defendants misleading statements. Subsequently,
certain scientists who had participated in the REDUCE–IT trials
presented the full results of the study at the Scientific Sessions
of the American Heart Association on November 10, 2018 in Chicago,
Illinois. Those results showed for the first time that the placebo
given to patients in the REDUCE-IT study, mineral oil, may have
caused cardiovascular problems in the patients taking it. In other
words, instead of Vascepa lowering the rate of cardiovascular
problems, the placebo used in REDUCE-IT may have increased them.

As a result of this disclosure, the price of Amarin's securities
dropped from $21.05 to $15.38 in two trading days, a decrease of
27%. This decrease was a result of the artificial inflation caused
by Defendants' misleading statements coming out of the price, the
lawsuit says.

Amarin is a biotechnology company with its headquarters located in
Dublin, Ireland and its U.S. office is located at 1430 Route 206,
Bedminster, New Jersey 07921.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          John A. Kehoe, Esq.
          Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612-1406
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com
                  jak@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com

AMERICAN INCOME: Removes Case to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Income Life Insurance Company removed case, TREMONISHA
PUTROS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 8:19-cv-00340 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 21, 2019), Case No. 30-2019-0144772-CU-OE-CXC, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on  Feb. 21, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00340 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that AIL employed her as a Sales Agent in
California to sell insurance to customers from September 2017 to
February 2018. The Plaintiff further alleges that she was required
to complete mandatory training before being permitted to sell
insurance and earn any commissions as a Sales Agent, but was
neither compensated nor engaged in "outside sales" during training
because she did not 'sell' anything and did not earn any
commissions. The Plaintiff alleges she was "willfully
misclassified" as an  independent contractor, rather than an
employee, during her time as a Sales Agent, and also alleges that
she was entitled to compensation during training time because she
did not engage in outside sales and "did not fall under any of the
exemptions under Wage Order No. 4, including the outside sales
exemption."[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Christopher G. Caldwell, Esq.
          Albert Giang, Esq.
          Arwen R. Johnson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524
          Telephone: (213) 629-9040
          Facsimile: (213) 629-9022
          E-mail: ccaldwell@bsfllp.com
                  agiang@bsfllp.com
                  ajohnson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John Walker, Esq.
          SACRO & WALKER LLP
          701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 800
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 672-5965
          Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
          E-mail: jwalker@sacrowalker.com

AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Water Main Break Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, 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 West
Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) has sought to prevent
further discovery while its motion to dismiss litigation related to
water supply disruption is pending.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.
The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure to up
to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26,
2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that
day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the
remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.

The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was
reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000
customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30,
2015. Water service was fully restored on July 1, 2015 to all
customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of
a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water
service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The
complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply
water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of
WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design,
maintenance and operation of the water system.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the
class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of
use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton
behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large
outage. In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion
seeking to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory
and common law tort claims.

Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of
West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over
allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the
public utility code and related rules. On May 30, 2018, the court,
at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to apply the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, and on October 11, 2018, the court issued a
written order to that effect.

The court has not yet issued a written order on WVAWC's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' tort claims. The court has requested the
parties submit a scheduling order with a trial date of August 26,
2019, and WVAWC has sought to prevent further discovery while its
motion to dismiss is pending.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint and
WVAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. It offers water and wastewater services to approximately
1,600 communities in 16 states serving approximately 3.4 million
active customers. The company was founded in 1886 and is
headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.


AMGEN INC: UFCW Sues over Anticompetitive Agreement for Sensipar
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMGEN INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA., INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS
INC., and ACTAVIS PHARMA INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00369-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks damages and
equitable relief arising from Defendants' anticompetitive
agreement, which eliminated generic competition in the United
States for branded and generic versions of Sensipar (cinacalcet
hydrochloride tablets).

According to the complaint, Amgen received FDA approval for
Sensipar in March 2004. After launch, Sensipar's sales grew
rapidly. As of 2017, Amgen's U.S. sales of Sensipar exceeded $1.3
billion annually. Because Sensipar was a blockbuster drug, numerous
generic manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications
("ANDAs") with the FDA seeking the approval of generic versions of
Sensipar. Teva was one such generic. Other generic manufacturers
filing ANDAs included Aurobindo Pharma, Hetero Labs, Apotex, Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Cipla Ltd., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Breckenridge
Pharmaceutical, Micro Labs, Piramal Healthcare, Strides Pharma,
Ajanta Pharma, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.

As part of their applications, these generic manufacturers were
required to make certain certifications against the patents
covering Sensipar. Among these patents was U.S. Patent No.
9,375,405 ("the '405 patent"), "Rapid dissolution formulation of a
calcium receptor-active compound." Generic manufacturers filed
"Paragraph IV" certifications against the '405 patent, stating that
the patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by the
proposed ANDA applicants' generics.

Amgen sued each generic manufacturer that filed an ANDA for
allegedly infringing the '405 patent. While many of the generics
thereafter settled with Amgen, a few -- including Teva, Amneal,
Piramal, and Zydus -- continued litigating. A bench trial in the
Court (Goldberg, D.J.) was held in March 2018. After the submission
of post-trial briefs, in July 2018 the Court issued an opinion,
finding that Teva, Amneal, and Piramal's generic versions of
Sensipar did not infringe the '405 patent. In September 2018, Amgen
appealed the Court's non-infringement ruling to the Federal
Circuit.

With Amgen's appeal pending, on December 27, 2018, the FDA approved
Teva's ANDA for a generic version of Sensipar. The recipient of a
non-infringement judgment, Teva immediately launched its generic
product. During the one week that followed, Teva flooded the market
with roughly six weeks of product sales. Teva itself reportedly
realized approximately $59 million in profits (assuming at 25%
discount off Sensipar's price), while Amgen lost an estimated $79
million in profits. With Teva competing in the market, Amgen had
limited options: either apply to the trial or appellate court for a
stay of the non-infringement order and an injunction against Teva
-- or engage in self-help.

Instead of applying for relief in court, Amgen chose self-help --
and broke the law. On January 2, 2019, Teva and Amgen entered a
confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop selling its
generic version of Sensipar. Public reports also stated that the
agreement: (1) ended Amgen's appeal against Teva; (2) required Teva
to delay any further sales for nearly two and a half years, until
mid-year 2021; (3) called on Teva to pay Amgen an undisclosed sum;
and (4) called on Amgen to pay Teva for licenses to other Teva
products.

Amgen's quickly-reached deal with Teva re-established and
maintained Amgen's brand monopoly. Moreover, the deal eliminated
not only Teva as a competitor but other generics as well. Amgen's
'405 patent action settlements, include acceleration clauses, which
permit the generics to enter the market after a short delay if
another generic, like Teva, launched. The hasty deal between Amgen
and Teva avoided triggering the acceleration clauses, thereby
preventing other settling generics from launching their products.
Amgen and Teva thus stopped other generics from entering and
driving the price of Sensipar well below Teva's discount.

Absent Defendants' unlawful agreement, the Plaintiff and the
members of the Classes would have been able to purchase generic
Sensipar tablets during the period after January 2, 2019 at
significantly lower prices than Amgen has charged since then.
Indeed, the injury to Plaintiff and the Classes is ongoing, as
there still is no generic alternative to Amgen's branded Sensipar
available to purchase.

An agreement by competing companies to cease competing is
"anticompetitive regardless of whether the parties split a market
within which both do business or whether they merely reserve one
market for one and another for the other. Accordingly, to redress
the economic injury Defendants have already caused -- and continue
to cause' -- Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, seeks injunctive and other equitable relief
under the federal antitrust laws, as well as damages and other
monetary relief under state antitrust, consumer protection, and
common laws, the lawsuit says.

Sensipar is a drug used to treat certain conditions associated with
chronic kidney disease and thyroid cancer.[BN]

Counsel for UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and the Proposed Classes:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2540
          E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com
                  gasciolla@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com
                  kgarvey@labaton.com
                  rvandermeulen@labaton.com
                  mperez@labaton.com
                  dminerva@labaton.com

               - and -

          Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
          THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 225-7600
          E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal

               - and -

          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          Irving Scher, Esq.
          Brent Landau, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                  ischer@hausfeld.com
                  blandau@hausfeld.com
                  mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Paul Costa, Esq.
          Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  pcosta@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

AT&T INC: Georgia High Ct. Rules Against Counties in 911 Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Queen, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 25 against counties --
including Newton -- that are looking to collect millions in 911
fees they say are not being charged to customers.

Newton joined a class action lawsuit last spring that was initiated
by Gwinnett and Cobb counties against several telecom providers.
The lawsuit claimed that several telecommunications companies had
failed to collect fees levied by local governments to pay for 911
services.

Newton County Manager Lloyd Kerr told commissioners at their
meeting that the Supreme Court had ruled that the 911 fees are
actually a tax and that local governments do not have the authority
to sue to collect the tax.

It would be up to the General Assembly to determine how much is
owed in taxes and how they could be collected, according to the
Supreme Court ruling.

The ruling reverses a Georgia Court of Appeals decision. Mr. Kerr
said attorneys representing the counties are "taking a step back to
see what their next steps will be."

District 5 Commissioner Ronnie Cowan said the issue will likely
wind up in the Legislature next year for a resolution.

"It's up to the state under the Gold Dome to decide if they want to
go down that road to allow for collection of that sort of tax," he
said.

Former Gov. Roy Barnes told commissioners during a presentation
last March that his law firm represents about 40 cities and
counties in Georgia and said Newton County could be owed as much as
$1.5 million in uncollected fees. Mr. Kerr said the total amount of
uncollected 911 fees across the state has reached as much as $100
million.

Mr. Barnes told commissioners last spring that telecom providers by
state law are required to collect approximately $1.50 each month
for each line or connection that is capable of calling 911. The
providers are allowed to keep 3 percent of the fees to cover their
costs, and the balance is supposed to be remitted to cities and
counties to support 911 emergency systems.

Mr. Barnes said that most residential lines are charged correctly;
however, telecom providers often under-count the number of lines
for which a company could be charged in order to gain an advantage
over competitors. This practice is particularly true when using
technology that allows multiple phone lines to use a single
telephone number, he said. [GN]


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Aveo" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AVEO) and certain of its officers and
directors.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-01722, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
or otherwise acquired AVEO securities between August 4, 2016
through January 31, 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 Aveo securities during the
class period, you have until April 26, 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.

AVEO is a biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2001.  The
Company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts and develops and
commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and
other areas of unmet medical need.  AVEO was formerly known as
"GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc." and changed its name to "AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc." in March 2005.

AVEO markets and develops its lead candidate drug, tivozanib
(registered under the trademarked name FOTIVDA), which is an oral,
once-daily medication for treating renal cell carcinoma ("RCC").
In June 2013, tivozanib, was deemed insufficient for approval by
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"), over reported concerns
regarding the negative trend in overall survival ("OS") in the
Company's first pivotal phase 3 trial (the "TIVO-1" study).

On May 26, 2016, AVEO announced the dosing of its first patient in
the "TIVO-3 trial," the Company's Phase 3 randomized, controlled,
multi-center, open-label study to compare tivozanib to sorafenib in
351 subjects with highly refractory advanced or metastatic.
According to AVEO, the TIVO-3 trial was designed to address the
overall survival concerns from the TIVO-1 trial presented in June
2013.

On November 5, 2018, AVEO issued a press release announcing that
tivozanib had successfully "met its primary endpoint of
demonstrating a statistically significant benefit in
progression-free survival (PFS)" through the TIVO-3 trial (the
"November 5 Press Release").  According to the November 5 Press
Release, AVEO planned to submit a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
the FDA in approximately six months based on results from the
TIVO-3 trial, together with the previously completed Phase 3 TIVO-1
trial of tivozanib in the first line treatment of RCC.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the TIVO‑3 trial was
inadequately designed to address the OS concerns regarding AVEO's
lead candidate drug, tivozanib, from the TIVO-1 trial presented in
the June 2013; (ii) tivozanib had insufficient survival data to
meet FDA approval following its initial 2013 rejection; (iii) this
lack of sufficient survival data would put tivozanib at greater
risk of delayed FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, AVEO's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On January 31, 2019, Boston Business Journal reported that AVEO
would not submit its tivozanib application for FDA approval "due to
a recommendation from the agency gather more late-stage testing
results.  Specifically, the FDA is asking for additional survival
data, echoing concerns that led to the agency's rejection of the
same drug in 2013."

On this news, AVEO's stock price dropped $1.07 per share, or over
60%, to close at $0.70 per share on January 31, 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]


AVONCE CONSTRUCTION: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO J. ORDONEZ, And other similarly situated individuals, vs.
the Plaintiff(s), vs. AVONCE CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC, and ZEFERINO
AVONCE, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00349-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
every week period. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff never was properly
compensated for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was paid for
all his hours, but at his regular rate. Therefore, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
employees, overtime hours at the rate of time and a half his
regular rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Defendants did not maintain any time-keeping method, and the
Plaintiff did not clock in and out. But Defendants were able to
track the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals because the Plaintiff were supervised by
Avonce Construction's supervisor Ernesto Marquez, and by foreman
Florencio Vazquez, the lawsuit says.

Avonce Construction is a general construction contractor, providing
residential and commercial new construction services.[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

BANK OF NEW YORK: May 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Carver, et al.,

                                    Plaintiffs,
vs.

Bank of New York Mellon, et al.,

                                    Defendants.

No. 15-CV-10180 (JPO)(JLC)

PUBLICATION NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All participants, beneficiaries, trustees, and fiduciaries of
an ERISA Entity that at any time during the period January 1, 1997
through December 20, 2018 held, directly or indirectly, American
Depositary Receipts for which The Bank of New York Mellon acted as
the depositary and provided foreign currency exchange transactional
services ("BNYM ADRs"). A list of BNYM ADRs is available for
download on the Settlement Website,
www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com.

An "ERISA Entity" means an ERISA plan and any trust, pooled
account, collective investment vehicle, or group insurance
arrangement that files a Form 5500 annual return/report as a Direct
Filing Entity ("DFE") in accordance with the DFE Filing
Requirements, such as a group trust, master trust investment
account (MTIA), common/collective trust (CCT), pooled separate
account (PSA), 103-12 investment entity (102-12 IE), group
insurance arrangement (GSA), or collective investment vehicle that
held plan assets as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor
"Instructions for Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee
Benefit Plan."

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE
RIGHTS OF YOUR ERISA ENTITY, AND ITS PARTICIPANTS, BENEFICIARIES,
TRUSTEES, AND FIDUCIARIES, WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION
AND YOUR ERISA ENTITY MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the Action has been
preliminarily certified as a class action for the purposes of
settlement and that the parties to the Action have reached a
proposed settlement (the "Settlement") for $12,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement Fund") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action. A hearing will be held on May 23, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken in Courtroom 706 of the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New
York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against The Bank of
New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National Association ("BNYM" or
"Defendants") and the Releases described in the Stipulation should
be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) whether the Notice and the
means of dissemination thereof pursuant to the Settlement were
appropriate and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses (including Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs)
should be approved. If the Settlement is approved, Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel (McTigue Law LLP and Ciresi Conlin LLP) will ask the Court
to award them attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 1/3% and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, including a $10,000 award to
each Named Plaintiff ("Service Awards") to compensate them for
their efforts and participation in the Action. If the Court
approves the Settlement, the settlement proceeds, after deduction
of Court-approved Notice and Administration Costs, attorneys' fees
and Litigation Expenses, including Service Awards to Named
Plaintiffs, and Taxes and Tax Expenses, will be distributed to
eligible ERISA Entities ("Settlement Entities") pursuant to the
Plan of Allocation in the Notice, or other plan of allocation
approved by the Court.

A Postcard Notice (or Validation Letter for those ERISA Entities
that have been identified as holding at least one BNYM ADR for
which BNYM provided foreign exchange transactional services during
the Settlement Class Period) is being mailed to all ERISA Entities
that filed a Form 5500 with the U.S. Department of Labor based on
the most current complete year of data on Form 5500 available
("Potential Class Entity"), directing them to the Settlement
Website, www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com for more information about
the Settlement.

If you or your ERISA Entity receive a Validation Letter in the mail
(rather than Postcard Notice), that means that the ERISA Entity you
represent, or in which you participate or to which you are a
beneficiary ("Your Entity") was identified, based on structured
data produced in discovery in this Action, as holding at least one
BNYM ADR during the Settlement Class Period in respect of which
BNYM provided foreign exchange transactional services. Your Entity
is an "Identified Class Entity" and does not have to take any
further action in order to be eligible to receive a payment from
the Settlement Fund. Your Entity's payment amount, if any, will be
calculated using the information described in its Validation
Letter. It is important that you visit the Settlement Website using
the Claim Number and Password provided in Your Entity's Validation
Letter to verify the information regarding Your Entity's BNYM ADR
holdings. The information in Your Entity's Validation Letter may
not represent every BNYM ADR held by Your Entity during the
Settlement Class Period. If the information is incomplete, Your
Entity may supplement or correct it by visiting the Settlement
Website and submitting a revised Claim Form, which must be received
by April 29, 2019.  If Your Entity does not update the information,
the Claims Administrator will use the data in the Validation Letter
to calculate its Claim and Your Entity will waive its rights to
later supplement or correct it.

If you or Your Entity received a Postcard Notice in the mail
(rather than a Validation Letter), Your Entity has not yet been
identified as a Settlement Entity and is referred to in this
Settlement as a Potential Class Entity. If you believe Your Entity
may be a Settlement Entity, you have the following choices: (1)
Submit a Claim Form by April 29, 2019 through the Settlement
Website www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com using the Claim Number and
Password provided on the Postcard Notice or (2) Do Nothing: If Your
Entity is a Settlement Plan and does nothing, Your Entity will not
receive a payment from this Settlement, but it and its
participants, beneficiaries, trustees, and fiduciaries will be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in this
Action.

You may object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Any such objection
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than April 18, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice on the Settlement Website.

If Your Entity does not receive a Postcard Notice or a Validation
Letter but you believe Your Entity may be a Settlement Entity,
please visit www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com for more information.
There, you will find the Notice and Plan of Allocation, a
Stipulation of Settlement, and other documents explaining the
rights of Settlement Class Members in connection with the
Settlement and the process to submit a Claim Form in order for Your
Entity to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. You
or Your Entity may also contact the Claims Administrator Analytics
Consulting, LLC, toll-free at 1-855-773-0250 or via e-mail at
info@BNYMADRERISASettlement.com.

Any questions regarding this Publication Notice, the Action, the
Settlement, or Your Entity's eligibility to participate in the
Settlement may also be directed to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Barry
Landy, Esq. or Heather M. McElroy, Esq., Ciresi Conlin LLP, 225
South Sixth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
www.ciresiconlin.com; or J. Brian McTigue, Esq. or Regina M.
Markey, Esq., McTigue Law LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite
300, Washington, DC 20016, adrfxsettlement@mctiguelaw.com.

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

DATED: February 20, 2019.                                

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bank of New York
Mellon et al. The case is styled as Sergio Mogollon, Colleen Lowe
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Bank of New York Mellon, George W. Arnett, III,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08235-FLW-DEA (D. N.J., Mar. 8,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, doing business as BNY
Mellon, is an American worldwide banking and financial services
holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700
     Fax: (973) 994-1744
     Email: jcecchi@carellabyme.com


BERSHKA USA: Faces Fischler ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bershka USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bershka USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02094 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019).

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

Bershka is a clothing retailer company. It is part of the Spanish
Inditex group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES: Dixon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD DIXON, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV04416 (Cal. Super., Loss Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 8, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff patronized the Black
Angus Steakhouses located at Fountain Valley, California, to
purchase dinner and suffered discrimination as a result of being
denied full and equal access. The Plaintiff is a L2 paraplegic that
requires a wheelchair to move about. The Defendant denied equal
access to the Plaintiff and the class because it failed to provide
an accessible parking lot and restroom area.

Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC owns and operates a chain of
restaurants in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and
Washington. It provides dinner, lunch, desserts, and beverages; and
menu for kids. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in
Sherman Oaks, California. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC is a former
subsidiary of American Restaurant Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160


BLC LEXINGTON: Johnson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, and other
entities was removed from the Fayette Circuit Court, to U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington) on
Feb. 21, 2019.  The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00064-DCR to the proceeding.  The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves.

