CAR_Public/190325.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 60

                            Headlines

1MJJET CORP: Underpays Waiters, Daniel Change Alleges
346 LOUNGE: Germosen Sues over Tip-Pooling, Minimum & OT Wages
62-98 REALTY: Xia et al. Seek OT Pay for Tile Installers
A2 MILK: Sarr Says Milk Product Composition Misleading
AA AND K: Valle Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages

ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Associates, Chavarin-Aguilar Alleges
ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Washington et al Seek Overtime Pay
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Winckler Says Securities Statement Misleading
ALLIANCE FIBER: April 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

AMARIN CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN FINANCE: Sued over Defective Registration Statements
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removes Jarman Suit to S.D. Illinois
AMERIPRISE AUTO: Lovelace Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges

ASLAN COLD: Underpays Drivers, Martinez Suit Alleges
AT&T MOBILITY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Owen et al. Suit in S.D. Florida
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Underway
BAYER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Class Action

BROOKLYN, NY: Warden Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions
CABLE BAHAMAS: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Service Problems
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Jensen Suit Denied
CAMPBELL SOUP: Simon Says V8+ Energy Products Packaging Misleading
CARELINK INC: Walthrust et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Health Aides

CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS: Yin et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
CEDAR SHAKE: ZRD Sues over Price Fixing of Roofing Material
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Masteller Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CHOICE HOTELS: De La Rosa Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CLIENT SERVICES: Charach Sues over Debt Collection Practices

COMBE INC: New Judge to Handle Jurisdictional Dispute
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Against Affiliate Ongoing
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Zwick Partners' Suit

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Deadline to Opt Out or Object to Deal Due May 10
COOK COUNTY, IL: Smith Sues over Juvenile Program
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burns Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Underpays Account Specialists, Duran Says
DELTA AIRLINES: Tourism Tax in Mexico Flights Illegal, Suit Says

DIRECT FUNDING: Ricco Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
ELECTROLUX HOME: Diller Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
ELI LILLY: Appeal in Strafford Class Action Still Pending
ESHAI CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Tahbout Suit Alleges
FBCS INC: Dillard Sues over Debt Collection Practices

FCA US: Grigorian Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
FUJITSU AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Castro et al. Sue over Defective 2.4L Engine
GENERAL MOTORS: Sanderlin Sues over Defective 2.4L Engine
GENERAL PROVISION: Richards Seeks All Unpaid Wages

GEO GUIDANCE: Faces Ramsey Labor Suit in Kern County
GETSWIFT: ASIC Civil Action Potentially Game-Changer
HALCON ENERGY: Appeals Jan. 30 Judgment in Vodenichar Class Suit
HI-TECH METALS: Underpays Manual Workers, Rojas Suit Claims
HIGHLAND BAKING: Underpays Line Workers, Ontiveros Suit Alleges

HYATT HOTELS: Website Lacks Features for Disable, Strojnik Claims
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued over Defective GDI-Equipped Vehicles
IAIRE LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
INOGEN INC: Fabbri Says Financial Report Misleading

J-M MANUFACTURING: Sued over Rounding of Employees' Time
JEANNIE'S DELI: Salvador et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
JH ONE PROPERTIES: Faces Suit over Unaccounted Security Deposit
KIA MOTORS: Faces Pasillas Suit over Defective GDI Engine
KLEMENT FAMILY: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

KROGER CO: Faces Murphy's ADA Suit in District of Colorado
LCL 18: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
LENNAR CORP: Daniel Brings Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Walker Suit
LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks Full Back Pay for Agents

LUCKY 2: Lewis Suit Seeks Back-pay, Damages Under FLSA
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dougan Files Securities Class Action in NJ
MARKEL CORP: Wellington Says Financial Report Misleading
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Frank Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Ct.
MATTEL INC: Wyatt Sues over Drop in Share Price