The case is captioned Carrie Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLC Lexington
SNF, LLC, doing business as: Brookdale Richmond Place SNF (KY); ARC
Richmond Place, Inc. doing business as: Brookdale Richmond Place
PCH (KY), doing business as: Brookdale Lexington IL/AL/MC (KY),
doing business as: Brookdale Home Health; American Retirement
Corporation; Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.; Brookdale
Senior Living, Inc.; Ann Phillips, in her Capacity as Executive
Director and Administrator of Brookdale Richmond Place; BRE Knight
SH KY Owner, LLC; Emeritus Corporation; Park Place Investments,
LLC; BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC; Horizon Bay Management,
LLC; Emericare Inc.; BKD Richmond Place Propco, LLC; Brookdale
Employee Services - Corporate LLC; Brookdale Employee Services,
LLC; BKD Twenty One Management Company, Inc.; ARC Therapy Services,
LLC; Brookdale Associate Fund, Inc.; Benita Dickenson, in her
Capacity as Managing Employee of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF;
Lucinda Baier, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various
defendants; Chad C. White, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager
of various defendants; Mary Sue Patchett, in her capacity as Owner
of and Manager of various defendants; Joanne Leskowicz, in her
capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; George T.
Hicks, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various
defendants; Labeed Diab, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale
Richmond Place, SNF; Geraldine Gordon-Krupp, in her capacity as
Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Bryan Richardson, in his
capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Thomas Smith,
in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; ARC
Richmond Place Real Estate Holdings, LLC; HCP, Inc.; abd HBP
Leaseco Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 18-CI-3625.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Peterson, Esq.
          Laraclay Drake Parker, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 750
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 469-5000
          Facsimile: (859) 469-5001
          E-mail: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com
                  lparker@goldenlawoffice.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Donald L. Miller, II, Esq.
          J. Peter Cassidy, III, Esq.
          Matthew Coleman Cocanougher, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO,
          WOOD & BOYER, P.A. - LOU
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 423-6390
          Facsimile: (502) 423-6391
          E-mail: dmiller@qpwblaw.com
                  pcassidy@qpwblaw.com
                  mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com

BLOOMINGDALE ROAD: Miller Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE ROAD JUDGMENT RECOVERY;
BLOOMINGDALE PARTNERS, LP; BLOOMINGDALE PARTNERS, LLC; BLOOMINGDALE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; GIL KREITER also known as: GILEAD KREITER;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01267-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Bloomingdale's, Inc. operates a chain of department stores in the
United States. It operates outlet stores in California, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia; and a
location in Dubai. Bloomingdale's, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Macy's, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          Joseph Karl Jones
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          60 East 42st, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
                  jkj@legaljones.com


BOOMERANG RUBBER: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boomerang Rubber, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00070-WHR (S.D. Ohio., March 8, 2019) is a case challenging
the policies and practices of the Defendant that violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him frequently worked
more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime
compensation under the FLSA. They were not paid all of the overtime
compensation they earned, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly laborer within this
district and division.

Defendant is an Ohio for-profit corporation, with its principal
place of business located in Botkins, Ohio (Shelby County).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     Nilges Draher LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

          - and -

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Nilges Draher LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


CAFE PARIS: Luna Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN ROMERO LUNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAFE ON16TH INC. (D/B/A CAFE PARIS),
CAFE DE PARIS BROOKLYN INC. (D/B/A CAFE PARIS), SHLOMO MOSHE
SHLYFER, and RACHEL MESHAN SHLYFER, the Defendants, Case
1:19-cv-01044 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at Defendants' restaurant. The
Plaintiff Romero worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Romero the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff Romero wages on a timely. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff Romero to all other similarly situated
basis.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
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 restaurant, located at
4424 16th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11204 under the name "Cafe
Paris."[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

CANADA: Class Action Over St-Anne's Hospital Care Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that a 96-year-old
veteran has received authorization to launch a class action lawsuit
against both the federal and provincial governments for failing to
uphold the level of care that was promised when the Ste-Anne's
Hospital was transferred to provincial jurisdiction close to three
years ago.

"I look forward to a very successful outcome," said Second World
War veteran Wolf William Solkin. "It will take time of which we
don't have very much left but there are other veterans, there are
also the families."

Mr. Solkin is spearheading the case against the Canadian and Quebec
governments as well as the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Ile-de-Montreal.

He claims despite a signed transfer agreement between both levels
of government, the level of care took a dramatic drop after April,
2016.

"We feel that the promises that were made to us both verbally and
in writing have been breached," Mr. Solkin told Global News.

Quebec's superior court had agreed to give him an accelerated
hearing, considering the average age of veterans covered under the
claim is 93.

Many potential class members have passed away since the transfer.

"We're here to fight for him, for his honour," Kathy Duke said of
her father, D-Day veteran Gordon Duke. She was his main caregiver
and saw the deterioration in care first hand.

"He was there for almost six years and it was almost to the day
they transferred that the services got really bad," Ms. Duke said.

Younger veterans were also on hand to show support, including one
woman who drove from Ottawa.

"Mr. Solkin is a real inspiration," said retired veteran Jill
Greenwood. "It's an emotional day too because you don't want to see
a 96-year-old War World II veteran fighting for standards of care
for veterans."

"I feel just ashamed that he has to be here today to fight for his
rights at 96 years-old," said veteran Martin Frechette.

The goal, according to the plaintiff's legal team, is to
essentially restore services to what they were prior to the
transfer and to compensate veterans and their families for
damages.

"It's basically asking that the governments that are involved
respect the agreement that they made, which was made for the
benefit and goodness of the veterans," lawyer Larry Kanemy said.

According to the claim, there were 300 veterans living at the
Ste-Anne's Hospital at the time of the transfer. In September, that
number had dropped to 156.

Lawyers for the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Ile-de-Montreal promise to
provide an updated list within the next 30 days.

"I would like to see the day when our proper level of care is
restored along with our dignity as veterans and Canadians," Mr.
Solkin said. [GN]


CANADA: Court Orders Amendment to Segregation Class Definition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, Koskie Minsky LLP commenced a class action against the
Attorney General of Canada ("Canada") on behalf of all inmates
incarcerated in Federal correctional institutions who were
seriously mentally ill. The action was certified as a class
proceeding in December 2016.

The court has ordered an amendment to the class definition to
exclude those seriously mentally ill prisoners who were never in
administrative segregation. The case alleges, among other things,
that Canada breached sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms by subjecting mentally ill inmates to
periods of administrative segregation.

The claim now covers the following class:

All offenders who were placed in administrative segregation, who
were diagnosed by a medical doctor with an Axis I Disorder
(excluding substance use disorders), or Borderline Personality
Disorder, who suffered from their disorder, in a manner described
in Appendix A, and reported such during their incarceration, where
the diagnosis by a medical doctor occurred either before or during
incarceration in a federal institution between 1992 and present.

Appendix A refers to:

   -- Significant impairment in judgment (including inability to
make decisions; confusion; disorientation);
   -- Significant impairment in thinking (including constant
preoccupation with thoughts, paranoia; delusions that make the
offender a danger to self or others);
   -- Significant impairment in mood (including constant depressed
mood plus helplessness and hopelessness; agitation; manic mood that
interferes with ability to effectively interact with other
offenders, staffs or follow correctional plan);
   -- Significant impairment in communications that interferes with
ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or
follow correctional plan;
   -- Significant impairment due to anxiety (panic attacks;
overwhelming anxiety) that interferes with ability to effectively
interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan;
   -- Other symptoms: hallucinations; delusions; severe obsessional
rituals that interferes with ability to effectively interact with
other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan;
   -- Chronic and severe suicidal ideation resulting in increased
risk for suicide attempts;
   - Chronic and severe self-injury; or,
   -- A GAF score of 50 or less.

Please note that the class no longer includes inmates incarcerated
in Federal correctional facilities who suffer from a mental illness
but were not placed in administrative segregation. If you suffer
from a mental illness but were not placed in administrative
segregation, you are no longer covered by the class action, and, in
accordance with section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, all
applicable limitation periods will resume with respect to your
claim after April 11, 2019 (45 days after publication of this
notice).

Website: www.kmlaw.ca/prisonermentalhealth

For further information: Toll-free hotline: 1-866-777-6343, Email:
prisonermentalhealth@kmlaw.ca [GN]


CANADA: Faces Class Action $165MM VA Accounting Error
-----------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for CBC News, reports that the federal
government now faces four proposed class-action lawsuits over a
$165 million accounting error at Veterans Affairs that shortchanged
more than 250,000 former soldiers, sailors and aircrew, CBC News
has learned.

The latest claim was filed by the Ottawa law firm headed by retired
colonel Michel Drapeau. It joins similar cases launched by lawyers
with Koskie-Minsky of Toronto, McInnis-Cooper of Halifax and the
Kelowna office of Murphy-Battista.

The court actions, which have not yet been certified, relate to a
bungled calculation of disability awards and pensions at Veterans
Affairs -- an oversight that started in 2002 and ran undetected for
almost eight years.

In January, CBC News revealed internal federal documents that
explained how the error happened and detailed some of the flawed
assumptions bureaucrats used to bury the mistake when it was
uncovered.

In 2010, when the department discovered and corrected the indexing
mistake, it did not notify any of the 272,000 veterans who were
affected. The matter did not become public until former veterans
ombudsman Guy Parent blew the whistle last November.

The Liberal government owned up to the error and promised to
reimburse veterans, beginning in 2020 -- but Dennis Manuge, the
former soldier who initiated the first class-action claim, said the
mushrooming number of cases is a sign of the frustration and
impatience felt by those affected.

The fact that it will take until after the next election to rectify
the situation is one of the major factors driving the court cases,
he added.

"The trust level isn't there, and I think that's regardless of the
party in office," said Mr. Manuge, who noted the former
Conservative government fought a separate class-action lawsuit
related to a clawback of veterans' disability payments.

In that case, Mr. Manuge -- acting on behalf of roughly 7,500
former soldiers -- won an $887 million settlement in 2013.

The documents obtained and published by CBC News in January show
how Veterans Affairs officials traced the confusion over the
disability payments back to changes in forms related to the 2001
overhaul of the Income Tax Act.

Critics say the revelations over the unchecked error raise
important questions about fiscal accountability at Veterans
Affairs.

They're asking what actions bureaucrats took when the error was
first discovered — and why it was kept hidden for almost a
decade.

Many of the affected veterans have died
A significant number of the affected veterans -- 170,000 -- have
passed away since the error was discovered. The Liberal government
promised to repay their estates, but the documents show Veterans
Affairs does not keep track of next-of-kin and has no means of
finding them.

Mr. Manuge said he has no confidence that all affected veterans'
families will get justice.

"If we wait another two years, the older veterans involved, well,
many of them will be gone," he said. "I can only speak for myself .
. . that's one of the major factors in my making a decision to have
a go at this."

The government's handling of the error "just isn't good enough," he
said. "It's not acceptable."

Since the matter is before the courts, federal government officials
declined comment on Feb. 20. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Moye Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA MOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00812-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred
to A. Kathleen Tomlinson.

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt
collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client
contractual expectations. The company was formerly known as Ventus
Capital Services, LP and changed its name to Capital Management
Services L.P. in October 2006. Capital Management Services L.P. was
incorporated in 2004 and is based in Buffalo, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Ave.
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921


CARDINGTON YUTAKA: Buskirk Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
A case, RICK VAN BUSKIRK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARDINGTON YUTAKA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00557-GCS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, Feb. 19, 2019), challenges the Defendant's policies and
practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as
an hourly employee. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
him are current or former hourly employees of the Defendant
routinely worked approximately seven days a week, for at least
approximately eight hours per day. The Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to him frequently worked more than 4 hours in a
single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures, and
supplies automotive parts. The company offers torque converters,
and catalytic converters.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

CASH CONVERTERS: Class Action Settlement Hits 1st Half Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Smith, writing for The West Australian, reports that a big
increase in bad debt charges has overshadowed further sharp loan
growth at Cash Converters, which has been dragged back into the red
by its latest class action settlement.

The lender and pawn chain's half-year results today show that
profit from its core lending business slumped 23 per cent in the
six months to December 31 as bad debt charges more than doubled to
$23 million.

Cash Converters sheeted home some of the blame to accounting
changes but noted also it "had begun to more critically assess the
loan flow" in the wake of surging applications for its short and
medium-term loans.

"The business has deployed a number of new credit measures during
the period, which are already showing improvement to the default
rates and are expected to have a positive impact on bad debt
expense in the second half of the year," it said.

Cash Converters shares, which are trading at 11-year lows, closed
unchanged at 23¢.

Gross profit was 3 per cent lower but the bottom-line result fell
from a $9.4 million net profit for the same period in 2017 to a
$5.2 million loss after a $16.4 million hit to settle a class
action on behalf of Queensland customers charged a brokerage fee
between 2010 and 2013.

Cash Converters revamped its lending strategy two years ago to
concentrate on bigger, longer-term loans to people with lower
credit risk with the stated aim of reducing the problematic lending
to low-income earners and the disadvantaged, the sectors at the
heart of most of the criticism that so-called pay day, or short
term, loans trap vulnerable customers in a cycle of debt.

Lending volumes rose 12 per cent during the December half, with
revenue from the personal finance business jumping 21.5 per cent.

Medium amount credit contacts (MACC), or loans of up to $5000, were
up 23.4 per cent. However, MACC loans still account for less than a
third of the Cash Converters loan book.

The company's store network lifted profit nearly 5 per cent, with
purchases of goods from customers up 9 per cent to $12.3 million
and pawn loans increasing 7.3 per cent to $11.4 million. [GN]


CELGENE CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 25 disclosed that it filed a
class action lawsuit against Celgene Corporation ("Celgene" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: CELG) and its board of directors (the "Board"),
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all public stockholders
of Celgene in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

The Complaint alleges that on January 2, 2019, Celgene,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS" or "Parent"), and Burgundy
Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent ("BM
Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement BM Merger Sub
will merge with and into Celgene, with Celgene surviving the merger
and becoming a wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed
Transaction").

The Complaint also alleges that on February 1, 2019, in order to
convince Celgene's public stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, Parent jointly filed a materially incomplete
and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Proxy") with
the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (a) the valuation
analyses prepared by the Company's financial advisors, J. P. Morgan
Securities LLC ("JPM") and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. ("Citi"),
in support of their fairness opinion and (b) the potential
conflicts of interest faced by the Board during the sales process
leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 26, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


CEMTREX INC: Settles Consolidated NY Class Suit for $625,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has
reached a settlement of:

     -- securities class action litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York through a mediator for
an amount of $625,000; and

     -- a derivative action for $100,000.

Three securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24, 2017.
Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as any
further related actions, were consolidated into a single lawsuit on
March 9, 2018.

A follow-on, related derivative complaint also was filed against
the company and its executive officers and directors in New York
State court on April 10, 2017. That derivative action has been
stayed by agreement of the parties until after the motion to
dismiss process in the consolidated alleged class actions has run
its course.

Pursuant to a stipulated District Court schedule, plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 7, 2018. The
company filed a motion to dismiss this class action with the Court
on July 6, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, the Company reached a settlement on the
securities class action litigation through a mediator for an amount
of $625,000 and also reached a settlement on Derivative action for
an amount of $100,000.

This settlement is subject to a final court approval which will
take several months. The settlement amounts shall be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.

Cemtrex, Inc. primarily provides electronic manufacturing services.
The company operates through three segments: Advanced Technologies,
Electronics Manufacturing, and Industrial Technology. The company
was formerly known as Diversified American Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Cemtrex, Inc. in December 2004. Cemtrex, Inc.
was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Long Island City,
New York.


CENTENE CORP: Ambetter Policies-Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Centene 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 the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies.

On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and
state requirements for provider networks and directories with
regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to
pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances
adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs.

In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each
defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First
Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff,
dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants,
abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington
State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant.

In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second
Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.

Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on
November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and
Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of
the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018 and
the matter is expected to proceed.

Centene said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many
uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations."

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The
company provides its services through primary and specialty care
physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation
was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE CORP: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centene 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 the company's motion
to dismiss the case entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et
al., remains pending.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July
2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September
2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject
to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

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

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The
company provides its services through primary and specialty care
physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation
was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the Citibank ADR Litigation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Court Order,
Merryman et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09185-CM-KNF
(S.D.N.Y.) has been provisionally certified as a class action for
settlement purposes and a settlement for $14,750,000 in cash and
certain additional non-monetary relief has been proposed, which, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the litigation. This notice
provides basic information. It is important that you review the
detailed notice ("Notice") found at the website below.

What is this lawsuit about:

Plaintiffs allege that, during the relevant time period, Citibank
N.A. (the "Depositary") systematically deducted impermissible fees
for conducting foreign exchange from dividends and/or cash
distributions issued by foreign companies, and owed to ADR holders.
The Depositary has denied, and continues to deny, any wrongdoing or
liability whatsoever.

Who is a Class Member:

Persons or entities (1) who received cash distributions from the
ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to the Notice from January 1, 2006 to
September 4, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Damages Class"); and/or (2) who currently own the ADRs listed in
Appendix 1 to the Notice (the "Current Holder Class" and, together
with the Damages Class, the "Class").

What are the benefits:

If the Court approves the settlement, the proceeds, after deduction
of Court-approved notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses, will be distributed pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation in the Notice, or other plan approved by the Court.

If you are a Current Holder Class Member, the Settlement also
provides additional non-monetary relief related to the conversion
of foreign currency of cash distributions paid by eligible ADR
issuers pursuant to a deposit agreement.

What are my rights:

If you are a Damages Class Member and you hold (or held) your ADRs
directly and are listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records,
you are a Registered Holder Damages Class Member and do not have to
take any action to be eligible for a settlement payment. However,
if you hold (or held) your ADRs through a bank, broker or nominee
and are not listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records, you
are a Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Member and you must
submit a Claim Form, postmarked by August 12, 2019, to be eligible
for a settlement payment. Non-Registered Holder Damages Class
Members who do nothing will not receive a payment, and will be
bound by all Court decisions.

If you are a Class Member and do not want to remain in the Class,
you may exclude yourself by request, received by June 7, 2019, in
accordance with the Notice. If you exclude yourself, you will not
be bound by any Court decisions in this litigation and you will not
receive a payment, but you will retain any right you may have to
pursue your own litigation at your own expense concerning the
settled claims. Objections to the settlement, Plan of Allocation,
or request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be received by
June 7, 2019, in accordance with the Notice.

A hearing will be held on July 12, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Colleen McMahon, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to
determine if the settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or request for
fees and expenses should be approved. Supporting papers will be
posted on the website once filed.

For more information visit www.CitibankADRSettlement.com, email
info@CitibankADRSettlement.com or call 1.866.680.6138.


CLAIRE MERIC: Fails to Pay OT to Counselors, Clark et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA SMITH CLARK, TERRY LEWIS; and LAVAR HEARNS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLAIRE
MERIC d/b/a CLARE FOUNDATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04405 (Cal. Super., Feb. 8, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as counselors.

Claire Meric d/b/a Clare Foundation The Claire Foundation, Inc. is
a non-profit 501(c)(3). The Company provides financial support and
other resources that may be necessary for families that have been
diagnosed with complicated pregnancy. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Kramer, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Blvd., Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 955-0200

               - and -

          Robert Ackermann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT ACKERMANN
          11040 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 320
          West L.A., CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 479-2441


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Parties Await Decision on Petition to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. 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
parties in the consolidated class action lawsuit in New Jersey are
awaiting a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on the defendants' petition for permission to appeal.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the
three putative securities class actions into a single action and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased our common stock during the period between February 27,
2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its
current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, the
company's business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness
of our internal controls over financial reporting and our
disclosure controls and procedures.

The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017, and the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed as of September 5, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court
issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part,
including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the
Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, the company
filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of
the company's petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018,
the company filed a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1292(b) with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the petition on November 8,
2018. On November 13, 2018, the company filed a motion for leave to
file a reply in support of its  petition, and a proposed reply. On
November 21, 2018, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's
motion for leave to file a reply. The parties are now awaiting a
decision from the Third Circuit on the petition.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.


COLLINS AVENUE: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS VALENCIA and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), the Plaintiff, vs. COLLINS AVENUE RESTAURANT, LLC
d/b/a ABUELA'S CUBAN KITCHEN, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-20680-RNS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for retaliation, unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Collins Avenue Restaurant, LLC is a
Florida corporation, having place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, where Plaintiff worked as a cook from Friday January 18,
2019, to January 27, 2019, or 1 weeks plus 3 days.

The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee and worked
7 days per week from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (8.5 hours daily),
resulting in 59.5 hours per week. The Plaintiff was unable to take
bona-fide lunch periods. The Defendants did not use any time
keeping device, and the manager, Mr. Pacheco kept track of the
hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

On or about Friday January 25, 2019, which was payment day, the
Plaintiff saw that several co-workers, had already received their
payment checks. The Plaintiff was also expecting the payment for
his workweek, but he was not paid. At the end of his shift,
Plaintiff requested to the manager his check and let him know that
he had worked that first week 19.5 overtime hours. The manager told
Plaintiff that Defendant does not pay for overtime hours, but he
was going to check with the owner of the business.

The Plaintiff worked next Saturday and Sunday as usual. However, at
the end of his shift on Sunday, Plaintiff was ordered not to return
to work anymore, because he was fired. The Defendant fired
Plaintiff, but they did not pay Plaintiff for his 10 days of hard
work. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
minimum wages, and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half
his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in
violation of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys 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

CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Feb. 25 disclosed that on February 22, 2019,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Conagra Brands,
Inc. (NYSE: CAG). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is June 27, 2018 through
December 19, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Conagra Brands,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, April 23, 2019 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Hall et al Seek OT Pay for Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saidah Farrell and Mariah Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Covelli Enterprises,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 19 911857 (Ohio Ct. of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
compensation for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated who
are or were employed by Covelli as Assistant Managers at
Covelli-owned and operated Panera Bread bakery-cafes in the state
of Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiffs and a Class of other Assistant Managers employed or
previously employed at restaurants within the State of Ohio, as
exempt from overtime under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act. The Assistant Managers are entitled to unpaid overtime as
non-exempt hourly employees under R.C. section 4111.10.

Covelli also employs "Assistant Managers," such as the Plaintiffs,
to work in its Panera Bread locations throughout Ohio. Assistant
Managers report to, and are lower on the store hierarchy than, the
General Manager.

Consistent with the Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week without being paid overtime wages. The Defendant
has assigned all of the work that the Plaintiffs and the Class
members have performed, and/or the Defendant is aware of all the
work that they have performed, the lawsuit says.

Covelli is the largest franchisee of Panera Bread and operates more
than 260 Panera Bread bakery-cafes. In fiscal year 2015, Covelli
Enterprises' revenue reached around $614.3 million. In each of its
Panera Bread locations, Covelli employs a combination of salaried
and hourly-paid employees. At the top of the store hierarchy are
"General Managers" who oversee and are responsible for day-to-day
store operations.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO
          MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216)622-1851
          Facsimile: (216)241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212)686-0114
          E-mail: newman@whafh.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Ave., 25th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212)245-1000
          Facsimile (646)509-2060
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Sally Abrahamson, Esq.
          Lucy Bansal, Esq.
          601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
          E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
                  lbansal@outtengolden.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Must Face Pension Funds' Class Action Over ADRs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a
bid by Credit Suisse Group to dismiss a class-action securities
lawsuit brought by several pension funds was denied on Feb. 20 by
U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield in New York.

The class action was filed by the City of Birmingham Firemen's and
Policemen's Supplemental Pension System, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Plan, Mokena, Ill., and other
purchasers of Credit Suisse American Depository Receipts on the New
York Stock Exchange from March 20, 2015 to Feb. 3, 2016.

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse misrepresented its trading
and risk-limit controls and that they were increased to allow it to
accumulate nearly $3 billion in distressed debt and U.S.
collateralized loan obligations that later proved to be difficult
to liquidate. A subsequent disclosure by Credit Suisse of a $633
million write-down related to the sale of those positions led to an
11% stock drop, the plaintiffs allege.

Ms. Schofield said in her ruling that the allegations "are
sufficient to plead loss causation."

Carol Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel, said the
case is about Credit Suisse misleading investors and "skirting many
of the very controls designed to prevent risky investments. We look
forward to continuing to vigorously pursue justice for shareholders
wronged by the bank's behavior."

The case is City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's
Supplemental Pension System vs. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.
[GN]


CVS HEALTH: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CVS Health Corporation ("CVS" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CVS) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 19-cv-01725, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates,  who purchased or otherwise acquired CVS Health
securities between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 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 CVS securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 26, 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.

CVS Health was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.  The Company was formerly known as CVS Caremark
Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in
September 2014.  CVS Health, together with its subsidiaries,
provides integrated pharmacy health care services, operating
through its Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments.  

On May 20, 2015, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS Pharmacy"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of CVS Health, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to acquire Omnicare, Inc.
("Omnicare"), a provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy
services to long-term care facilities and provider of specialty
pharmacy and commercialization services for the bio-pharmaceutical
industry (the "Omnicare Acquisition").  According to CVS Health's
SEC filings, upon the effective date of the Omnicare Acquisition,
each share of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Omnicare
would be converted into the right to receive $98.00 in cash, or
approximately $10.6 billion in the aggregate.  In addition, CVS
Pharmacy would assume approximately $2.3 billion in debt of
Omnicare.

On August 18, 2015, CVS Health acquired 100% of the outstanding
common shares and voting interests of Omnicare for $98 per share
for a total of $9.6 billion and assumed long-term debt with a fair
value of approximately $3.1 billion.  Additionally, holders of
Omnicare restricted stock units and performance based restricted
stock units received 738,765 CVS Health restricted stock awards
with a fair value of approximately $80 million as replacement
awards.  According to CVS Health's SEC filings, the Company
acquired Omnicare to expand its operations in dispensing
prescription drugs to assisted-living and long-term care
facilities, and to broaden its presence in the specialty pharmacy
business as it sought to serve a greater percentage of the growing
senior patient population in the United States.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CVS Health's financial
condition and expected earnings were deteriorating as a result of
rising costs and poor results associated with the Omnicare
Acquisition; and (ii) as a result, CVS Health's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 20, 2019, CVS Health announced the Company's fourth
quarter and full year financial and operating results and provided
2019 full year guidance.  CVS Health 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.

Following this news, CVS Health's stock price fell by $5.66 per
share, or slightly over 8%, to close at $64.22 per share on
February 20, 2019.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm, 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]


CVS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that CVS, the nation's
largest pharmacy chain, faces a class action securities litigation
in Manhattan federal court over representations made about its 2015
merger with pharmacy services provider Omnicare.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Feb. 25, claims that CVS hid the negative
financial impact of the Omincare acquisition in the years that
followed. On Feb. 20, CVS acknowledged to investors the impact the
poor business performance of Omnicare was having on the company,
including a $2.2 billion impairment charge.

As the suit notes, CVS stock prices fell be more than 8 percent on
the news, closing at $64.22.

Since the acquisition, CVS had touted the positive impact of
expanding its business with the merger with Omnicare, according to
the suit.

"Given the aging U.S. population, long term care is a growth
segment of the health care system," the company stated at the time
of Omnicare's acquisition. "More people are expected to use
assisted living facilities and independent living communities in
the coming decades, creating a substantial growth opportunity for
those companies serving the health care needs of seniors."

CVS continued to speak positively of the Omnicare merger in its
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, detailing the
growth benefits of the move in its 2016 and 2017 10-K filings.

However, by February 2019, the impact of the Omnicare on CVS'
business was being cast in less optimistic terms, as the company
told investors that adjusted earnings would be down significantly,
in part due to the acquisition.

"The [long-term care] business has continued to experience
industrywide challenges that have impacted our ability to grow the
business at the rate that was originally estimated when the Company
acquired Omnicare, Inc. in 2015," the company acknowledged.

The plaintiffs are represented by Pomerantz managing partner Jeremy
Lieberman, who did not respond to a request for comment on the
suit.

A spokeswoman for CVS did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


DEL MONTE: Sued over "Off-the-Clock" Work Without Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
A case, MARIA AVILA-LOPEZ and VICTORINA LOPEZ-AVILA on behalf
ofthemselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. DEL MONTE CORPORATION, d/b/a DEL
MONTE FOODS; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC; DEL MONTE FRESH
PRODUCE (WEST COAST) and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00654 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.,
Feb. 21, 2019), challenge Del Monte's policy and practice of
requiring its non-exempt production and support employees at its
Sanger, California production facilities to work substantial
amounts of time "off—the-clock" and without pay, and failing to
offer or provide its non-exempt hourly work force legally compliant
meal and rest periods to which they entitled by law.

According to the complaint, Del Monte does not and, during the
relevant time did not pay Plaintiffs and putative donning and
doffing class members for all required pre and post-production work
activities that are integral and indispensable to their overall
employment responsibilities, including, inter alia, donning and
doffing personal protective equipment ("PPE"), time spent waiting
in lines, time spent waiting at work stations for paid production
time to commence time spent walking to work stations, time spent
washing/sanitizing persons and PPE, time spent waiting to receive
PPE, and/or time spent waiting to wash persons and/or PPE.

Del Monte Foods, Inc is a North American food production and
distribution company headquartered at 3003 Oak Road, Walnut Creek,
California, USA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Stuart R. Chandler, Esq.
          STUART R. CHANDLER APC
          761 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 101
          Telephone: (559) 431-7770
          Facsimile: (559) 431-7778

               - and -

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Faces Prentice Securities Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Prentice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin,
Jeffrey Park, and Atul Kavthekar, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01642 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2019) seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC, which provided the Company's
financial results and position. The 2017 10-K was signed by
Defendants Park and Kavthekar. The 2017 10-K contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
by Defendants Park and Kavthekar attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.

On November 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30,
2018. In the announcement, the Defendant Griffin commented that the
Company's "solid" results were driven by the Company's ability to
"successfully execute on its growth plan" and through "strong PBM
performance".

The complaint asserts that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Diplomat
had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM
business, which included LDI Integrated and National
Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017;
(ii) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash
impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to
its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (iii) due to the
foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year
outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, the complaint says.

Plaintiff purchased Diplomat common stock during the Class Period.

Defendant Diplomat purports to operate as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ, LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Phone: (770) 392-0090
     Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Sues over Drop in Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RIEHM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T.
GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL KAVTHEKAR, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01369 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable 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.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Diplomat between February 26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, both
dates inclusive.

The Plaintiff purchased Diplomat common stock during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

In late 2017, the Company entered the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business through its December 2017 acquisition of LDI
Holding Company, LLC, doing business as LDI Integrated Pharmacy
Services ("LDI Integrated"), and its November 2017 acquisition of
Pharmaceutical Technologies, Inc., doing business as National
Pharmaceutical Services ("National Pharmaceutical"). A PBM is a
third-party administrator of prescription drug programs. Diplomat's
PBM segment purports to "provide services designed to help [its]
customers reduce the cost and manage the complexity of their
prescription drug programs."

On April 30, 2018, Diplomat launched a new brand, CastiaRx, which
united its specialty pharmacy capabilities with its PBM
capabilities of LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical to serve
as a specialty benefit manager. On February 26, 2018, the Company
announced its fourth quarter and 2017 year-end financial results.
In the announcement, Defendant Park commented that the Company's
"strong performance for the fourth quarter and full year reflects
the successful execution of our strategy, as well as the actions we
took to position Diplomat for long-term growth, including entering
the PBM market and bolstering our bench of talent."

On March 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017 (the "2017 10-K") with the SEC, which
provided the 25 Company's financial results and position. The 2017
10-K was signed by Defendants Park and Kavthekar. The 2017 10-K
contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Park and Kavthekar attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud.

The 2017 10-K stated the Company's internal control over financial
reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017. On May 7, 2018,
the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results
for the first quarter ended March 31, 2018. In the announcement,
Defendant Park commented that the Company's "PBM integration has
progressed rapidly."

On August 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2018.
In the announcement, Defendant Griffin commented that the Company's
"PBM integration is reaching its conclusion with CastiaRx
demonstrating strong results in the quarter, as well as continued
momentum on our growth and profitability initiatives across the
entire enterprise."

On November 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30,
2018. In the announcement, Defendant Griffin commented that the
Company's "solid" results were driven by the Company's ability to
"successfully execute on [its] growth plan" and through "strong PBM
performance."

On January 7, 2019, the Company issued a press release providing
updated 2018 guidance and the Company's preliminary outlook for
2019. The statements were materially false and/or misleading
because failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining
to the Company's business and operations which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Diplomat had downplayed its success in
integrating and growing its PBM business, which included LDI
Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had
acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently, Diplomat would need to
record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630
million relating to its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions;
(3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary
2019 full-year outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (4)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 22, 2019, Diplomat filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing it was postponing the release of its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 due to a "recent determination"
that it would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards
of approximately $630 million relating to 2017 acquisitions for its
PBM business. Diplomat also disclosed that it was withdrawing its
Preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in January.

However, the company has withdrawn its preliminary 2019 full-year
outlook provided in January. On this news, shares of Diplomat fell
$7.59 or over 56% to close at $5.87 per share on February 22, 2019.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages,the lawsuit says.

Diplomat purports to operate as an independent specialty pharmacy
in the United States. The Company is a Michigan corporation with
location(s) in Van Nuys, California. Diplomat securities trade on
the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE") under the symbol
"DPLO".[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (NYSE:DPLO)
from February 26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Diplomat
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Diplomat class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1515.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Diplomat had
downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM business,
which included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two
companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently,
Diplomat would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards
of approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and
these 2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would
withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than
seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements
about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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 25,
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-1515.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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]


DIVAN INC: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
GALINDO RAMIREZ on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective the
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, vs. DIVAN INC., d/b/a GALATA
MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE, FETULLAH ANAR, MUSTAFA BOZ, UCEL Y YUKSEL,
and HUSEYIN BOZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01917 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section, on behalf of all non-exempt persons
(including, but not limited to delivery persons, dishwashers,
waiters, runners, food preparers, cooks, cashiers and general
helpers) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is
three years before the filing of the Complaint.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA
Collective the Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated,
have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,
and are and have been subjected to the Defendants' decisions,
policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols,
routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and
refusal to pay them the proper wages due to time shaving, and
overtime premium at the rate of one and one half
times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.


On or about June 2016, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants
and/or their predecessors, as applicable, to work as a delivery
person for the Defendants' restaurant located at 212 East 34th
Street New York New York, 10016. On or about December 1, 2016, the
Plaintiff was promoted to a cook and continued working for the
Defendants until on or about December 2018. Throughout his
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked well over 40
hours each week, and worked over 10 hours each day.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the Plaintiff
rights by paying him on a salary basis because the Plaintiff is a
non-exempt employee who must be paid on an hourly basis under the
FLSA. During this term, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs
and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs the FLSA overtime rate, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181

ECOATM LLC: Garey Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecoatm, LLC. The case
is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ecoatm, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02072 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019).

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

ecoATM develops and manufactures an automated self-serve kiosk
system to evaluate and buy-back used electronics from consumers.
The Company's product uses patented, advanced machine vision,
electronic diagnostics, and artificial intelligence to create a
transaction that issues cash or store credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


ELI LILLY: Medical Mutual Suit Related to Axiron Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
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 United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted
summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed Medical
Mutual of Ohio's (MMO's) lawsuit with prejudice.

Eli Lilly said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 500
Axiron product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 550 plaintiffs."

In about one-third of the cases, other manufacturers of
testosterone are named as co-defendants. Nearly all of these
lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal MDL in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A small
number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts.

The cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries. The
company had reached agreement on a settlement framework that
provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these
personal injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries
from Axiron treatment. There can be no assurances, however, that a
final settlement will be reached.

The company had also been engaged in litigation with Medical Mutual
of Ohio ("MMO") who has filed a class action complaint against
multiple manufacturers of testosterone products, including the
company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of third-party payers who paid for those
products seeking damages under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

MMO's motion for class certification was denied, and in February
2019, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with prejudice.

Eli Lilly said, "We continue to believe all of 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.


ELI LILLY: Product Liability Suits over Actos Drug Still 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 itself together with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
multiple class action suits related to the drug Actos.

Eli Lilly said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a
defendant in three purported product liability class actions in
Canada related to Actos, which we commercialized with Takeda in
Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec
(Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v.
Takeda Canada et al.)."

In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and
we and Takeda are defending against them 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: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing-Related Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 court in the case
entitled, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, has dismissed without
prejudice the federal RICO Act claim as well as certain state
consumer protection claims.

The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as
defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey relating to insulin pricing.

Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection
laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act (Federal RICO Act). In February 2019, the court dismissed
without prejudice the federal RICO Act claim as well as certain
state consumer protection claims.

Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP
Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et
al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state
consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and
the federal RICO Act.

Finally, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office filed a complaint
against the company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various
Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the Federal RICO Act.


Eli Lilly said, "We believe these claims 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.


ELI LILLY: Viagra and Cialis Product Liability Suit 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Viagra
(Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability
Litigation.

Eli Lilly said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 295
Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. These cases, many of
which were originally filed in various federal courts, contain
allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs'
cancer (melanoma)."

In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition to have filed cases and an
unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving Viagra(R).

The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases to the
now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis
(Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation.

Eli Lilly said, "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 Class Action Over BIPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mayhew, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that
proposed class action lawsuits have been filed in Cook County
Circuit Court against Enova Financial Holdings Inc., DaBecca
Natural Foods Inc. and janitorial service Geralex claiming the
companies violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA). This is the latest litigation brought under BIPA, which
makes companies liable for damages if they fail to properly keep
people informed about the use of their biometric identifiers.

Cook County Record reports that Enova Financial Holdings is accused
by a former employee, who was required by Enova to use a biometric
time clock to keep track of her attendance, of improperly
disclosing employees' data to out-of-state third-party vendors and
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 also alleges that Enova never provided workers with nor
ever asked them to sign a written release permitting the company to
obtain and store their biometric data.

Geralex Janitorial Services is also accused of collecting and
storing employees' biometric data without consent. According to the
complaint, the plaintiffs have suffered injury from the unlawful
collection and storage of their biometric data that compromised
employees' and former employees' sensitive financial and personal
data and exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks,
threat of identity theft and unauthorized tracking. They also
allege Geralex failed to inform employees in writing of the purpose
and duration for which their fingerprints were being collected and
stored, and failed to provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines.

In the DaBecca Natural Foods related complaint, the plaintiffs
allege that they suffered damages as a result of the allegedly
unlawful conduct of the defendant in requiring employees to scan
their handprints to track work hours. They also allege DaBecca
failed to inform its employees of the complete purposes for which
it collects their biometric data; failed to get written consent
that allowed them to collect or store their employees' biometric
information, and; failed to provide employees with a written
retention schedule and guidelines for the permanent destruction of
the biometric data.

In each case the defendants could face damages of $1,000 to $5,000
per violation, which, according to the Cook County Record report,
is considered by the law to be each time an employee used the
biometric time clock.

Following the Illinois Supreme Court decision that reduced the harm
threshold required for an individual to bring suit under BIPA, law
firm Lewis Brisbois formed a new BIPA sub-practice to focus on the
increase in litigation brought against companies that collect or
use biometric information in Illinois.

In January an insurance company asked an Illinois state judge to
declare it not responsible for covering a grocery store chain
accused of violating state biometrics laws. [GN]


EPIC GAMES: Sued over 'Fortnite Save the World' Predatory Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R.A., a minor, by and through his Guardian, Steve Altes, on behalf
of 21 himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Epic Games, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-GW-E (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks actual damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and an injunction to prevent Epic from continuing to
engage in an illegal practices.

Rising to the forefront in a multi-billion-dollar video game
industry, Epic has perfected a predatory scheme whereby it exploits
players, including minors, by inducing them to purchase in-game
loot boxes in the pursuit of the best in-game item schematics,
heroes, and survivors (collectively, "loot"). As part of its
scheme, Epic offers Fortnite Save the World at a lower price point
than competitor video games to entice players to start playing its
game, with the goal of luring those players to make in-game
microtransactions that generate significant revenue for Epic.

Because Fortnite Save the World's game progression is inextricably
linked to loot progression, players are pushed to keep seeking
better loot to progress in the game. Accordingly, Epic designed
Fortnite Save the World to effectively limit a player's ability to
progress within the game without spending money on loot boxes.

The scheme plays out perfectly to the benefit of Epic: once players
are sufficiently invested in the game, Epic induces players to
purchase loot boxes in order to get better loot, which results in
massive revenue to Epic. Epic has made a fortune on in-game
purchases, preying in large part on minors who are especially
susceptible to such predatory tactics.

However, many of these in-game purchases are marketed through
material misrepresentations and omissions which lure minors and
other players into making repeated purchases, without receiving the
promised loot. Specifically, in Fortnite Save the World, the
Defendant entices minors and others into purchasing "loot boxes,"
known as "Llamas," using unfair and deceptive marketing. Llamas are
purchased with V-Bucks. Purchasing a Llama is like playing a slot
machine. Llamas contain "randomized" loot for use in the Fortnite
game. Players, and particularly minors, are lured into purchasing
Llamas with the reasonable expectation that a purchase will result
in better loot. Players are encouraged to keep purchasing Llamas
with the reasonable belief that repeated purchase will lead to the
chance of receiving better loot and therefore improvement in
performance of the game. Through both express misrepresentations
and omissions, Epic markets Llamas as highly likely to contain
valuable loot that will increase a player's power and prowess in
the Fortnite game. But in reality, Llamas do not contain the loot
expected by the reasonable consumer.

Only Epic knows the odds of receiving any given loot in a Llama,
and it exploits this informational advantage mercilessly to lure
minors and other purchasers into making purchases they otherwise
would not make. Epic systematically advertises Llamas with promises
that they will contain appealing and valuable loot. Like with a
slot machine, Epic psychologically manipulates its young players
into thinking they will "get lucky." But what Epic knows -- and
what its young players do not know—is that the Llamas almost
never contain what they are touted as containing. The reasonable
consumer purchasing Llamas believes that he or she will have
significantly better chances of receiving valuable loot than they
actually do. Worse yet, Epic fails to disclose that the odds of
receiving the valuable loot are next to nothing.

The Plaintiff, like hundreds of thousands of consumers, fell for
Epic's deceptive sales practices and purchased Epic's Llamas hoping
for rare and powerful loot. The Plaintiff did not receive that
desired loot and never had a realistic chance of doing so. Epic's
prominent display of the most valuable (and exceedingly rare)loot
in every Llama, coupled with its failure to disclose the odds of
winning the most valuable loot, constitute deceptive and misleading
representations that deceive consumers into purchasing Llamas based
on their reasonable reliance on Epic's representations.

Had the Plaintiff known the odds of receiving the desired loot in
Llamas were virtually nil, he would not have purchased them. The
Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by Epic's
practices.

Epic Games Inc. is a video game company based in North Carolina.
The Defendant released Fortnite Save the World and Fortnite Battle
Royale in 2017. Both game "modes" are part of the same Fortnite
game, and both are immensely popular. As of January 2019, there are
an estimated 200 million Fortnite players worldwide. Epic made an
estimated $2.4 billion on Fortnite in 2018.

Fortnite is an open-world survival video game in which players
collect weapons, tools, and resources, also commonly referred as
loot, in order to survive and advance in the game. Fortnite
currently includes two game modes: Save the World and Battle
Royale. This Complaint only concerns Fortnite Save the World.

Fortnite is a global phenomenon. Since its release to early access
in 2017, Fortnite has taken the gaming world by storm. Its
explosion of popularity has even expanded beyond the game itself
making its way into professional athletes' celebrations in leagues
around the world. Its popularity has even infiltrated schools,
leaving parents and teachers concerned with its effect on
education.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, esq.
          Melissa S. Weiner, esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  mweiner@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10 th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

EPIC HEALTH: Faces Blackwelder Wage & Hour Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
LISA VICTORIA BLACKWELDER, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Epic Health Services, Inc., and Eveanna Healthcare As,
LLC Case No. 1:19-cv-00254-LY (W.D. Tex., March 14, 2019), seeks
payment of unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

Epic Health Services is a corporation existing under the laws of
the State of Texas and maintains offices in Austin, Texas.
Meanwhile, Eveanna Healthcare As, LLC, is a limited liability
company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and
maintains offices in Austin, Texas.  The Defendants operate a
company that primarily provides pediatric skilled nursing, therapy,
developmental services, and home medical solutions, including
enteral nutrition, respiratory, specialty pharmacy, and medical
supplies to medically fragile children across the United States.
They also offer a spectrum of adult home health care services ,
including skilled nursing, therapy, personal care, behavioral
health nursing, and home medical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
     Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
     ROSS LAW GROUP
     1104 San Antonio Street
     Austin, TX 78701
     Telephone: (512) 474-7677
     Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
     E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


ESPN INTERNET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cerros Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER N. CERROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESPN INTERNET VENTURES; ABC RADIO
LOS ANGELES ASSETS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04386 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 8, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Cerros was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employee.