MAXWELL TECH: Phillipps Says Solicitation Statement Misleading
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla
MCLENNAN: Davis et al Say Housing Rental Services Discriminatory
MDL 2492: Hurst Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Kidd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Koronkiewicz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Moved
MDL 2492: Lott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McCall Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McKinney Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Moore Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Owens Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Perry Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
MDL 2492: Staten Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Stroud Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Thompson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wasil Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Webster Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wilson Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2741: Barnes Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Bordeaux Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Martinez Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Susak Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2804: Dawsey Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
MDL 2804: Golden Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated

MDL 2875: Longwell Suit v. Camber over Valsartan Consolidated
MDL 2879: Axelrod Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2879: Kimmel et al vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Yannacone Says Debt Collection Illegal
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: McGinnis Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Browns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gattuccio Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lundys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lutzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Maestas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Moul Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Navarro Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rowell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyders Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Murray Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries
NCAA: Schultz Sues over Safety of Concordia Student-Athletes
NEW ANSWERNET: Salon Sues over Background Checks & Unpaid Wages

NEWPORT RIB: Underpays Cooks, Rosete Suit Alleges
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gandy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NUCO2 LLC: Overcharges Customers, Townhouse Restaurant Claims
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cobra Lawsuit
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Consolidate Iron Workers & Oto Suits Underway
ORVIS COMPANY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says
P CONSTRUCTION: Rodrigues et al. Seek Overtime Premiums
PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT: Underpays Bartenders, Raczkiewicz Alleges
PENNSYLVANIA: UPMC Pinnacle Sues AG Shapiro over New Rules

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Mulhern Hits Misclassification, Seeks Damages
PHEAA: Fails to Credit Student Loan Payments, Winebarger Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Trantham Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees

PROVIDENT CREDIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkerson Claims
RADIOLOGY BOARD: Sued over Maintenance of Certification Requirement
REMEX INC: Maneri Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RENT RECOVERY: Madison Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RENT-A-TIRE LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chappel Alleges

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Sexual Abuse Victims Offended by Letter
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks
SECURUS TECH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Romero Suit
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Alper Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
SERVICOM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages

SHERLOQ REVENUE: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SI FINANCIAL: Raul Balks at Mergel Deal with Berkshire
SILVER LAKE: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims
SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
SIRENA RESTAURANT: Ayasi Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips Under NYLL

SNC-LAVALIN: Strosberg Sasso Files Class Action in Ontario
SUMMIT STAFFING: Trottier Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
TARGET CORP: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Warner Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending

TOP GOLF: Burlinski Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
TREVIS BERRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez-Alfaro Claims
UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Fox Sues Over Investment Fund Fraud
USAA CASUALTY: Faces Koehler Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
VERSUM MATERIALS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris, Inc.

VF OUTDOOR: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Garey Says
VIEGA LLC: Sued over Anticompetitive Press Fittings Market
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Potts Says Financial Report Misleading
WESTERN DENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Caldera Suit Claims
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Natural Gas Price Index Suits

WINCO HOLDINGS: Removes Petersen Case to E.D. California
[*] Class Actions Against Companies in New Zealand Increasing
[*] Mass. Companies Have Unique Exposure to Wage Class Actions

                            *********

1MJJET CORP: Underpays Waiters, Daniel Change Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1MJJET CORP., d/b/a SHANGHAI MONG; TORA YI;
JANE YI; EDDIE LEE; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01453 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiff Chang was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

1MJJET CORP., d/b/a Shanghai Mong is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean M. Solomon, Esq.
          RHA & KIM, LLP
          215-45 Northern Blvd., Suite 200
          Bayside, NY 11361
          Telephone: (718) 321-9797
          Facsimile: (718) 321-9799
          E-mail: dsolomon@rhakimlaw.com


346 LOUNGE: Germosen Sues over Tip-Pooling, Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Germosen, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. 346 LOUNGE, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 504738/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 5, 2019),
alleges that Defendant violated federal and state labor laws over
its failure to pay minimum wage, illegal retention and distribution
to tip ineligible employees of gratuities and "charges purported to
be gratuities," and failure to properly pay overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was a service employee of a restaurant owned and
operated by Defendant 346 Lounge LLC, which is located at 355 W
16th Street, New York, NY 10011. Specifically, the Plaintiff has
worked as a Busser for Defendant, and brings this class and
collective action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated tipped Bussers and Barbacks employed by
Defendant who are or were subjected to the same unlawful wage
practices.