ESPN Internet Ventures, doing business as Starwave Partners,
produces ESPN.com, a sports site on the Web. The company is based
in New York, New York. ESPN Internet Ventures operates as a
subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESSENDANT: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Staples Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
John Corrigan, writing for Advertising Specialty Insurance, reports
that an investor in Essendant is taking steps toward launching a
class action against the office supplies distributor, a move that
could cause further delay for Staples, Inc. in its bid to finalize
its acquisition of Essendant. Framingham, MA-based Staples is the
parent company of Top 40 distributor Staples Promotional Products
(asi/120601).

Investor Long Nguyen is accusing Essendant of withholding key
details and potential conflicts of interests associated with its
merger with Staples, Inc. Mr. Nguyen filed a suit in October,
alleging that Essendant issued an incomplete and misleading
statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
recommending that shareholders tender their shares for a
transaction (which at the time was valued at $996 million) in which
their shares would be purchased by Staples for $12.80 apiece.

On Feb. 18, Mr. Nguyen asked a Delaware federal judge that Nguyen
be named lead plaintiff, according to a report from Law360. Mr.
Nguyen sought to appoint law firm WeissLaw LLP as lead counsel on
the class action. Mr. Nguyen told the court he has approximately
$13.1 million in Essendant stock -- and thus the largest financial
interest in ensuring that all relevant information about the merger
is made public.

Mr. Nguyen claims that the recommendation statement filed with the
SEC fails to provide shareholders with information about potential
conflicts of interests faced by Essendant's financial adviser
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and company insiders.
Mr. Nguyen said the statement does not present information about
fees Citi expects to receive for its work on behalf of Essendant
and Staples. There are also outstanding questions regarding
discussions and negotiations among executive officers about future
employment and participation in the equity of the merged company,
according to the complaint.

"This information is necessary for stockholders to understand
potential conflicts of interest of management and the board, as
that information provides illumination concerning motivations that
would prevent fiduciaries from acting solely in the best interests
of the company's stockholders," said Mr. Nguyen, according to the
Law360 report.

Given such concerns, Mr. Nguyen's goal is to have the expiration
date of the tender offer extended until the relevant information is
revealed.

In January, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission approved Staples'
acquisition of Essendant with conditions. "Staples, which is owned
by the private equity firm Sycamore Partners, will establish a
firewall separating Staples' business-to-business sales operations
from Essendant's wholesale business," the regulator said in a
statement. "This firewall will restrict Staples' access to the
commercially sensitive information of Essendant's customers."

Even so, the deal has not yet been finalized.

The government shutdown had delayed the FTC's approval process,
according to Essendant CEO Ric Phillips in a letter to customers.
The review was already complicated by criticisms from Essendant's
dealer and reseller clients that Staples, a long-time competitor,
could obtain inside information on them and take sales away. The
closure date had been extended twice.

In business nearly 100 years, Deerfield, IL-based Essendant was
formerly known as United Stationers. The paper and office products
supplier lost $267 million in 2017 as sales declined nearly 7.5% to
just above $5 billion amid a changing marketplace disrupted by
digitization and other factors.

As a result of the deal, Essendant will become a private company.
Staples, which had been publicly listed, went private after being
acquired by private equity firm Sycamore Partners in 2017.

With estimated 2017 North American promotional product revenue of
$592.9 million, Staples Promotional Products ranked second on
Counselor's most recent list of the largest distributors in the
industry. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Advocacy Groups Call for FTC Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rana Foroohar, writing for The Financial Times, reports that if you
want to get people really upset, hurt their children. That's the
message from a new spate of complaints about Big Tech.

A dozen consumer and children's advocacy groups filed a request for
the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook for alleged
deceptive practices following revelations in recently unsealed
class action documents that the company had knowingly tried to dupe
children into spending large amounts of money in online games.
(Facebook employees actually referred to the kids as "whales", a
casino term for high rollers.) Meanwhile, brands such as Nestlé
and Disney have stopped buying ads on Google-owned YouTube after
paedophiles swamped the comment sections on children's videos with
obscene postings.

The corporate behaviour in question is of course wildly different
in the two cases. But the connective tissue is a business model
based on the monetisation of user content and data. And that's the
bigger topic that a number of the FTC complainants, most notably
Common Sense Media, hope will be addressed by a new piece of
California legislation that looks to bring an end to the era in
which personal data is treated as a commodity to be freely
exploited by platform technology firms.

The details of the legislation, which have already been teased by
California governor Gavin Newsom in his recent speech, may be
unveiled. But the basic idea is that platform tech companies like
Facebook and Google -- but possibly also a host of others such as
Amazon, or even non-platform firms that collect and monetise
personal data -- should be forced to pay a "data dividend" to
consumers if they use any of their personal information. The idea
being that if data is the new oil, then the people who own it (in
this case internet users themselves) should have a piece of the
huge profits being made from it.

That's not a huge intellectual leap considering that citizens of
American states like Alaska, or countries like Norway, have long
benefited from commodities like oil.

The idea of a "data dividend" is based in part on work by the
Silicon Valley technologist Jaron Lanier, and economist Glen Weyl,
a co-author of the book Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and
Democracy for a Just Society, which lays out in detail how the idea
of paying users for data might work.

The idea has been pushed behind the scenes by the civil liberties
lawyer and Stanford professor Jim Steyer, the head of Common Sense
Media (whose billionaire hedge funder brother Tom has spent about
$50m on a campaign calling for the impeachment of US president
Donald Trump).

The legislation would build on tough California privacy laws
adopted last year, which were also backed by Common Sense.

These underscore the irony that California, which gave birth to the
platform giants, could also be the place where they are first
reined in. "We could have tried to do this legislation in
Washington," Mr Steyer told me. "But Washington isn't a functioning
democracy. California is."

California is also a hotbed for the "data as labour" movement,
which aims to reclassify data not as an asset but as a kind of
work. This is something that Mr Weyl argues for in his book, along
with the creation of "data unions" which could advocate for
consumers/workers.

"There needs to be a new category of organisations that could act
as fiduciaries for internet users," he says, bringing the power of
collective bargaining to users who currently have no way of pushing
back against the power of Big Tech. Such a role could be played by
existing unions or consumer advocacy groups, but also
co-operatives, universities, guilds, publishers, professional
societies or even financial institutions.

California has begun setting the highest standards for data
protection, not only in the US but in some senses in the world —
the state privacy laws, which would force major new disclosure
about how data is used and sold to third parties, are considered
tougher than even the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.

The legislative process will be long and convoluted. But it is
already resulting in a host of new and interesting twists in the
Big Tech story. It has, for example, sparked a debate about whether
data should indeed be treated as an asset (which some governments
and consumer groups want) or labour (which a number of blockchain
libertarians and leftwingers would like).

It will also spark what looks to be a very vigorous and contentious
debate about which companies should pay this proposed dividend. Mr
Weyl -- who, like Mr Lanier, works for Microsoft -- believes his
employer (which runs a search engine, Bing) should actually pay
digital dividends just like Google and Facebook. But if the law is
applied to every company that collects and utilises data, then the
basket would become much larger and would include auto companies,
consumer goods manufacturers, retailers -- indeed, pretty much
every company these days.

Whether data is ultimately labelled an asset, or a kind of work, it
is becoming clear that companies are going to have to share the
proceeds -- and that will have a big impact on their future
margins. [GN]


FEDERATION DES INVENTEURS: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
François Larose, Esq. -- flarose@bereskinparr.com -- and Alain
Alphonse, Esq. -- aalphonse@bereskinparr.com -- of Bereskin & Parr
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that when it comes to
protecting an invention, it is better to turn to a registered
patent agent who is well versed in the relevant laws governing
patents and has relevant experience, and not to a consulting
company with no registered patent agents that claims to offer the
same services at a lower cost, and is eventually accused of fraud
for lack of adequate services.

This is what we can conclude from a class action application
authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec in Berube c. Federation
des inventeurs du Quebec, 2018 QCCS 3459 (CanLII). In this case,
the plaintiff, Benjamin Berube, sought to bring a class action
against the Federation des inventeurs du Quebec (FIQ) and Mr.
Christian William Varin, the founder, president and sole director
of the FIQ. The FIQ appears to be an organization that provides
patent consulting and management services to inventors, including
prior art searches and filing of provisional patent applications in
the United States.

Mr. Berube alleges that he retained the FIQ in 2015 to carry out
prior art searches and to help him obtain a provisional patent
application in the United States. To this end, he claims to have
paid more than $3,000. He also had to become a member of the FIQ
for an annual membership fee of $95. Mr. Berube, however, was
dissatisfied with the nature and quality of the services rendered
by the FIQ. According to him, the FIQ and Mr. Varin systematically
deceived their clients by misrepresenting the nature of the
organization, its resources, programs and services, as well as its
partnerships with others organizations. For example, it falsely
suggested being able to provide prior art search and provisional
patent preparation services, that members of its team were experts
in the field of intellectual property including patent prosecution
and management, and that they would guide their clients throughout
the process, when in fact the FIQ's work was incomplete, the
follow-ups were inadequate, and the provisional patent applications
were deficient.

In his application to the Court, Mr. Berube sought a class action
for the benefit of all natural and legal persons who had used the
services of the FIQ starting October 1, 2014.

After analyzing the requirements set out in Article 575 of the
Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, the Court authorized the class
action against the FIQ and Mr. Varin, finding, in particular, that
the alleged facts seemed to justify the conclusions sought. The
Court determined that the conclusions sought by the class action
include a payment of $2,000 to each of the class members for
damages, pain and suffering, a payment to each member equivalent to
what he or she paid for deficient or incomplete services rendered
by the defendants, and a payment to each member equivalent to what
he or she paid to correct the actions taken by the defendants
regarding her respective inventions. A brief search reveals that
the FIQ has been targeted by a dozen other lawsuits and several
complaints before the Office of Consumer Protection of Quebec.

On January 31st 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, the
defendants to provide within 30 days the names and contact
information of clients who would form the class members. The class
action is therefore following its course. [GN]


FEDEX: Removed Robinson Case to Central District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Express Corporation and Fedex Corporation removed case,
CLARICE ROBINSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and as an aggrieved employee
pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), the
Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 18STCV06454 (Filed: Nov. 28, 2018), from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on Feb. 21, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01281
to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1)
non-payment of wages for unpaid overtime in violation of California
Labor Code section 510 and 1198; (2) non-payment of wages for
unpaid minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code 11
section 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198; (3) failure to provide meal
breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7, 512(a)
and 1198; (4) failure to provide rest breaks in violation of
California Labor Code section 226.7 and 1198; (5) failure to
provide compliant wage statements and failure to maintain records
in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a), 1174(d) and
1198; (6) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California
Labor Code section 202 and 202; (7) failure to provide reporting
time pay in violation of California Labor Code section 1198 and
California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 11090, subdivision
5(A); (8) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of
California Labor Code section 2802; (9) PAGA penalties for
violations of California Labor Code; (10) unlawful business
practices under California Business and Professions Code section
17200; and (11) unfair business practices under California Business
and Professions Code section 23 17200.[BN]

Attorney for the Defendants:

          Stephanie A. Stroup (SBN 235071)
          FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
          2601 Main Street, Suite 340
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 862-4585
          Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
          E-mail: sastroup@fedex.com

FIRSTCREDIT INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit Inc. The
case is styled as Sarah Angeles individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FirstCredit Inc., John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00503 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 6,
2019).

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

FirstCredit Inc. provides revenue cycle solutions to hospitals,
health systems and integrated physician practices through an array
of eligibility and receivables management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
     23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 800-5529
     Fax: (216) 514-4987
     Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


FLIGHT CENTRE: OT Class Action Seeks More Than 100MM Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
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.

As a result, workers were "systemically prevented from claiming
and/or receiving overtime compensation in accordance with the
applicable employment standards legislation," the statement of
claim says.

If certified, the class action will seek $100 million in general
damages for thousands of employees across the country dating back
to October 2010, as well as $10 million in punitive damages.

Allison Wallace, Flight Centre's vice-president of corporate
communications, said the company intended to vigorously defend
itself.

"We don't believe we've done anything wrong," she said. "At this
point, now that it's a legal matter, I can't comment further than
that at this time."

According to the class action's statement of claim, Flight Centre
travel consultants have employment contracts that stipulate
full-time hours of work, a base salary plus commission, which
constitutes a significant portion of their compensation.

But if consultants surpass certain sales targets, they earn a
larger chunk of their total sales as commission -- a structure that
incentivizes them to "work longer and harder in order to sell
more," the suit says.

"While class members regularly work significantly in excess of
their scheduled hours, the defendant has no system in place to
track, monitor, record or compensate (them) for their actual hours
worked."

Stephen Aps was a Mississauga-based international travel consultant
employed by Flight Centre from 2014 to 2015. His base salary was
$27,000 a year and he averaged about 45 to 50 hours of work a week
-- but he worked longer hours during busy periods, according to the
statement of claim. He was never compensated either with overtime
pay or time off in lieu, the lawsuit says.

"This class action is about more than just reclaiming our back
pay," said Mr. Aps. "It's about changing company-wide practices and
improving working conditions in the entire industry."

Goldblatt lawyer Nadine Blum said the retail travel industry is a
"high pressure" sector where employees are often expected to work
as long as required to hit sales targets and support customers.

"The employers who reap the benefits of that work should be
properly compensating employees for their time," she said.

"We hope that this proposed class action serves as a powerful
reminder that employees are not disentitled to overtime pay merely
because they are paid on a salaried basis," added co-counsel Josh
Mandryk.

"There's a misconception that employees who are on commission
aren't entitled to overtime and that's not the case."

Under Ontario law, employees must receive time-and-a-half when they
work more than 44 hours a week.

As part of their standard employment contract, Flight Centre
employees were required to sign averaging agreements and excess
weekly hours of work agreements -- legal tools that reduce
employers' overtime obligations, the statement of claim says.

The contract also stipulated that employees must attend staff
meetings, "buzz nights," and training sessions. According to the
class action, workers were not remunerated for this time.

The contract specifies that overtime is only payable when
specifically authorized by management and that in "some cases" the
company could offer "special incentives" as compensation for
overtime -- a practice the class action calls unlawful.

Overall, the contracts do "not allow for payment of overtime to
persons who are routinely required or permitted to work overtime to
fulfil the basic duties of their employment," according to the
suit.

"By virtue of the power imbalance inherent to the employee-employer
relationship, the class members are powerless to challenge the
unlawful aspects of the defendant's overtime policy," the statement
of claim says.

"In attempting to do so, they would risk discharge and/or
employment and career-related sanctions."

In order to proceed, the class action must first be certified in
court. Mr. Mandryk said the hearing would likely take place within
the year.

Flight Centre has outlets in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Its parent
company, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange,
earned around $2.7 billion in global revenue last year. [GN]


FMR LLC: Wong Sues over Kickbacks from Retirement Savings Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE W. WONG, On Behalf of the T-MOBILE USA, INC. 401(K)
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST and On Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans, the Plaintiff, vs. FMR
LLC; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT
TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC; NATIONAL FINANCIAL
SERVICES LLC; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS
COMPANY, INC. and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-10335 (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover equitable
relief and damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, for the benefit of the 401(k) plans in the Class and
all other similarly situated Plans.

Personal savings accounts in the form of 401(k) and other defined
contribution plans have become the primary method for employees in
the United States to save for retirement in recent years. The
importance of defined contribution plans to the United States
retirement system has become increasingly pronounced as
employer-provided defined benefit ("DB") plans have become
increasingly rare as an offered and meaningful employee benefit.

Fidelity acts as a recordkeeper, "service provider," a
party-in-interest and a fiduciary for thousands of 401(k) plans and
similar defined contribution retirement plans (the "Plans," more
fully defined below) in the United States. Fidelity offers the
Plans the opportunity to invest in third-party mutual funds and
similar investment vehicles through its "FundsNetwork", which
Fidelity launched in 1989 and describes as "one of the industry's
leading fund supermarkets." As part of its "Workplace Investing"
business unit, Fidelity allows the Plans "to invest in mutual funds
from hundreds of fund companies outside of Fidelity,"
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/overview, and Fidelity's
Workplace Investing business unit provides third-party (i.e.,
non-Fidelity) mutual funds with access to more than 24,000
retirement plans with more than $1.6 trillion in assets.

Beginning in or about 2017, Fidelity began requiring various mutual
funds, affiliates of mutual funds, mutual fund advisors,
sub-advisors, investment funds, including collective trusts, and
other investment advisors, instruments or vehicles that are offered
to the Plans through Fidelity's FundsNetwork (collectively, "mutual
funds"), to make secret payments (the "kickbacks," "kickback
payments," or "secret payments") to Fidelity for its own benefit in
the guise of "infrastructure" payments or so-called
relationship-level fees in violation of, inter alia, the prohibited
transaction rules of the ERISA.

The kickback payments at issue are part of a pay-to-play scheme in
which Fidelity receives these payments from mutual funds in the
event that otherwise disclosed 12b-1 fees, administration fees,
service fees, sub-transfer agent fees and/or similar fees ("revenue
sharing payments" or "RSPs") fall below a certain level and
Fidelity requires payment of these kickbacks in return for
providing the mutual funds with access to its retirement plan
customers, including its 401(k) plan customers.

Although Fidelity attempts to categorize these secret kickback
payments as flat dollar payments, the payments are, in fact,
calculated based upon the assets the mutual funds maintain under
management [multiplied by designated basis point ("bp") amounts],
including the Plans' assets invested in the mutual funds, and are
offset by the amount, if any, of revenue sharing payments generated
by the assets for which Fidelity provides recordkeeping and related
services, including with respect to such services that are provided
by Fidelity to the Plans. Although these secret payments clearly
constitute indirect compensation that Fidelity is required to
disclose to the Plans under ERISA, Fidelity does not disclose the
amount of these secret payments (which amount to at least tens of
millions of dollars per annum and likely in the hundreds of
millions of dollars per annum) to the Plans and forbids the mutual
funds from disclosing the amount of these secret payments, despite
their legal obligation to do so, the lawsuit says.

FMR LLC is a financial services conglomerate headquartered in
Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which operates as the parent
entity for Fidelity Investments (defined below) and its associated
business enterprises.FMR has controlled and directed the activities
of the other Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          Nathan Zipperian
          Chiharu G. Sekino
          Jaclyn M. Reinhart
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER
          & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                  ktang@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com
                  csekino@sfmslaw.com
                  jreinhart@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

FORD MOTOR: Faces Possible Class Actions Over Emissions Figures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Taylor, writing for Motoring, reports that lawyers and
prosecutors are already scrambling after US-based Ford Motor
Company confessed on Feb. 21 that its published fuel economy and
emissions figures were wrong.

While Ford hasn't confirmed how widespread the problem is, the
initial focus is on the Australian-developed 2019 model Ranger
mid-sized pickup.

The company confirmed it had hired an outside expert to investigate
how it got fuel-economy data wrong, with its confession leading to
a slight dip in its share price overnight.

While insisting it did not have a "defeat device" like the one used
by the Volkswagen Group to skirt official test procedures, Ford
still faces huge fines and possible class-action lawsuits.

Group vice-president for sustainability, environment and safety
engineering, Kimberly Pittel, said Ford employees raised their
concerns that the mileage and emissions data given by Ford to
government officials were incorrectly calculated.

Ms. Pittel confirmed Ford voluntarily shared the information with
both the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air
Resources Board.

A statement from the EPA insisted the information Ford provided
was, "too incomplete for EPA to reach any conclusions. We take the
potential issues seriously and are following up with the company to
fully understand the circumstances behind this disclosure".

It's not the first time Ford has messed up its published official
fuel-economy figures. It was forced to cut seven miles per gallon
from the C-Max hybrid's claims -- and compensate owners -- in 2013
after customers complained they couldn't match the published
mileage. It then cut the claimed mileage from six other models a
year later.

There has been a major clampdown on fuel-economy and emissions
claims in the US since Dieselgate struck in 2015, costing the
Volkswagen Group more than $US25 billion.

South Korea's Hyundai and Kia were forced to pay $US300 million and
paid out another $US400 million in class action suits after
misquoting its economy figures in 2013. The fine prodded
Mercedes-Benz, Ford and Mini to lower their fuel-economy claims.

FCA was fined $US77 million in February after it failed to meet
fuel economy requirements in 2016. [GN]


FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest County
Potawatomi Community. The case is styled as Marion Kiler on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forest
County Potawatomi Community doing business as: Potawatomi Hotel &
Casino, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00353-WED (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 8,
2019).

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

Potawatomi Hotel & Casino, formerly Potawatomi Bingo Casino, is a
Native American casino in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, owned and operated
by the Forest County Potawatomi Community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     CK Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group PLLC
     30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


FORNOS CORP: Mejia Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks
----------------------------------------------------------
APOLINAR MEJIA and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), vs. FORNOS CORP. d/b/a/ EL GALLEGAZO RESTAURANT and
MARCELINO FRANCOS, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20683-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks recover money
damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly,
full-time restaurant employee approximately from February 2014 to
February 14, 2019, or more than 5 years. However, for FLSA
purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 155 weeks.
The Plaintiff was hired to work as a cook, and throughout his
employment the Plaintiff was paid a salary of $530.00, $630.00 and
$840.00 per week.

During his relevant employment period with Defendants, the
Plaintiff maintained an irregular schedule. The Plaintiff worked
weeks of 6 and 7 days per week. The Plaintiff worked morning
shifts, afternoon shifts, split shifts, double shifts, but he
worked consistently a minimum average of 56 hours per week. The
Plaintiff was unable to take bona-fide lunch breaks. The Plaintiff
worked more than 40 hours per week, and he was paid for all his
working hours at his regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime
hours, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operates a Spanish restaurant.[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

FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce 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 28, 2018, that the company
and its subsidiaries continue to defend against various class
action lawsuits related to the chemical dibromochloropropane
(DBCP).

Beginning in December 1993, certain of the company's U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions
in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP")
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered
into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against
the company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending in Hawaii, Delaware and
the Philippines.

On October 14, 2004, two of the company's subsidiaries were served
with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole
Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than
2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to
DBCP.

On January 2, 2009, three of the company's subsidiaries were served
with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta
Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on
behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the
plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a
substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP
actions in Texas.

On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329
plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30,
2008, the company's subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the
remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in
favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court
granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an
order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining
plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively
affiliated with the company's subsidiaries.

Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on
May 17, 2012 (The "Lagos" case). On January 18, 2013, all remaining
plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the
dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013,
the company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed
with the courts of Costa Rica.

In the Lagos case, the trial court dismissed the claims of all
plaintiffs for defective powers of attorney. On appeal from that
decision, the appellate court remanded the action for the trial
court to consider a preliminary issue before addressing the
validity of the powers of attorney. The case is back before the
trial court. Two additional DBCP-related lawsuits were filed in
Costa Rica in 2015, which have since been dismissed by the court on
procedural grounds.

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of
the company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000
plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. The company and its
subsidiaries were not involved with any banana growing operations
in Ecuador or Panama during the period when DBCP was in use.

The plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, the
company's subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those
plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013 and appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On September 21, 2012, the company's subsidiary filed an answer
with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already
filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion
made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all
remaining plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of related cases by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
On July 7, 2014, the company's subsidiary joined in a motion for
summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as to all
remaining plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014
ruling.

Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all
defendants for the claims still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the
summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court
entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September 22,
2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the
United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly limited the appeal
to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,600) plaintiffs who had
not previously filed claims in Louisiana.

On August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third Circuit, which was
granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2, 2016, the Third
Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's dismissal on
first-filed doctrine grounds of the claims of approximately 229 of
the plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a Petition for
Certification of State Law to the Delaware Supreme Court to resolve
the complex procedural question pending on appeal regarding the
duration of the tolling of limitations afforded by a class action
that had been pending in Texas.

The Delaware Supreme Court accepted certification of the pending
question of law. On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme court
decided the complex procedural question in favor of the plaintiffs
and the case is back before the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware for further proceedings.

On remand, there remain approximately 285 claims pending, although
roughly two-thirds of those claims are of plaintiffs from Panama
and Ecuador, where the company have not been involved with any
banana growing during the period when DBCP was in use. By agreement
of the parties and the Court, discovery is first proceeding with
respect to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, followed by the Panamanian
plaintiffs and then the Costa Rican plaintiffs.

In Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii
Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in
March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the
trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition
and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to
whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

On October 21, 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Hawaii
Court of Appeals and the Hawaii state trial court's grant of
partial summary judgment against the DBCP plaintiffs on statute of
limitations grounds. The Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the claims
of six remaining plaintiffs back to the Hawaii state trial court
for further proceedings, where they remain pending.

In late 2018, plaintiffs sought to activate the case and the Court
has set a conference for March 6, 2019 at which a schedule for the
case is likely to be set.  There are at most 3 plaintiffs remaining
in the action who allege employment on a farm affiliated with our
banana growing operations.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., through its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, and distributes fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and
internationally. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. was founded in 1886
and is based in George Town, Cayman Islands.


GOODRX INC: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodrx, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goodrx, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02071 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019).

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

GoodRx, Inc. owns and operates a prescription drug price comparison
platform using data from local and mail-order pharmacies in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



GOOGLE INC: To Drop Forced Arbitration Requirements for Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Faull, writing for The Drum, reports that after thousands
of its employees walked out in protest last November over the
handling of handling sexual harassment cases, Google has announced
it will drop forced arbitration requirements for all of its staff.

The common business practice requires workers to take legal
disputes to private arbitration -- where there is no judge or jury.
In this process they are less likely to win their cases and if they
do are likely to get less compensation that a court would grant.

It sparked outrage after it was revealed that Android founder Andy
Rubin was allowed to exit with a package worth tens of millions of
dollars in the wake of sexual harassment allegations by employees
-- which he denied.

Activists led a protest in November, which was backed by thousands
of Google staffers, which listed six demands. In addition to the
end of forced arbitration, they wants a commitment to end pay and
opportunity inequality and the creation of a sexual harassment
transparency report.

Now, from 21 March, both existing and new employees at Google will
have the option to sue in court and to join together in
class-action lawsuits. [GN]


HAIR CLUB: Garey Files ADA Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Club For Men
LTD. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hair Club For Men LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02073 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019).

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

Hair Club for Men, Ltd., Inc. provides hair restoration and
replacement services for men and women. It offers professional
advice, digital progress tracking, salon, laser hair therapy, and
surgical hair restoration services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. 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 a purported class action lawsuit
entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

Herbalife said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the
lawsuit."

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. he company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Removes Mitton Case to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. removed case, JAMES DEAN MITTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware and Florida
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 18STCV10166 (Filed Dec. 31,
2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Feb. 21, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01312
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: (1) violation of the
California Constitution, and (2) violation of California's Rental
Passenger Vehicle Transactions Law. The Plaintiff seeks an award of
monetary damages, including, but not limited to consequential
damages and out-of-pocket costs of identity theft insurance and
credit monitoring.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Eric R. McDonough, Esq.
          Christopher Lee, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: chlee@seyfarth.com
                  emcdonough@seyfarth.com

HILL'S PET: Faces Class Action in California Over Dog Food Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
action lawsuits are rolling in against a major pet nutrition food
producer after it recalled canned dog food products because of
potentially elevated amounts of vitamin D.

For instance, John Navarrete sued Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc. on Feb.
12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in the San Francisco/Oak Division. The defendant is also
facing six other lawsuits filed in courts in the wake of the
recall.

The seven cases were filed in Florida, Rhode Island, New York and
California between Feb. 11 and Feb. 20, with some of the most
well-known plaintiffs firms getting involved.

Mr. Navarrete's lawsuit came after Hill's recalled a number of its
dog food products in January because of its "excessive amount" of
vitamin D, the suit states. The suit states dogs that eat too much
vitamin D can suffer detrimental health issues from vomiting and
dehydration to weight loss and death.

The recall for the products came on Jan. 31, just months after Mr.
Navarrete purchased products from PetSmart in Concord, California,
on Oct. 1, 2018, for his German Shepherd. The plaintiff alleges he
fed his dog the food through January, when the animal started
experiencing health setbacks like vomiting and lethargy. He alleges
he incurred veterinary bills for the dog's care.

Some of the recalled food includes Hill's Prescription Diet c/d
MultiCare Canine Chicken & Vegetable Stew; Hill's Prescription Diet
Low Fat Canine Rice, Vegetable & Chicken Stew; and Hill's Science
Diet Puppy Chicken & Barley Entrée.

According to a Food and Drug Administration announcement of the
recall issued Jan. 31, an investigation by Hill's determined the
elevated levels of the vitamin were caused by a supplier error.

Mr. Navarrete noted in the suit that Hill's marketed the
now-recalled products as extremely healthy and nutritious for
canines.

"Defendant also touts on its website that it is ‘the global
leader in nutritional health care for companion animals, allowing
us to provide the right formulas for precisely balanced nutrition
that meets the wellness and therapeutic needs of pets worldwide,"
according to the lawsuit.

There is also a proposed subclass for what the plaintiff described
as "Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Consumer Legal
Remedies," for those who bought the recalled products for household
and family reasons.

Hill's is alleged to have presented goods to have positive
characteristics and uses that they do not have.

Mr. Navarette is represented by Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe of San
Francisco.

Other lawyers with lawsuits against Hill's are: Joseph Tusa of New
York; the Levin Papantonio firm of Florida; Marlin and Saltzman of
California; Motley Rice's Rhode Island office; and Wexler Wallace
in Chicago. [GN]


HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Suit over Arrests without Valid Warrants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISABEL ZELAYA, GERONIMO GUERRERO, CAROLINA ROMULO MENDOZA, LUIS
BAUTISTA MARTINEZ, MARTHA PULIDO, CATARINO ZAPOTE HERNANDEZ, and
MARIA DEL PILAR GONZALEZ CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others CLASS ACTION similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JERE
MILES, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations
("HSI"); ROBERT HAMMER, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, HSI;
DAVID VICENTE, Agent, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO"); FRANCISCO AYALA, Agent,
ICE ERO; BILLY RIGGINS, Special Agent, ICE; WILLIAM HINKLE,
Deportation Officer, ICE; ANTHONY MARTIN, Deportation Officer, ICE;
M. GROOMS, Deportation Officer, ICE; SCOTT PA, Special Agent, ICE;
DOES #1-30, Agents of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; in
their individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00062
(E.D. Tenn., Feb. 21, 2019), seek declaratory and monetary relief
against the Defendants for violations of "their clearly
established" constitutional rights the day of the raid by
immigration officers last year.

In April 2018, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE"), Homeland Security Operations ("HSI"),
Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO"), and the Tennessee
Highway Patrol ("THP") descended on the Southeastern Provision
meatpacking plant ("Plant") in Bean Station, Tennessee, a small
town in the far eastern corner of the state. Heavily armed, the
officers formed a perimeter around the plant and blocked every
exit. They used official vehicles to seal off the one public road
to the Plant. Law enforcement helicopters flew above the Plant,
securing and surveilling the premises. In the Plant's parking lot,
several vans and large bags of plastic "zip tie" handcuffs waited
to be used. Moments later, dozens of armed officers in bullet-proof
vests rushed into the Plant. They quickly fanned out, many with
their firearms drawn, and screamed at the workers inside to stop
moving. The workers, terrified and confused, feared the commotion
was a terrorist attack, a mass shooting, or a fire.

According to the complaint, the officers were not searching for
terrorists, armed criminals, or violent felons. Rather, the
officers were assisting with the execution of an Internal Revenue
Service ("IRS") search warrant for financial documents related to
the alleged crimes of the plant's owner, James Brantley. However,
the officers' goal that day was far more extensive than what the
search warrant authorized: They planned to detain and arrest every
worker in the plant who was or appeared to be Latino. Prior to the
raid, ICE enlisted Tennessee state resources -- Tennessee Highway
Patrol troopers -- to accomplish this goal. ICE also secured the
Tennessee National Guard's armory to use as a location to process
individuals who were arrested that day. Then, with only an IRS
search warrant for documents in hand, the officers executed the
largest workplace immigration raid in nearly a decade. They
forcefully seized and arrested approximately 100 Latino workers.

In the process, the officers berated the workers with racial slurs,
punched one worker in the face, and shoved firearms in the faces of
many others. Meanwhile, the officers did not detain the Plant's
white workers or subject them to the same intrusive and aggressive
treatment and prolonged detention that the Latino workers
experienced. Many of the Latino workers were long-term employees of
the Plant who had spent years performing the dangerous work endemic
to slaughterhouses, often in unsafe conditions and without
receiving legally-mandated overtime pay. The workers and their
families are long-time members of the local community, attending
school, church, and other local events alongside their neighbors.
The day after the raid, nearly 600 children in the community did
not show up for school.

Prior to the raid, the federal officers did not know the identities
or the immigration status of any worker in the Plant. They knew
only that many of the workers were "Hispanic." Only after detaining
the Latino workers -- and, in many instances, not until after
transporting the workers to an offsite location -- did the federal
officers question the workers about their identity or immigration
status. Ultimately, only eleven of the approximately 100 workers
arrested were charged with any crime, and of those, none were
charged with a violent crime. The U.S. Constitution protects
individuals from this kind of law enforcement overreach. The law is
clear that seizures based entirely on race or ethnicity, arrests
without probable cause, and the use of excessive force are
prohibited by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The federal officers
conspired to plan and execute the forceful and prolonged seizure of
the Plant's Latino workforce solely on the basis of their actual or
apparent race or ethnicity. The federal officers made arrests
without a valid arrest warrant, probable cause that each worker had
violated U.S. immigration or criminal laws, or any exigent
circumstances. In executing some of these arrests, the federal
officers used brutal and excessive force without any provocation,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          William L. Harbison, Esq.
          Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
          John L. Farringer IV, Esq.
          SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON , PLC
          150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-4200
          E-mail: bharbison@srvhlaw.com
                  pcramer@srvhlaw.com
                  jfarringer@srvhlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
          Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108 – 62
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: keaney@nilc.org
                  preciado@nilc.org
                  martinez-olguin@nilc.org

               - and -

          Trudy S. Rebert, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 721361
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (646) 867-8793
          E-mail: rebert@nilc.org

               - and -

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          Julia Solorzano, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
                  julia.solorzano@splcenter.org

HSBC USA: Ahmed and Monteleone Seek Court Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiffs in the
case, Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association,
have sought court approval of a settlement.

In March 2017, plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National
Association (Case No. 5:16-cv-02057).

The consolidated action alleges that the defendants contacted
plaintiffs, or the members of the class that they seek to
represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
without prior express consent or despite revocation of prior
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 for each
violation. HSBC Mortgage Corporation responded to the complaint,
and discovery proceeded.

In December 2018, the parties agreed to settle the action.
Plaintiffs filed for court approval of the settlement in January
2019.

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: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in
the case entitled, In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and
Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation).

Since 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the
Northern District of California naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI,
HSBC and HSBC Bank plc, in addition to other members of the London
Gold Fix.

The complaints allege that from January 2004 through June 2013,
defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold
derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap
profits on proprietary trades.

The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties
are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is
proceeding.

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: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in
the case entitled, In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust
Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation).

In 2014, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York naming
HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and the other members of The
London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants.

The complaints allege that, from January 2007 through December
2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of physical
silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in
violation of the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. antitrust
laws.

The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties
are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is
proceeding.

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: Nov. 2019 Final Hearing on Credit Card Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 court in the case, In
re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, has scheduled a final settlement approval
hearing for November 2019.

Since 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance, HSBC North America and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard
Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been named as defendants in a
number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual
merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard,
alleging that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the
associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720").

In 2011, MasterCard, Visa, the other defendants, including HSBC
Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA
and the company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally,
in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or
all of these actions. The district court granted final approval of
the class settlement in 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order
and final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter.

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
("Second Circuit") issued a decision vacating class certification
and approval of the class settlement in MDL 1720, concluding the
class was inadequately represented by their counsel in violation of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions as well
as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, the Second Circuit held that there was a conflict
between two different but overlapping settlement classes: (1) an
opt-out class, which permitted individual class members to forgo
their share of the monetary relief and pursue individual claims;
and (2) a non-opt-out class of merchants, including future
merchants that do not currently exist, which provided injunctive
relief mainly in the form of a rule change by Visa and MasterCard
to allow merchants to surcharge card transactions until July 20,
2021. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for
review of the decision in March 2017.

In June 2018, the defendants, including the HSBC entities, reached
an agreement in principle with counsel for the putative Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) opt-out class, seeking monetary
relief, to resolve all claims as filed in a third consolidated
amended class action complaint in In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.


The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January
2019 and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for
November 2019.

HSBC USA said, "If settlement approval is granted, certain HSBC
entities are responsible for a pro rata portion of the settlement
amount, for which they are reserved, pursuant to the Sharing
Agreements entered into by the defendants."

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement
during the exclusion period. Various opt-out merchants have filed
opt-out suits in either state or federal court, most of which have
been transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation, MDL
1720.

To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into
settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and
certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, are
responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement
amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.

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: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss PGM Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 are
awaiting a court ruling on their joint motion to dismiss a third
amended complaint in the Platinum and Palladium Fix Litigation.

Since 2014, several putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing
Company (the "Platinum Group Metals or PGM Fixing"), including HSBC
Bank USA, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International and
Standard Bank, plc.

The complaints allege that, from January 2008 through November
2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark prices for
physical Platinum Group Metals ("PGM") and PGM-based financial
products. Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint and the
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. The company awaits a
ruling.

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: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
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 and its
affiliates continue to defend against two class action suits
entitled, Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al. and Contant v. Bank of
America Corporation, et al.

In addition to the case, In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates
Antitrust Litigation; Case No. 13-CV-7789(LGS), other putative
class actions making similar allegations are pending against HSBC
defendants, as well as other defendants, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of:  (1) retail
customers (Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al.; Case No. 1:15-CV-9300);
and (2) "indirect purchasers" of FX (Contant v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al.; Case No. 1:17-CV-03139).

The Nypl defendants have answered the complaint and discovery is
underway. In January 2019, the court in Nypl granted the plaintiffs
leave to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint.

In October 2018, the court in Contant granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, allowing plaintiffs
to amend their state law antitrust and unfair trade practices
claims but denying their request to amend their federal law
antitrust claims.

HSBC USA said, "It is possible that additional actions will be
initiated against the HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, in
relation to their historical foreign exchange activities."

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.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Executed in Xiang Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 20, 2019, that
the company has executed a settlement agreement in connection with
the securities class action suit, Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc.,
et al.

On February 20, 2019, Inovalon Holdings, Inc. executed a settlement
agreement in connection with the securities class action suit,
Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et.al., No. 1:16-cv-04923, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on June 24, 2016, against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.

The agreement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for the
dismissal of all claims against the defendants in connection with
the securities class action suit, and provides for a payment to the
class of $17 million, of which the Company has agreed to contribute
$1.7 million, which is recorded in the Company's 2018 financial
statements, with the remaining amounts to be paid by the Company's
insurance carriers.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, the merits of any claims against it
and its officers and directors as set forth in the suit, and the
proposed settlement contains no admission of liability by the
Company and the other defendants.

Inovalon Holdings, Inc., a technology company, provides cloud-based
platforms empowering data-driven healthcare. Inovalon Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Bowie, Maryland.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, 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 28, 2018, that the settlement in the
case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still
awaits court approval.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against the Company and several
former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management
system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the
Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or
omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and
internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the
CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in
part, the District Court's ruling.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District
Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings,
including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In
September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an
agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount
to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are
covered by an insurance policy. The terms of the proposed
settlement remain subject to court approval.

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

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Orders Parties in Moses Suit to Arbitrate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 court in the
case, Moses v. LendingClub Corporation, has granted the company's
motion to compel arbitration, dismissed the putative class action
without prejudice, and ordered the parties to arbitrate the
plaintiff's claim.

In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. LendingClub
Corporation, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company improperly accessed the
credit report of the plaintiff, who had formerly had a loan
serviced by the Company. The complaint further alleges, on
information and belief, that the Company improperly accessed credit
reports of other similarly situated individuals.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds
that the plaintiff waived the right to bring a class action and
must individually arbitrate any claim.

On February 6, 2019, the court issued an order granting this
motion, dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, and
ordered the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claim.

The Company denies the plaintiff's claim and is prepared to
vigorously defend against it in the event the plaintiff initiates
an arbitration following the court’s recent order.

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.


LIVE NATION: Underpays Sales Managers, Wellinger Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE WELLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION WORDLWIDE INC.; LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV04397 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Wellinger was employed by the Defendants as sales manager.

Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. offers live music and event management
services. It operates venues worldwide and engages in promotional
activities for concerts. I addition, it offers ticketing services
for arenas, stadiums, professional sports franchises and leagues,
college sports teams, performing arts venues, museums and theaters.
It also provides training Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. was formerly
known as SFX Entertainment, Inc. The company was incorporated in
1997 and is based in Beverly Hills, California. Live Nation
Worldwide, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen U. Kim, Esq.
          HELEN KIM LAW, APC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, Ca 90010
          Telephone: (323) 487-9151
          Facsimile: (866) 652-7819


LMS REINFORCING: Faces Martinez Suit in Kern County
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
LMS Reinforcing Steel. The case is assigned to RAFAEL MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LMS REINFORCING STEEL, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-100374 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 8, 2019). The case is
assigned to Stephen D. Schuett.

LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. fabricates, supplies, and installs
reinforcing steel and post-tensioning products for residential,
commercial, institutional, civil, industrial, mining, hydro
construction, and infrastructure construction sectors in Canada.
LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. was formerly known as Lower
Mainland Steel Ltd. and changed its name to LMS Reinforcing Steel
Group Inc. LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. was founded in 1987 and
is based in Surrey, Canada with a regional office in Calgary,
Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq.


MDL 2492: Ayles Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Blake Ayles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00420 (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-01063 to the proceeding.

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

The Ayles 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: Barna Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidate
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Karl Barna, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00386 (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-01189 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 Hobart and William
Smith Colleges Student-Athletes.

The Barna 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 Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jason Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Hobart and Morehouse College (Inc.), the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00382 (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-01186 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 Morehouse College
(Inc.) 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: Caldwell Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JEREMY CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406 (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-01039 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 Caldwell 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: Clement Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MARIO CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Hobart and THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, the
Defendants, Case No.  1:19-cv-00393 (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-01195 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 The Catholic
University of America Student-Athletes.

The Clement 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: Eischens Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ROBERT EISCHENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00397 (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-01011 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 Eischens 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: Freeman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DEREK FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00378 (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-01181 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 Freeman 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: Garland Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jamal Garland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00380 (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-01183 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 Garland 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: Gholson Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Javar Gholson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00405 (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-01037 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 Gholson 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: Hawkins Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, RILEY HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and SAMFORD UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00396 (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-01198 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 Samford University
Student-Athletes.

The Hawkins 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: Hayes Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, William Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00402 (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-01029 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 Hayes 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: Jarmon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Ira Jarmon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00379 (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-01182 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 Jarmon 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: Kimbrough Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, NATHAN KIMBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. , 1:19-cv-00414 (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-01058 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 Kimbrough 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: Kunzelman Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Ryan Kunzelman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and The University of Findlay, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00434 (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-01118 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 The University of
Findlay Student-Athletes.

The Kunzelman 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: Markham Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Houston Markham, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00377 (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-01180 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 Markham 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: McGregor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jeffrey McGregor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00385 (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-01188 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 McGregor 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: Randall Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, KYSHAWN RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and CHOWAN UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00391 (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-01193 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 Chowan University
Student-Athletes.

The Randall 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: Ritenour Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, STEVEN RITENOUR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00399 (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-01023 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 Ritenour 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: Rycroft Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Kendall Rycroft, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00387 (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-01190 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 Rycroft 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: Tabb Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Juan Tabb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00411 (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-01050 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 Tabb 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: Wilson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Quincy Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00431 (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-01111 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 Wilson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2672: ECF No. 3626 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. 3626, 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. 3626 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. 3626. When it was filed, the ECF No. 3626 motion covered 61
separate cases.  Each had been filed in Texas state court, by
counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA").  Many of the cases
have since been voluntarily dismissed; only 12 remain outstanding.

VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3626 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. 3626 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. 3626 complaints each include five claims against VWGoA
and VW AG.  The claims are for violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA") and for breach of contract, an express
warranty, and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
for a particular purpose.  The Plaintiffs seek remedies which
include actual and punitive damages, "rescission and repurchase of
the subject vehicle[s] and restitution of all monies expended," and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  They each seek "only
monetary relief of not more than $74,499.99 including damages of
any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interests, and
attorney fees."

VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on
the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  VW AG
apparently was not served and did not join the notices of removal.
The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3626 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
$12,600 to $26,012 per case.

Next, instead of including $50,000 in punitive damages for each of
the ECF No. 3626 cases, the Judge will include punitive damages for
each case equal to the lesser of three times the estimated amount
of economic damages or $50,000.  Using this formula, the punitive
damages in controversy range from $37,800 to $50,000 per case.
Given the facts alleged and the amounts of punitive damages awarded
in comparable cases, these amounts of punitive damages are
reasonably at stake in the ECF No. 3626 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. 3621 cases.

Finally, when the estimates of actual damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees are added together, the amounts in controversy
for the ECF No. 3626 cases range from $80,136 to $105,748.  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. 3626 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/AyHoNA 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.


MEC GENERAL: Marin Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
JESUS AQUILINO ULLOA MARIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEC GENERAL INC. (D/B/A MEC
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), MEC GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (D/B/A
MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A
MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), EDMILSON DE LIMA, ERIC DE LIMA, ADRIANO
DE LIMA, ROSALIA DE LIMA, and RODRIGO DOE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01052 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a framer
and worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 33-20 61st Street, Woodside, NY 11377 under the name
"MEC General Construction."[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

MICHIGAN: HHS Faces Class Action Over Child Mental Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stateside reports that where do you go, to whom do you turn if your
child needs mental health care? Child psychiatrists and parents
agree: the options in Michigan are too few and far between.

This issue has led to a class action lawsuit against the state's
Department of Health and Human Services. It was filed in 2018
against then-Governor Snyder, and it alleges the state has failed
to meet its legal obligation under Medicaid to provide adequate
services for children who have behavioral and mental health
problems.

Earlier in February, federal judge Thomas Ludington ruled the
lawsuit may proceed towards trial.

Former state senator and state representative David Honigman is the
lead attorney in the case, and a partner at the law firm Mantese
Honigman, PC.

Federal law entitles people with disabilities and mental or
physical illnesses to have their medical treatment paid for by the
state. Mr. Honigman says the state is falling short on that legal
responsibility.

"There's a lack of political responsiveness to the needs of the
vulnerable," Mr. Honigman said.

Mr. Honigman says this has major consequences for kids. He
describes one of the seven cases in their lawsuit: a non-verbal
20-year-old boy who has autism, intellectual disabilities, and
cerebral palsy. For years, his mother had been requesting mental
health services and medical attention for him. Mr. Honigman says
that her son didn't receive services until he was 17, and when he
did, only minimal services were offered to treat his autism.

"It's easier to build a strong child than it is to repair a broken
man or woman. That's why the Medicaid law emphasizes early
intervention to address the mental and physical health of our
nation's children," Mr. Honigman said.

Michigan Radio reached out to the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services for comment and were provided this statement:

"We cannot comment on ongoing litigation, however, MDHHS is
committed to working with partners to address mental health needs
in Michigan."

Stateside's request to discuss the state's mental health system for
children, more broadly, and what the department is doing to improve
it, was declined. [GN]


MID-ATLANTIC SPORTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
John D.S. Gilmour, Esq. -- jgilmour@kelleydrye.com -- Talat Ansari,
Esq. -- tansari@kelleydrye.com -- David A. Hartquist, Esq. --
dhartquist@kelleydrye.com -- James F. Jacobus, Esq., Philip D.
Robben, Esq., John L. Hagan, Esq., Lee S. Brenner, Esq., Andrew E.
Minkiewicz, Esq., and John M. Herrmann II, Esq., of Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a judge in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
has preliminarily approved a $2.5 million settlement of a putative
class action against Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, Hyundai, and
Mercedes-Benz. Gonzalez v. TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP, et
al., 1:18-cv-20048-DPG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2019) (Dkt. No. 79). The
putative class representative's unopposed motion seeking the
court's preliminary approval of the settlement described it as the
result of "hard fought" settlement negotiations to resolve the
"highly contentious" litigation, including two mediation
conferences over two weeks. (Dkt. No. 76 at 2.)

The complaint, which was filed in Florida state court before
defendants sought removal to federal court, alleged the defendants
violated Sec. 277 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"), by using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") to text unsolicited sales promotions
without the express written consent of the recipients. Before
settling, the parties briefed whether the court should stay the
action to allow the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
first clarify the definition of an ATDS.

An ATDS is defined as "equipment which has the capacity -- (A) to
store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(1). In 2015, the FCC expanded the scope of this
definition to include equipment that has the "potential" or "future
capacity" to dial in an automated manner. Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, CG Docket No. 02- 278, 30 FCC Rcd.
7961, 7971-72, 7974-76, 8089 Pars. 10, 16, 19 (2015). After courts
rejected this interpretation, ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d
687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the FCC issued a public notice seeking
comments for a revised definition of ATDS, specifically: "[i]f
equipment cannot itself dial random or sequential numbers, can that
equipment be an automatic telephone dialing system?" Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of The
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light of the D.C. Circuit's
ACA International Decision, CG Docket No. 18-152, CG Docket No.
02-278, DA 18-493 (May 14, 2018). The public comment period closed
on June 28, 2018. Id.

The putative class representative opposed the defendants' motion to
stay the action, arguing, in part, that the FCC may take
significantly more time to recast its definition of an ATDS. The
parties settled before the court decided the stay motion, and the
FCC has not yet released its response to public comments. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA DIONISIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00190-DAD-JLT
(E.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
District Judge Dale A. Drozd and referred to Magistrate Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MIRAGE OPERATIONS: Valdivia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. VALDIVIA and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. MIRAGE OPERATIONS, LLC a/k/a WAJIRO'S RESTAURANT,
OTTO I DE LA TORRE, and SONIA T DE LA TORRE, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20669-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Wajiro's Restaurant is a Latin
restaurant specialized in traditional Cuban food. The Plaintiff
worked at the restaurant located at 12670 SW 8th street, Miami,
Florida 33184. The Plaintiff had duties, which consisted of general
restaurant work and delivery driver duties. However, part of
Plaintiff's duties was misclassified as a manager's work. The
Plaintiff worked always more than 40 hours per week, but at least
during 2016 and 2017, he was not paid minimum wages nor overtime
hours as required by the FLSA.

During 2018, the Plaintiff worked also in excess of 40 hours. He
was paid at 2 different rates for the same general restaurant work.
In this period Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours, but he
was not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff was not allowed to
clock in and out, but he worked under the supervision of the
owners of the business. Thus, the Defendants were able to track all
the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.

The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks accompanied by
paystubs that never showed the number of days and hours worked,
wage rate paid, or job classification. For the period of 2016-2017,
the Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but
he is going to provide a good faith estimate of his unpaid wages
and overtime hours based on his best recollection. For the period
of 2018, the Plaintiff will base his calculations on time records
in his possession, the lawsuit says.[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

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Pension Plan Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, 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 plaintiff's opening
brief in the appealed Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Molina
Healthcare, Inc., et al., is due April 10, 2019.

On October 5, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
its first amended class action securities complaint in the Central
District Court of California against the Company and its former
executive officers, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P.
Bayer, and Rick Hopfer, Case 2:18-cv-03579.

The amended complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased Molina common stock between
October 31, 2014, and August 2, 2017, for alleged violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff
alleges the defendants misled investors regarding the scalability
of the Company's administrative infrastructure during the
identified class period.

On December 13, 2018, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety and closed the case. On January 9, 2019,
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff's opening brief is due April 10, 2019, the
Company's response is due May 10, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply is
due May 31, 2019. Oral argument will likely occur within 9-12
months after the briefing is completed.

Molina Healthcare said, "The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the alleged claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. At this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows."

Molina Healthcare, Inc., a multi-state healthcare organization,
provides managed health care services to low-income families and
individuals under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through
the state insurance marketplaces. Molina Healthcare, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Long Beach, California.


MOLSON COORS: Sussberg Says Financial Report Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------
LARRY SUSSBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOLSON COORS BREWING COMPANY, MARK R.
HUNTER, and TRACEY I. JOUBERT, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00514 (D. Colo., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 .

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

On October 11, 2016, Molson Coors completed its acquisition of
SABMiller plc's 58% stake in MillerCoors LLC, the joint venture
formed in the United States and Puerto Rico by both companies in
2008. The Class Period begins on February 14, 2017, when Molson
Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which provided its financial
results and position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
The 2016 10-K was signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2016
10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("SOX") by the Individual Defendants attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2016 10-K stated that the
Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective,
excluding the internal control over financial reporting at its
recently acquired stake in MillerCoors LLC. The 2016 10-K provided
the Company's consolidated statement of operations, which reported
comprehensive income attributable to Molson Coors as $2.125 billion
for the period covered by the 2016 10-K.

On February 14, 2018, Molson Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC,
which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017. The 2017 10-K was signed by the
Individual Defendants. The 2017 10-K contained signed SOX
certifications by the Individual Defendants attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated that the
Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective
as of December 31, 2017.

The 2017 10-K provided the Company's consolidated statement of
operations, which reported comprehensive income attributable to
Molson Coors as $2.126 billion for the period covered by the 2017
10-K. On this news, Molson Coors' stock price fell $6.17 per share,
or 9.44%, to close at $59.19 per share on February 12, 2019,
damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Molson Coors manufactures and sells beer and other beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Capps Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. CAPPS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00329 (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 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 COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
TODD SEARS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00312 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, 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 Plaintiff maintains 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 Plaintiff brings 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN LAW
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

               - and -

          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: Sheehan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
EARLYNN SHEEHAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00313 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, 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 Plaintiff maintains 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 Plaintiff brings 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN LAW
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Todds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL H. TODD and JANICE C. TODD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00317
(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 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: Walkers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES M. WALKER AND RUSSEL WALKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00328
(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 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: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY S. WEBB, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00327 (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 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


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl Files Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Moehrl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. the National Association of Realtors,
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX
Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01610 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for conspiring to require home sellers to pay the
broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an
inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law.

The Defendants' conspiracy has centered around NAR's adoption and
implementation of a rule that requires all brokers to make a
blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when
listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The
Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively possess market
power in local markets for real estate broker services through
their control of the local MLS. The conspiracy has saddled home
sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a
competitive market. Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not
show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower
buyer broker commission, or will show homes with higher commission
offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required
blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers'
cooperation by offering a high commission, notes the complaint.

The conspiracy has inflated buyer broker commissions, which, in
turn, have inflated the total commissions paid by home sellers such
as Plaintiff and the other class members. Plaintiff and the other
class members have each incurred, on average, thousands of dollars
in damages as a result of Defendants' conspiracy, the complaint
asserts.

Plaintiff is a resident of Shorewood, Minnesota. On November 15,
2017, he sold a home located in the Minneapolis metropolitan area.

National Association of Realtors has over 1.2 million individual
members and is one of the largest lobbying groups in the country,
advocating for the interests of real estate brokers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 357-0370
     Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Small, Esq.
     Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
     Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
     Courtney A. Elgart, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW . Fifth Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
            bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
            celgart@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue . Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4949
     Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
     Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue . Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Phone: (510) 725-3000
     Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com
            riop@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     George Farah, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (212) 477-8090
     Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     William H. Anderson, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
     4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
     Boulder, CO 80305
     Phone: (303) 800-9109
     Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     Benjamin David Elga, Esq.
     Brian Shearer, Esq.
     JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
     25 Broadway . Ninth Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (518) 732-6703
     Email: belga@justicecatalyst.org
            brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org

          - and -

     Monte Neil Stewart, Esq.
     Russell E. Marsh, Esq.
     WRIGHT MARSH & LEVY
     300 S. 4th Street . Suite 701
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Phone: (702) 382-4004
     Email: monteneilstewart@gmail.com
            rmarsh@wmllawlv.com

          - and -

     Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
     Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
     TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL PLLP
     222 South Ninth Street . Suite 4050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 746-1558
     Email: teske@tkkrlaw.com
            katz@tkkrlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DARRELL GUILLORY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE; THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL; NFL
REFEREES ASSOCIATION; LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT;
GARY CAVALETTO; BILL VINOVICH; TODD PRUKOP; ROGER GOODELL; and PHIL
MCKINNELY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Civil District Court of the State of Louisiana, County of
Parish (Case No. 19-739 Div G Sec 11) to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on February 8, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-01197-SM-MBN. The case is assigned to Judge Susie
Morgan and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North.

National Football League, Inc. owns and operates a football league
in the United States and internationally. The company offers news,
videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings;
and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass,
tools and widgets. It provides its services through online, radio,
mobile, and TV. National Football League, Inc. was formerly known
as American Professional Football Association and changed its name
to National Football League, Inc. in June 1922. The company was
founded in 1920 and is based in New York, New York. It has
operations in Canada, China, France, Japan, Mexico, and the United
Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Eric Williams , Jr., Esq.
          Williams Law Office, LLC
          3343 Metairie Road, Suite 6
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net

               - and -

          Tregg Connell Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON & WILSON, LLC
          8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 663-1900
          Facsimile: (225) 922-4550
          E-mail: treggc@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gladstone N. Jones , III, Esq.
          Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett , III, Esq.
          Lynn E. Swanson, Esq.
          Peter Newton Freiberg, ESq.
          JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
          601 Poydras St., Suite 2655
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6004
          Telephone: (504) 523-2500
          E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com
                  tbartlett@jonesswanson.com
                  lswanson@jonesswanson.com
                  pfreiberg@jonesswanson.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DARRELL GUILLORY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE; THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL; NFL
REFEREES ASSOCIATION; LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT;
GARY CAVALETTO; BILL VINOVICH; TODD PRUKOP; ROGER GOODELL; and PHIL
MCKINNELY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Civil District Court of the State of Louisiana, County of
Parish (Case No. 19-739 Div G Sec 11) to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on February 8, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-01197-SM-MBN. The case is assigned to Judge Susie
Morgan and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North.

National Football League, Inc. owns and operates a football league
in the United States and internationally. The company offers news,
videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings;
and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass,
tools and widgets. It provides its services through online, radio,
mobile, and TV. National Football League, Inc. was formerly known
as American Professional Football Association and changed its name
to National Football League, Inc. in June 1922. The company was
founded in 1920 and is based in New York, New York. It has
operations in Canada, China, France, Japan, Mexico, and the United
Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Eric Williams , Jr., Esq.
          Williams Law Office, LLC
          3343 Metairie Road, Suite 6
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 832-9898
          Facsimile: (504) 832-9811
          E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net

               - and -

          Tregg Connell Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON & WILSON, LLC
          8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 663-1900
          Facsimile: (225) 922-4550
          E-mail: treggc@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gladstone N. Jones , III, Esq.
          Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett , III, Esq.
          Lynn E. Swanson, Esq.
          Peter Newton Freiberg, ESq.
          JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
          601 Poydras St., Suite 2655
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6004
          Telephone: (504) 523-2500
          E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com
                  tbartlett@jonesswanson.com
                  lswanson@jonesswanson.com
                  pfreiberg@jonesswanson.com


NATIONAL HEALTH: Cain and Wood Sue over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cain and Audra Wood, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. National Health Agents, LLC, Case No.
19-10487 (D. Mass., March 14, 2019), seeks to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in 1991, in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.

The plaintiffs alleges that National Health Agents made automated
and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers,
which is prohibited by the TCPA.

Defendant National Health Agents is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Boynton Beach,
Florida. The Defendant has a Registered Agent of Donald Keiber at
5390 NW41 Way in Coconut Creek, FL 33073.  The Defendant engages in
telemarketing nationwide, including into this District.[BN]

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Tel: (508) 221-1510
     E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

          - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701
     E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
             jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com


NCAA: Niemi Sues over Health & Safety of SCSU Student-Athletes
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEOFF NIEMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00820-JRS-DML (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of St.
Cloud State University ("SCSU") 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, SCSU 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 SCSU 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 SCSU 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: Rodgers & Pruitt Sue over Safety of USM Student-Athletes
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA RODGERS and ETRIC PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00785-RLY-TAB
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a
result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety
of University of Southern Mississippi ("USM") 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 Plaintiffs 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, USM 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 Plaintiffs experienced, Defendant failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect Plaintiffs and other USM 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, Plaintiffs
and countless former USM football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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: Solomon-Jett Sues over Safety of BUP Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SOLOMON-JETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00780-SEB-MPB (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania ("BUP") 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, BUP 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 BUP 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 BUP football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

NEW LINK: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on February 13, 2019, United States District Judge William H.
Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action
against clinical stage biopharmaceutical company New Link Genetics
Corporation (the "Company") and its co-founders.  Nguyen and Nguyen
v. New Link Genetics Corp., et al., No. 16-cv-03545 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
13, 2019).  Plaintiffs contended that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a
series of alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of
the Company's flagship pancreatic cancer drug that "painted a
rosier picture for investors, who were misled into thinking the
drug would obtain FDA approval."  The Court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' initial complaint, finding that, although
plaintiffs adequately pled falsity concerning one alleged
misstatement, plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled falsity as to
any other statement and, in any event, failed to sufficiently plead
loss causation for any of the alleged misstatements.  Having
reviewed plaintiffs' amended complaint and defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint, the Court again dismissed plaintiffs'
claims, holding that plaintiffs' new allegations regarding
misstatements failed to sufficiently plead falsity and that
plaintiffs' loss causation allegations "merely parrot" the
defective allegations in their previous complaint.

The Court first addressed the issue of the adequacy of the falsity
allegations, noting at the outset those allegations are subject to
Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard.  The Court also focused
on the distinction between alleged misstatements of fact, on the
one hand, and alleged misstatements of opinion, on the other hand.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare as well as the
Second Circuit's decision in Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199 (2d
Cir. 2016), the Court noted that an opinion is false if either the
speaker did not hold the belief professed or the supporting fact
supplied was untrue, and also noted that an opinion, even if
sincerely held and otherwise true as a matter of fact, may be
actionable if the speaker omits information whose omission makes
the statement misleading to a reasonable investor.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint alleged three new misrepresentations and
omissions: two relating to the alleged underreporting of the
historical survival rate of pancreatic cancer patients during
clinical trials, and a third regarding testing efficacy.  The Court
rejected plaintiffs' characterization of a statement by one
co-founder that "You can look at the last 30 years, all the major
studies, pancreatic cancer survival . . . rates [were] between
15-20 months" in U.S.-based studies as false.  While plaintiffs
contended that this was a misstatement of fact, the Court instead
found that the statement, which plaintiffs cited out of context,
was a nonactionable statement of opinion because the speaker did
not believe that the facts he stated were untrue and
"interpretations of the results of various clinical studies . . .
are essentially no different than opinions," given that
"[r]easonable persons may disagree over how to analyze data and
interpret results, and neither lends itself to objective
conclusions."  Moreover, the Court took issue with the lack of
particularity of these allegations, citing the Second Circuit's
decision in Rombach v. Chang, 355 F. 3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) for the
principle that a plaintiff is required do more than allege that the
statements were false and misleading, but rather "must demonstrate
with specificity why and how that is so."  The Court similarly
rejected plaintiffs' allegation that one of the co-founders
"falsely stated that the results of a recent Johns Hopkins Group
study found that 'for the last three decades going all the way back
to the 1980s, 1990s and all the way up to 2011, the survival
expectancy of pancreatic cancer was 19.2 months.'"  The Court
agreed with defendants that plaintiffs cited the wrong article in
disputing the truth of the co-founder's statement, and that the
actual article referenced by the co-founder did in fact support his
assertion and therefore the statement was not false.  The Court
also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's decision to
exclude certain patients with short life expectancies from its
trial amounted to a material misstatement or omission, finding that
defendants' preference of a different methodology was not
sufficient to allege falsity.  The Court observed that the Company
may have had good reason to exclude such patients from the trial,
including that such patients would need to receive the drug for at
least six months.

The Court next addressed the issue of loss causation.  Noting that
the Second Circuit has not resolved whether the notice pleading
standard under Rule 8 or the heightened pleading standard under
Rule 9(b) applies to the issue of loss causation, the Court
observed that the "vast majority" of courts in the Southern
District have required that loss causation only meet the notice of
requirement of Rule 8.  The Court then turned to plaintiffs'
argument that four alleged corrective disclosures made by
defendants revealed the truth behind the alleged misrepresentations
and were purportedly followed by dips in the Company's stock price,
and as a result demonstrated loss causation.  The Court rejected
that theory as to the first two alleged corrective disclosures,
noting that the alleged misstatements were not false, and that even
if they were, the corrective disclosures did not relate to the
alleged misrepresentations concerning historical survival rates.
Similarly, the Court rejected the third alleged corrective
disclosure that one of the clinical trial sites may not have been
in compliance with certain good clinical practices.  The Court
found that such disclosure "did nothing to 'reveal'[] the truth
behind the alleged fraud," because the disclosure did not relate to
the alleged misstatement and the Company had never disclosed that
any patients were excluded from the study because of such good
clinical practices violations.  With respect to the last alleged
corrective disclosure—that the last phase of the trial
failed—the Court found that the "allegations merely parrot those
already found to be insufficient" in the initial complaint and that
"nothing in th[e] disclosure relates to [any] actionable
misrepresentation."  The Court thus determined that plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently allege loss causation as to any of the
alleged misstatements.

Noting that Section 20(a) claims are dependent on the viability of
the Section 10(b) claims, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice and marked the case closed. [GN]


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Breached Disabilities Act, Allen & Mullen Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Allen and Bartley Michael Mullen Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet,
Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00281-JFC (W.D. Pa., March 14, 2019),
accuses the defendant of violating Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations.

The Defendant positions a host of obstructions, including
merchandise displays, stocking carts, bins, dollies, and ladders so
that they block or narrow the aisle pathways of its stores. Allen
and Mullen claim that the facilities of Ollie's Bargain Outlet,
Inc. are not fully accessible to and independently usable by
individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters.  The Plaintiffs invoke
their statutory rights to declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as costs and attorneys' fees.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. is a domestic corporation
headquartered at 6295 Allentown Boulevard, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17112.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
     Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh PA, 15222
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
             kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
             eavery@carlsonlynch.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation
firm representing investors nationwide, on Feb. 25 disclosed that
it has filed a securities fraud class action against Perrigo
Company plc. ("PRGO" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRGO) and certain of
its officers. The firm encourages shareholders to contact Block &
Leviton LLP ahead of the March 4, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007,
captioned Masih v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00070, alleges that on December 20, 2018, Perrigo issued a
Form 8-K disclosing that the Company had received an audit finding
letter from the Irish tax authorities on October 30, 2018 asserting
"that IP sales transactions… including the sale of Tysabri(R),
were not part of the trade of Elan Pharma and therefore should have
been treated as chargeable gains subject to an effective 33% tax
rate, rather than the 12.5% tax rate applicable to trading
income."

While Perrigo had disclosed the existence of the audit finding
letter to investors on November 8, 2018, the Company failed to
disclose material details associated with the audit finding letter
at that time.

Following the publication of the December 20, 2018 8-K, Perrigo's
stock price plunged almost 25%.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo securities
between November 8, 2018 and December 20, 2018 and have questions
about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at
(617) 398-5660, (888) 868-2385, by email at info@blockesq.com, or
by visiting http://shareholder.law/perrigo.

Block & Leviton LLP -- https://blockesq.com -- 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. [GN]


PETROMAR INTERNATIONAL: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
James Murray, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Petromar International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00800 (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2019) seeks to recover
on behalf of himself and the Class Members all unpaid wages and
other damages owed to them under the Fair Labor Standard Act of
1938 ("FLSA"). The case is a collective action seeking to remedy
the extensive and sweeping violations of the wage and hour
provisions which the Defendant has integrated as its standard
payment policies, and for violations which have deprived Mr. Murray
and the Class Members of their lawfully earned wages.

The Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to
pay its employees overtime and minimum wage. Consequently, the
Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of the mandate that
non-exempt employees, such as Mr. Murray and the Class Members, be
paid one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single week and be paid a minimum wage
per hour, says the complaint.

Plaintiff James Murray is an individual who resides in Harris
County, Texas and worked for Defendant during the last three
years.

Petromar International, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     4409 Montrose Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


PG&E: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Hurt Wildfire Victims
---------------------------------------------------------
George Avalos, writing for The Mercury News, reports that a group
of Butte County wildfire victims have filed a class action
complaint against PG&E as part of the embattled utility's
bankruptcy case, but a 50-year-old court ruling could place
wildfire victims near the bottom of the stack of priorities in
PG&E's insolvency proceeding, according to a market researcher and
a Bay Area bankruptcy expert.

A 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in connection with a fire that
burned down an industrial building, if applied to the PG&E
bankruptcy case, potentially would place the claims of the victims
of the infernos of recent years at a lower priority than victims of
any PG&E-caused wildfires that began after the company's bankruptcy
filing this year.

"Any wildfire victims whose claims arise -- meaning, their property
catches on fire -- from the date of PG&E's bankruptcy onward will
have first priority in the bankruptcy case," said Jared Ellias, a
bankruptcy expert and law professor with the UC Hastings College of
the Law. This news organization asked Professor Mr. Ellias to
assess whether that 1968 Supreme Court decision could come into
play in the PG&E bankruptcy case which is being supervised by U.S.
Bankruptcy Court Judge Dennis Montali.

That would produce an inferior status for the claims of victims of
fires that occurred in 2017, such as the infernos that scorched the
North Bay Wine Country and nearby regions; and the 2018 wildfire
that roared through Butte County and essentially destroyed the town
of Paradise, he said.

"The 2017 and 2018 wildfire victims as well as any other
pre-bankruptcy creditor, including the bondholders," would be
treated as unsecured claims with a status well behind fires that
might occur in 2019, 2020 or 2021, during the course of the
bankruptcy case, according to Mr. Ellias.

PG&E listed $51.69 billion in debts and $71.39 billion in assets in
its Jan. 29 bankruptcy filing, seeking to reorganize its shattered
finances that have been overshadowed by a mountain of potential
liabilities arising from the lethal infernos of the last two
years.

"To the extent that 2019 is a bad wildfire season, the 2019 victims
could end up draining PG&E of a lot of value" that might otherwise
have gone to the victims of 2017 and 2018, Ellias said.

This sort of outcome could generate plenty of controversy,
according to a Wyco Researcher assessment posted on the Seeking
Alpha investment site.

"From a political standpoint, there is going to be public outrage
that 2019 (and as long as PG&E is in Ch.11) wildfire victims must
be paid in full, but victims from 2017 and 2018 may get less than
full recovery under a reorganization plan because they are in a
lower priority class of unsecured claims," stated Wyco Researcher,
an investment research firm.

The forbidding outlook for those harmed by previous infernos has
emerged at the same time that victims of the November 2018 Camp
Fire in Butte County have lodged a class action complaint against
PG&E. The class action was filed with the bankruptcy court on Feb.
13.

The litigation claims that PG&E failed to properly maintain its
aging electricity and power transmission system and didn't take
preventative measures such as de-energizing power lines during
hazardous conditions.

"PG&E's dereliction of these duties resulted in the deadliest and
most destructive wildfire in California history," according to the
class action complaint that was made part of the PG&E bankruptcy
case.

"Judge's actions don't ensure safety" of PG&E electricity system
The class action claimed that PG&E was negligent, caused a private
and public nuisance, violated state laws, and violated health and
safety codes. The litigation also seeks to apply a California
doctrine called inverse condemnation, whereby PG&E and other major
power companies in the state could be strictly liable if their
equipment was a substantial cause of a fire, even if the
utility followed established inspection and safety rules.

David Herndon, Julia Herndon, Gabriell Herndon, Jedidiah Herndon
and Estafania Miranda, all Butte County residents, were listed as
the principal plaintiffs in the class action arising from the Camp
Fire, bankruptcy court records show.

"This catastrophe was preventable," the class action claimed, the
court papers show. [GN]


PRIMARK: Settles ADA Breach Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Paul, writing for The Irish Times, reports that Primark, the
Irish-run international fashion retailer that operates here as
Penneys, has in recent weeks agreed to settle a US lawsuit that
claimed its consumer website discriminates against the
visually-impaired.

A raft of US consumer-facing businesses have been hit with similar
cases in the past two years, over allegations that their websites
breach the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark piece
of US federal equality legislation.

Primark, which is making a major push into the US market after
opening nine stores there, was caught up in a class action lawsuit
filed in New York late last year.

A visually-impaired New York resident, Luc Burbon, launched the
suit against the retailer, which she alleges breached the ADA due
to the design of its website, and therefore discriminates against
blind people.

In documents filed as part of the court case, she explained that
many of the 8.1 million visually-impaired people in the US are only
able to access websites using screen-reading software, such as
Jaws, which translates text and descriptions of graphics into
audio, or displays it on a refreshable braille unit. [GN]


PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------
Inside Self Storage reports that Public Storage Inc., a
self-storage real estate investment trust and third-party
management firm, is facing a $100 million class-action lawsuit from
past customers who claim they were forced to buy tenant insurance
from the company as a condition of renting a unit. This video
discusses the case, including the company's arguments for why the
class should be decertified. [GN]


SAG MARBLE: Marti Seeks Overtime Pay for Granite Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO MARTI, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), v. SAG MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., MIGUEL A. GUTIERREZ
and ALMA A. GUTIERREZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00453 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess
of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after September 2017
without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was marble and granite installer. The Plaintiff began
his employment earning $10.00 an hour and his last wage rate was
$15.00 an hour. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff had
an irregular schedule. The Plaintiff worked 5 or 6 days per week
from Mondays to Saturdays, and he always worked more than 40 hours
in a week period. The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid for all
his hours at regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours
at the rate of time and on half his regular rate.

The Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours every week period,
but he was not paid for overtime hours. Therefore, the Defendant
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of
time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a construction company specialized in marble and
granite work for commercial and residential customers.[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

SANTA MONICA: Removes Valentine Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Holding Company GP LLC
removed case, TERRY VALENTINE, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly-situated employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of
California, the Plaintiff, vs. REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA
MONICA HOLDING COMPANY GP, LLC; REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA
MONICA OPERATING COMPANY, LP; MARINER HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.; MARINER HEALTH CENTRAL; INC.;
and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Case No. 18STCV09282 (Dec. 21,
2018), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. The Central District
of California Court ClerK Assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01300 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint purports to allege claims for relief
against Defendants stemming from Defendants' alleged procurement of
consumer reports on Plaintiff and other individuals. The Plaintiff
bases her claims on alleged violations by Defendants of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as the FCRA's California
counterpart, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          David Rosenberg, Esq.
          John Drury, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  drosenberg@seyfarth.com
                  jdrury@seyfarth.com

SCHELL & KAMPETER: Jackson et al. Sue over Contaminated Pet Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, CONSTANCE JACKSON and GWEN KASZYNSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SCHELL
& KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a DIAMOND PET FOODS, and DIAMOND PET FOODS
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01459 (N.D. Ill.. Feb. 28,
2019), seeks injunctive and monetary relief as a result of
Defendants' negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of
misrepresenting, failing to test for, and failing to fully disclose
the risk and/or presence of heavy metals, toxins, Bisphenol A
("BPA"), and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform
to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements of products
sold throughout the United States.

According to the complaint, aware of the health risks and
environmental damage caused by processed and chemical-laden foods,
consumers increasingly demand foods for themselves and for their
pets that possess high quality ingredients and are free of
contaminants, toxins, chemicals and/or other unnatural ingredients.
The Defendants know that certain consumers seek out and wish to
purchase premium pet foods that possess high quality ingredients
and do not contain chemicals, toxins contaminants chemicals and
other unnatural ingredients, and that these consumers will pay more
for pet foods that they believe possess these qualities than for
pet foods that they do not believe possess these qualities.

As such, the Defendants' promises, warranties, pricing, statements,
claims, packaging, labeling, marketing, and advertising center on
representations and pictures that are intended to, and do, convey
to consumers that their pet food, including their Contaminated Dog
Food, possess certain qualities and characteristics that justify a
premium price.

However, the Defendants' Marketing is deceptive, misleading,
unfair, and/or false because, among other things, the Contaminated
Dog Food includes undisclosed Heavy Metals, pesticides, acrylamide,
bisphenol A ("BPA") and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do
not conform to the labels.

The Defendants' Contaminated Dog Food does not have a disclaimer
regarding the presence of Heavy Metals, pesticides, acrylamide,
BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to
the labels or that these toxins can accumulate over time in the
dog's body to the point where poisoning, injury, and/or disease can
occur.

Consumers lack the scientific knowledge necessary to determine
whether the Products do in fact contain Heavy Metals, pesticides,
acrylamide, BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not
conform to the labels and to know or to ascertain the true
ingredients and quality of the Products, the lawsuit says.

Schell & Kampeter, Inc., doing business as Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.,
manufactures pet foods. It offers dog and cat products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Seeks OT Pay for Calif. Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Arango, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive Case
No. 30-2019-01056839-CU-OE-CXC (Calif. Super., Orange Cty., March
14, 2019), seeks compensation for the defendant's alleged
violations of California Business and Professions Code, California
Labor Code, and Private Attorneys General Act, and the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a
California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously
were employed by Defendant in California and classified as
non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning on the
date four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on
the date as determined by the Court.  The amount in controversy for
the aggregate claim of the California Class Members is under
$5,000,000.

Plaintiff wants the defendant to fully compensate the California
Class for their losses incurred during the California Class Period
caused by the defendant's uniform policy and practice which failed
to lawfully compensate these employees for all their overtime
worked.

Schlumberger Technology, founded in 1926, provides technology for
reservoir characterization, drilling, production, and processing to
the oil and gas industry. It also offers data management software
products and computing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: (858)551-1223
     Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
     Website: www.bamlawca.com


SHREVEPORT, LA: Water, Sewer Overcharges Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KTBS3abcOnYourSide reports that a lawsuit alleging the city of
Shreveport knowingly overbilled water and sewer customers qualifies
as a class action and is proceeding to determine the city's
liability, according to a law firm that's handling the legal
action.

District Judge Michael Pitman issued the ruling in the lawsuit
originally filed in August by The Haven Property Owners Association
and Briarwood Apartments.

A state sales tax imposed in 2015 -- collected by municipalities
that are to send the money on to the state -- allows taxation of
water usage but does not apply to sewage. Shreveport collected on
both for a while before the error was discovered.

The lawsuit alleges the city collected the two sales taxes from
July 2015 to late 2017 and didn't refund the sewer tax, even after
finding the error.

The city has denied liability for the overcharges but in September
began sending refunds to some of the customers with large accounts.
About 6,000 accounts were expected to be refunded a total of $1.4
million.

The Harper Law Firm, represented by Jerry Harper and Anne Wilkes,
has been court-approved as class counsel to represent the interests
of the class members. Those members may consult with the approved
counsel or hire their own lawyers for advice.

The court still must approve notices to be sent to all Shreveport
water and sewer who were affected during the time period the taxes
were collected. They'll be informed of their rights to participate
in the class action lawsuit or decline to do so.

The notices should be mailed and published within the next few
weeks, according to the law firm.

The lawsuit seeks to recover amounts overpaid by Shreveport
commercial and industrial water and sewer customers, interest and
attorney's fees. A trial date for the liability phase of the suit
has not been set.

Depositions are scheduled in March for city officials to answer
questions such as the sewer quantity charge, sewer customer charge
and security fee.

They also are being asked why the city did not begin issuing
reimbursements until Sept. 7 and to explain why not all refunds
have been given.

A second class action lawsuit against the city alleging overcharges
of all of the city's residential water and sewer customers has been
filed and is pending class certification in the First Judicial
District Court. [GN]


SMASHBURGER IP: Galvan Sues over Mislabeled Triple Double Burgers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMASHBURGER IP HOLDER LLC; SMASHBURGER
FRANCHISING LLC; and JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00993-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2019) is a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Smashburger's Triple
Double, Bacon Triple Double, and Pub Triple Double burgers,
alleging violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair
Competition Law, fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, Smashburger promotes its Triple Double
Burgers as containing "Double the Beef." However, contrary to this
statement, Triple Double Burgers actually include two patties that
are each half the size of the patties of Smashburger's
regular-sized Classic Smash burgers. Therefore, Triple Double
Burgers contain the same amount of beef as Smashburger's
regular-sized Classic Smash burgers, not "double" the beef.

Smashburger's false and misleading use of its "Double the Beef"
taglines, such as "Triple the Cheese, Double the Beef in Every
Bite," "Triple the Cheese, Double the Beef, Triple the Options,"
and "Classic Smash Beef Build with triple the cheese & double beef
in every bite," are thus likely to confuse and mislead the
consuming public by causing consumers to believe incorrectly that
Smashburger's products sold under these slogans include twice the
beef of Smashburger's regular-sized Classic Smash burgers, which
they do not.

Smashburger IP Holder LLC is a Delaware corporation, operating and
franchising a chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in
hamburger and cheeseburger sandwiches and other products and
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Blair E. Reed, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975-0512
          Facsimile: (949) 975-0514
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                  adhoover@reichradcliffe.com


SPECIALTY LAWN: Petty Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Petty, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. William D. Wells, and Specialty Lawn Care, Inc.,
doing business as US Lawns of Terre Haute, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00112-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 6, 2019) is a collective
action against Wells and Specialty pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), for minimum wage and overtime pay
violations.

Wells and Specialty failed and refused to pay Petty overtime
compensation for all hours which Petty worked in excess of forty
hours per week, notes the complaint. Wells and Specialty have
similarly failed and refused to pay other employees overtime
compensation for such work. Wells and Specialty have intentionally
and knowingly violated their employees' right to earned wages
through their illegal practices regarding minimum wages and
overtime compensation and continues to do so, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff Petty worked for Wells and Specialty until October of
2018 at which time he resigned his position. He is no longer an
employee of either.

Wells and Specialty are engaged in the business of providing lawn
care services under the name of US Lawns of Terre Haute located at
2793 W. U.S. Hwy 40, Brazil, IN, 47834.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
     HUNT, HASSLER, LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
     100 Cherry Street
     Terre Haute, IN 47807
     Phone: (812) 232-9691
     Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
     Email: hunt@huntlawfirm.net


SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nancy Schlieser, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrise Senior Living
Management, Inc., a Virginia corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01044809-CU-OE-CXC was
removed from the Orange County Superior Court, State of California
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on March 6, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00443.

Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on behalf of a "all current
and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of
California at any time within the period beginning 4 years prior to
the filing of this action and ending at the time this action
settles or proceeds to final judgment."

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that putative class members
are entitled to unpaid wages, premiums for missed meal periods and
rest breaks, penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages due
at termination, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
     Ashley Allyn, Esq.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     3161 Michelson Drive
     Irvine, CA 92612-4412
     Phone: 949.451.3800
     Facsimile: 949.451.4220
     Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
            aallyn@gibsondunn.com

          - and -

     Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20036-5306
     Phone: 202.955.8500
     Facsimile: 202.467.0539
     Email: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com


TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tate & Kirlin
Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robin Matthias,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00182-slc (W.D. Wis., Mar. 8,
2019).

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

Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. provides debt collection services.
The company's clientele ranges from financial and retail credit
communities to the medical and commercial industries.

LVNV Funding LLC, ("LVNV") purchases portfolios of both domestic
(U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors
including banks and finance companies, and by other debt
buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Joseph Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Mary Elizabeth Philipps, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2900
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            angie@philippslegal.com
            mephilipps@aol.com


TESLA INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Tentatively Set for June 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla 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  hearing on the
motion to dismiss the securities suits related to Elon Musk's
August 7, 2018 Twitter post is tentatively set for June 20, 2019.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport
to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related
to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Tesla's securities.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of
directors. Defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint on or before March 7, 2019.  

The hearing on the motion to dismiss is tentatively set for June
20, 2019.  

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TESLA INC: Suits over Model 3 Vehicle Production Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Tesla 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 a purported stockholder class action lawsuits
related to the company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles.


On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court
granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018.

Tesla said, "We will file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on February 15, 2019.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set
for March 1, 2019.  We believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."

On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder
class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers
in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding
the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end
of 2017 in connection with such offering, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla
thereafter removed the case to federal court.  

On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in
state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla,
Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before
the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed
federal court case.  

On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in the above earlier
filed case.

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide.  Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


TEVA PHARMA: Failed to Warn over Opioids Risks, Kassab Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, ADAM C. KASSAB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
GD-18-012337 (Penn. Ct of Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty.), seeks to
hold the Defendants accountable for the economic harm they have
imposed on Pennsylvania purchasers of private health insurance.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1999, there have
been more than 183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide --
more than three times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the
Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the
heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates
state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and
private companies as much as $500 billion per year.

Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription
opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers.
The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive
marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids
to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Manufacturer Defendants
falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits,
and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have
been. The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer
Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of
deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the
opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible
prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and
communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the
Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct
result of the harms they imposed.

The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations
about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and
sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence.
Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendant Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have entered agreements prohibiting them
from making misrepresentations identified in this Complaint in
other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants
continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid
use in Pennsylvania, and they have not corrected their past
misrepresentations.

The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements
deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of
opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate,
but necessary to treat chronic pain. The Manufacturer Defendants
targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and
vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. And
they tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for
guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education
programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific
articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the way
doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid
prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed
class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the
Manufacturer Defendants every year.

In addition, the Distributor Defendant could and should have
prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed the
country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under federal law,
distributors are required to secure and monitor drugs as they
travel through commerce, to protect them from theft, and to reject
and report suspicious or unusual orders by downstream pharmacies,
doctors, or patients. But the Distributor Defendant neglected this
duty, turning a blind eye to known or knowable problems in its own
supply chains. By doing so, the Distributor Defendant created
conditions in which vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the
Manufacturer Defendants to abusers and drug dealers -- with the
Distributor Defendant readily fulfilling suspicious orders from
pharmacies and ignoring red flags that would require further
investigation and resolution.

This behavior by the Distributor Defendant has allowed massive
amounts of opioids to be diverted from legitimate channels of
distribution into the illicit black market, fueling the opioid
epidemic. The Distributor Defendant created an environment in which
drug diversion can flourish. For years, the Distributor Defendant
had the ability to substantially reduce the death toll and adverse
economic consequences of opioid diversion but opted to pursue
corporate revenues instead. All of the Defendants in this action
share responsibility for creating, sustaining, and prolonging the
opioid epidemic.

The explosion in opioid prescriptions and use has created a public
health crisis in Pennsylvania. An oversupply of prescription
opioids has provided a source for illicit use or sale of opioids,
while their widespread use has created a population of addicted and
dependent patients. When those patients can no longer afford or
legitimately obtain opioids, they often turn to the street to buy
prescription opioids or even heroin. In addition to the societal
impact of deaths, overdoses, and rampant addiction, Defendants'
conduct has created higher demand and thus higher prices for
opioids, as well as the need for expensive medical treatment for a
number of covered health conditions, resulting in increased
insurance costs for Pennsylvania residents.

Defendants' conduct has fueled skyrocketing opioid addiction and
opioid-related deaths and emergency treatments, and has generated
huge sales of opioids at inflated prices. The direct and proximate
consequence of Defendants' misconduct is that every Pennsylvania
purchaser of private health insurance paid higher premiums,
co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies have considerable
market power and pass onto their insureds the expected cost of
future care -- including opioid-related coverage. Accordingly,
insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and exorbitant
healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants
and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher premiums,
deductibles, and co-payments, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          SCOTT LAW
          1806 Frick Building
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-338-8632
          E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 243 9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com
                  park@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741 5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com

TNT CABLE: Rougeau Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------
ROWLAND J. ROUGEAU, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TNT CABLE CONTRACTORS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 28,
2019), alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as an
"independent contractor," and failed to pay him overtime wages when
he worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff as well as the similarly situated employees are the
Defendant's current and former Technicians who worked for the
Defendant within the last three years. The Defendant's pay
practices and policies applied not only to the Plaintiff, but also
to all Class Members.

TNT controlled the Plaintiff's conditions of employment. For
instance, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members were required
to report to TNT's warehouse in Lafayette, Louisiana in the
mornings by approximately 7:15 a.m. - 7:30 a.m. At the warehouse,
the Plaintiff would get his route for the day and was required to
get the equipment and supplies he would need in order to complete
the job orders given to him by TNT.

In addition, TNT, directly or indirectly, set the price that the
Plaintiff and the other Class Members would get paid for the
services they provided. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Class Members
set the price of their services. TNT required the Plaintiff and the
other Class Members to comply with various rules and regulations as
a condition of working for TNT.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a "piece rate" or "job rate"
basis -- and did not include an overtime premium payment for any
hours worked in excess of forty each week, the lawsuit says.

TNT provides cable installation and repair services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

TOTAL AIRPORT: Nedialkova Sues over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN NEDIALKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL AIRPORT SERVICES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02300 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Feb.
21, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and the putative Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) Class members have continuously and
repeatedly been exposed to risks, harmful conditions, and
violations of privacy through the Defendant's violations of BIPA.

The case is a class action under the BIPA, on behalf of all persons
in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly collected,
captured, received, or otherwise obtained by TAS. the Plaintiff
began working for Defendant in May 2015 and was an employee of
Defendant through June 2017. The Plaintiffs final position with
Defendant was working in its Customer Service Department.

According to the complaint, in or around 2016, TAS installed and
implemented the use of a biometric scanner. The Plaintiff, and all
other members of the putative BIPA Class, was required to have her
fingerprint collected and/or captured so that TAS could store it
and use it moving forward as an authentication method.

The Defendant failed to maintain or publicize information about its
biometric practices or policies; and failed to provide the
Plaintiff or, upon information and belief, any member of the
putative BIPA Class, with information about its policies or
practices. The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff or, any
member of the putative BIPA Class, with written notice of the fact
that it was collecting biometric information prior to collection.
The Defendant failed to obtain prior written consent from the
Plaintiff or any putative BIPA Class member before it collected,
stored, or used those individuals' biometric information.

Each day, the Plaintiff and the putative BIPA Class members were
each required to place their finger on a panel to be scanned in
order to 'clock in' and 'clock out' of work. TAS did not inform the
Plaintiff of the specific purposes or length of time for which it
collected, stored, or used her fingerprint. TAS did not inform the
Plaintiff of any biometric data retention policy developed by
Defendant, nor has she ever been informed of whether TAS will ever
permanently delete her fingerprint.

The Plaintiff was not provided with nor ever signed a written
release allowing TAS to collect or store her fingerprint. The
Plaintiffs experiences as described above are typical and
representative of the experiences of the putative BIPA Class, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880

TW CONSTRUCTION: Alameda, Perez Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Angel Pantoja Alameda and Jaime Marin Perez, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. TW Construction, Inc.
d/b/a TW Outdoor Services, Case No. 2:19-cv-01070-CDJ (E.D. Pa.,
March 14, 2019), seeks all relief available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and
Pennsylvania common law.

Plaintiffs work substantially more than 40 hours per week for the
Defendant, yet they are not paid proper overtime premiums. They
also claim that TW took unauthorized deductions from their
salaries.

TW, which maintains its operational headquarters in Morrisville,
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, provides landscaping, parking lot and
street sweeping, and snow removal services in Pennsylvania and
surrounding states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
     E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             crodriguez@bm.net

          - and –

     Alia Al-Khatib, Esq.
     Kathryn Brown, Esq.
     Liz Chacko, Esq.
     JUSTICE AT WORK, INC.
     990 Spring Garden Street, Suite 300
     Philadelphia, PA 19123
     Telephone: (215) 733-0878
     Facsimile: 215-733-0876
     E-mail: aal-khatib@justiceatworklegalaid.org
             kbrown@justiceatworklegalaid.org
             lchacko@justiceatworklegalaid.org

          - and –

     Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
     WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
     1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 656-3600
     Facsimile: (215) 567-2310


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Terror Watchlist
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burke, writing for The Hill, reports that the federal
government shares its terrorist watchlist with more than 1,400
private groups, according to court papers reported on by The
Associated Press.

The AP reported on Feb. 19 that Timothy Groh, the deputy director
of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), said in a written
statement to a federal court that 1,441 private entities can access
the watchlist, which is compiled by the center.

Groh's statement came as part of a class-action lawsuit in federal
court in Alexandria, Va., brought by Muslims who say they have been
wrongly included on the list.

To have access to the watchlist, the groups must be linked to the
criminal justice system, Groh said, according to the AP. He
reportedly pointed to police at private universities, security
staff at hospitals and private correctional facilities as examples
of groups who have access.

The FBI did not immediately return a request for comment to The
Hill.

The government has previously denied disseminating the list to
private groups, the AP noted. The AP reported that government
lawyer Dena Roth said at a pretrial hearing last year that the TSC
"does not work with private partners, and that watchlist status
itself . . . is considered law enforcement sensitive information
and is not shared with the public."

Gadeir Abbas, an attorney with the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, told the AP that the government's use of the watchlist
is shocking.

"We've always suspected there was private-sector dissemination of
the terror watchlist, but we had no idea the breadth of the
dissemination would be so large," Mr. Abbas said.

Mr. Abbas and other attorneys have asked a judge to force the
government to provide more details on which private groups are
accessing the watchlist and how those groups are using the list,
according to the AP.

Mr. Abbas also told the AP that the list has so many incorrect
names that it is essentially a collection of "innocent Muslims who
have never committed a crime."

"It is a fool's errand," Mr. Abbas said. "They are trying to
predict, among the innocent, which people will be terrorists. That
is an impossibility." [GN]


UNITED STATES: VA Faces Class Action Over Emergency Care Denials
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSAW reports that Department of Veteran Affairs representatives
said only a single $12 reimbursement has been paid under the law
meant to stop the VA from denying payment for non-VA emergency
care, a congressional aide familiar with specifics of a meeting
between congressional staff and the VA tells 7 Investigates.

The revelation comes nearly three years after 7 Investigates first
exposed a loophole leaving thousands of Wisconsin veterans, and
hundreds of thousands of veterans nationally, improperly charged
for emergency care.

That law is called the Staab Rule.

Today, the veteran behind the national case that changed the law
still remains without a refund from the U.S. Dept. of Veterans
Affairs.

Richard Staab's life-threatening emergency

"It's wrong. I think it's wrong," 86-year-old Minnesota Airforce
veteran Richard Staab told 7 Investigates Senior Investigative
Reporter Matthew Simon. The exclusive interview comes nearly a
decade after Mr. Staab's long legal struggle began -- on a day back
in December 2010.

"Well, the heart was pounding. And I thought if I would sit down
and rest, it would go away. But it didn't. So they called the
ambulance," Mr. Staab said.

It would end up being life-threatening. Mr. Staab would survive
emergency open heart surgery at a non-VA hospital in St. Cloud,
Minn., after suffering a heart attack and stroke. He could not
communicate for months.

"They told me I'd be lucky if I got out in a year when I was in the
nursing home. I said, 'Oh no, I'll be out of here in six months.'
And I was," Mr. Staab said.

When it came time to pay his bills, the VA cited the federal
Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act. The law includes directing
how the agency is expected to reimburse veterans for non-VA
emergency care.

Under their interpretation of that law, the VA said because Mr.
Staab had Medicare as other insurance covering part of his non-VA
emergency care, they would not reimburse him for any of the
remaining $48,000 in bills.

"It's wrong what happened. And I don't see how all the GIs would
know what you need to do to be covered," Mr. Staab said.

Looking back at some of his basic training pictures from 1952, as
the Korean War veteran recalled his current VA struggle, he also
remembered the promise his country made to him.

"You enlist with us. You get to have all health care taken care of.
And this, and that. That was the big thing back then,"
Mr. Staab said.

A Nearly Decade Long Legal Fight

A large part of Mr. Staab's story can symbolically be seen in Mr.
Staab's lawyer Jackie Schuh's St. Cloud, Minn. Office.

Mr. Schuh is a veteran herself. This mission is personal. Multiple
legal filings, medical records, and appeal pleadings show the
journey of VA denials representing the Staab case for most of the
last eight years.

"There's nobody that should be put in the position that he's been
put in where they have to come up with $48,000 to pay for emergency
fees," Mr. Schuh said. "When they are promised when they sign the
dotted line or do their 20 years that they're going to be free from
that result. It's ridiculous."

"So it's got to be fixed. I mean it's sad to say what has been
promised to Dick, and all the other veterans who have that vested
benefit, is not what they're receiving," the lawyer added.

After years of legal fights, in 2016 the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled in Mr. Staab's favor.

Judges said back in 2010, when Congress had changed the law, they
intended for the VA to act as a "secondary payer," when veterans'
other health insurance only covered part of their non-VA emergency
treatment.

Last year, what was thought to be a final clarification of this
statute called the 'Staab Rule,' named after Richard Staab, was
finally put into law.

"And so the Staab Rule made it unconstitutional, or perhaps illegal
is a better way to say it, to have the VA implement denials
internally when the law required they grant the request for
coverage," Mr. Schuh said.

VA's history: not answering refund questions

During the course of this 7 Investigates three-year investigation,
a House Veterans Affairs Committee spokesperson confirmed in
January 2018, more than one million Staab Rule-related veterans'
claims were waiting to be processed.

However, that number differs from VA spokesperson Randal Noller's
confirmation in February 2018. Mr. Noller said 217,000 veterans are
impacted nationally -- which included 5,442 Wisconsin veterans.
Refunds, Mr. Noller said at that time, would add between $165
million and $298 million to their budget during the next five
calendar years.

However, an unnamed VA Public Affairs spokesperson told 7
Investigates in October 2018 that once the Staab Rule was published
and all claims were processed, they could not answer how many
veterans had been refunded.

"These claims became part of our normal workload," the VA Public
Affairs email said. "They are not tracked separately."

In February 2018, Mr. Noller could not answer how many veterans
waiting for refunds had died.

"The VA is unable to determine how many Veterans with denied claims
since 2010 have died," Mr. Noller wrote.

That is significant. Under federal law, once a veteran dies their
benefit dies with them.

Publication of Staab: An unforeseen obstacle

Mr. Staab's story is also personal for National Veterans Legal
Services Program, or NVLSP Executive Director Bart Stichman.

He previously was part of the team representing Mr. Staab
nationally, and is now fighting the VA's emergency care denials
with a class action lawsuit.

While Mr. Staab's court victory specified the VA has to pay the
remainder of a non-VA emergency bill, even if a veteran has other
insurance, the NVLSP claims that is not happening and says the VA
is rejecting claims anyway.

"The problem with the new regulation is the VA came up with a
different reason for why they shouldn't reimburse veterans who have
some private insurance," Mr. Stichman said.

The class action suit also claims the VA circumvented Congress by
adding the words "deductibles and coinsurance" to the part of the
Staab Rule allowing the VA to not cover co-payments.

"And the VA is trying to drive a Mack truck through that minor
exception. So that everything you could possibly reimburse a
veteran for, is not subject to reimbursement," Mr. Stichman said.

Staab: Life is a battle

Even after Richard Staab had a law named after him, he still does
not have his refund.

"Should you cry for all the other servicemen who haven't got their
just?" Mr. Staab asked. "It's just not me. It's all the other
ones."

Based on his case, he and his lawyer do not think any other veteran
has a refund either.

"I'm angry about the whole thing. I'm angry for my client. I'm
angry for the thousands of others," Mr. Schuh said. "This impacts
every military member. Past. Currently serving. And in the future,
until it's fixed,"

Mr. Schuh says to look no further than Mr. Staab surviving another
stroke in 2017. The VA is now using his own law, the Staab Rule, to
cite cost shares or deductibles associated with his other health
insurance to reject payment for his non-VA emergency care.

"I just can't believe, in my heart, that that would've been
Congress' intent," Mr. Schuh added.

So Richard Staab, this one Minnesota veteran, chooses to continue
fighting this epic battle—hoping that someday he, and the
hundreds of thousands of other veterans he represents, will finally
see justice.

"Life is a battle, isn't it?" Mr. Staab said matter-of-factly, with
a veterans' conviction in his voice. "And you've got to have hope.
You made the right decisions. And let's face it. Not everything
goes that smooth."

Calling for a law change

Mr. Staab's lawyer and NVLSP, the national group behind this class
action lawsuit, say if the claim is unsuccessful, than the law
needs to be changed. They say Mr. Staab's story shows how major
loopholes remain within this system.

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin's office tells 7 Investigates that
Baldwin is working with the NVLSP "on a legislative fix that would
strike the provision in the law that the VA is misinterpreting to
not pay for emergency care costs that veterans' other insurance
plans don't cover."

During the last three years, 7 Investigates has also shared stories
of veterans, with only VA insurance, afraid to go to their closest
ER because of inconsistent billing messages from VA
representatives.

Sen.  Baldwin's office said once the VA makes an update to what's
called their "Access Standards" early this month, the senator's
office plans to submit comments asking the VA to pay for all
emergency room visits.

The senator's office said if the VA does not comply when they
finalize their regulations, she will introduce legislation to
require them to do so.

Citing the ongoing lawsuit, representatives from VA Public Affairs
had no comment.

Congressman Sean Duffy's spokesperson Mark Bednar said because of
the lawsuit, Mr. Duffy also had no comment.

Sen. Ron Johnson's spokesperson did not return our repeated request
for a statement.

The next step

Richard Staab hopes hearing his story means more veterans join this
class action lawsuit.

He would also like to see lawmakers address the VA's 72-hour rule,
which requires veterans inform the VA within 72 hours of receiving
non-VA emergency care, or the bill might not be covered

"Well what's being forgotten is the fact that you're a serviceman.
And if all of a sudden he's in a bad way and needs hospitalization,
he's got to have enough sense to call the VA," Mr. Staab said.
[GN]


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ:VNDA) from November 4, 2015 through February 11, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Vanda investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Vanda class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1504.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 complaint, on March 10, 2017 a whistleblower
action detailing misconduct at Vanda was filed, but was not
unsealed until February 4, 2019. On February 11, 2019, private
investment firm Aurelius Value published a report revealing the
existence of the whistleblower action. The report also revealed
additional details about Vanda's misconduct, including that it had
for years fraudulently promoted its drugs, Fanapt and Hetlioz, and
engaged in a scheme to defraud the government.

Accordingly, the complaint alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which it promoted the
off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was fraudulently
receiving drug reimbursements from the government by abusing
Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a result of the
scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the government; (4) Vanda's
promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and
misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about Vanda's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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 26,
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-1504.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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]


VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Sheahan Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, 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 co-defendant in a putative class action entitled, Sheahan,
et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al.

On December 10, 2018, the company was served with a First Amended
Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California titled Sheahan, et al. v. State
Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al.  The action is brought by
California homeowners, on their own behalf and on behalf of an
unspecified putative class of State Farm policyholders whose homes
were damaged or lost during the Northern California wildfires of
2017, against State Farm as well as the company, ISO, and Xactware
Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs served a Second Amended Complaint on
January 6, 2019.  

Like the First Amended Complaint, it alleges that defendants
through the use of the company's 360Value product conspired to
under-insure plaintiffs' homes by issuing undervalued policies and
underestimating the costs of rebuilding those homes. Plaintiffs
claim that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as
California consumer protection law and common law.

Verisk said, "At this time, it is not reasonably possible to
determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability
related to, this matter."

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the
United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics
and decision support solutions to customers in rating,
underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural
resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other
fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance,
Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company
was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.


VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Ana Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Virginia Home Care Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00129, (E.D. Va., February 1, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Virginia Home Care Services is a home health care agency that
provides in-home health care services and related personal care
assistant services for children and adults primarily in the
Commonwealth of Virginia where Castillo worked as a Home Health
Aide until approximately January 2019. During her employment, she
often works between approximately 60 and 75 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Harris, Esq.
      Robert Powers, Esq.
      Dirk McClanahan, Esq.
      Zach Miller, Esq.
      MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
      8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
      Vienna, VA 22182
      Telephone: (703) 520-1326
      Facsimile: (703) 828-0205
      Email: aharris@mcplegal.com
             rpowers@mcplegal.com
             dmcclanahan@mcplegal.com
             zmiller@mcplegal.com
             ljereen@mcplegal.com


WEBER TRUCKING: Prater Seeks Overtime Pay for Truck Driver
----------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY PRATER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEBER TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. and JEFF
WEBER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00769-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
Feb. 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay
members of the Collective Class for all overtime hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a proposed collective action brought on behalf of all
former and current truck drivers of Defendants against the
Defendants. Each member of the Collective Class is or was a truck
driver of WTC at all times relevant to this action.

The members of the Collective Class were paid by the load. The
members of the Collective Class were paid on a weekly basis. The
Defendant failed to pay the members of the Collective Class all of
the overtime hours that they worked. While the members of the
Collective Class were paid overtime hours for work beyond 40 hours
in a workweek, the members of the Collective Class were not paid
overtime wages for all hours that they worked each workweek.
Rather, the Defendants would deduct time from the hours that the
Collective Class members worked each week.

Weber Trucking is trucking company providing freight transportation
services and hauling cargo. Insurance carriers from insurance
history of Weber Trucking are Great West Casualty Co., Great West
Casualty, and Quick Transport Solutions Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
          WELDY LAW
          8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
          Indianapolis, IN 46250
          Telephone: (317) 842-6600
          Facsimile: (317) 288-4013
          E-mail: weldy@weldylegal.com

WELLS FARGO: Court Okays $30MM FHA Loan Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, in an article for JDSupra, reported that
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
recently approved a class action settlement between borrowers and a
large national bank for the alleged unlawful and unfair collection
of post-payment interest on FHA loans.

In Fowler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-02092, plaintiffs
alleged that the bank collected post-payment interest on their
loans without providing the proper notice in compliance with HUD
regulations.  According to HUD regulations, banks may collect
interest after a borrower repays the full principal on his or her
FHA-insured loan if the final payment is made after the first of
the month, provided a bank discloses to the borrower this ability
using a form approved by the FHA Commissioner.  The bank allegedly
used its own unauthorized form that (1) did not fairly disclose the
terms by which the bank could collect the post-payment interest and
(2) suggested that borrowers could not avoid paying the
post-payment interest.  

The district court granted the motion for final approval of the
class action settlement.  The approved settlement included a net
settlement fund consisting of $30 million, minus the costs of
settlement administration, incentive awards, and attorneys' fees
and expenses.  Plaintiffs estimated that members of the class will
recover between $25 and $33.  The Court approved attorneys' fees of
25% of the total fund, or $7.5 million, costs in the amount of
$70,000, and incentive awards to the two named plaintiffs totaling
$12,500. [GN]


WORK NOW: Bailey et al. Sue over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, STEVIE BAILEY, TROY BYRD, AND IGNACIO GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, WORK NOW, LLC and ALG LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2019CH02218 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 19, 2019), asserts
that Defendants have not informed the Plaintiffs of any biometric
data retention policy developed by the Defendants, nor were they
informed of whether the Defendants will ever permanently delete
their fingerprints and/or handprints.

The case alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880


                            *********

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 ***