However, the Defendant was not entitled to avail itself of the
reduced minimum wage by applying the tip credit allowance for
Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the NYLL Class, because, inter
alia, Defendant required them to share and/or pool their tips with
non-"tipped" employees such as a "sweeper" and other employees who
did not perform "tipped" duties and/or did not have meaningful
interaction with customers.

The Defendant was also not entitled to avail itself of the reduced
minimum wage because it required that Plaintiff, the FLSA
Collective and the NYLL Class perform non-tipped work for a
meaningful portion of their shifts, no less than 20% or two hours
during their shifts, whichever was less, and because they failed to
provide adequate notice regarding the tip credit. As such, the
Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and
the NYLL Class the standard hourly minimum wage rate, and not any
reduced minimum wage through application of a tip credit, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective and NYLL
Class:

          Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
          Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: ichristensen@wigdorlaw.com
                  trahman@wigdorlaw.com

62-98 REALTY: Xia et al. Seek OT Pay for Tile Installers
--------------------------------------------------------
LIJUN XIA and LIJUN YANG, individually and on behalf of all other
Employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 62-98 REALTY LLC,
SUNAMERICA REALTY GROUP, INC., MKB CONSTRUCTION USA, L.L.C., SAINT
JAMES PLACE, LLC, JEFF QIU, YANMING GU, DANNY KONG and AIYUN CHEN,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01203 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019),
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs were assigned as tile
installers. The Plaintiffs worked Monday through Saturday,
inclusive, from 6:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Plaintiffs needed to
work at least 50% of Sundays throughout their employment.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs worked eleven and one-half (11.5) hours
each day, and 74.75 hours each week. The Plaintiffs are entitled to
spread of hours premium for this stated employment period. Ever
since Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs were
paid at a fixed rate of $280.00 daily. The Plaintiffs regularly
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week but did not
receive any overtime premium of one and one half times his regular
rate of pay for those hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu

A2 MILK: Sarr Says Milk Product Composition Misleading
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Boubacar Sarr individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The A2 Milk Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01265 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019),
alleges that Defendant misrepresented nutritional and functional
significance of a2 Milk Product composition.

The A2 Milk Company produces, bottles, packages, markets,
distributes and sells milk identified as "a2 Milk".  The Products
are sold in whole, 1%, 2% and chocolate in various sized cartons,
available to consumers nationwide at grocery stores and other
retailers. The front labels contain the brand name "a2," "Feel the
Difference," "Easier on Digestion" and "Naturally Easy to Digest."

The other three sides elaborate on the front-label claims,
describing "The a2 Milk Difference" by posing the rhetorical
question below: Discomfort from milk? Ordinary cows' milk contains
a mix of A1 and A2 protein types. The a2 Milk brand comes from cows
that naturally produce only the A2 protein and no A1 -- and that
makes a big difference. Independent research shows the A1 protein
can cause you tummy discomfort. If that's you, a2 Milk may help.

Cow's milk is made up of two milk proteins -- whey and casein. Of
the 12 different types of casein proteins, the most common are
called A1 and A2. "Ordinary Milk" contains a combination of A1 and
A2 while a2 Milk exclusively contains A2. According to the research
supporting the representations, the difference in casein proteins
is manifested in the way A1 protein is broken down, creating a
peptide (protein fragment) called beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7),
believed to cause digestive issues commonly associated with dairy
products.

In contrast, the breakdown of A2 does not result in BCM-7.
According to the representations, a2 Milk's relative ease of
digestion owes to its origins as the "original" cow's milk.
Originally, cows' milk contained only one beta casein protein,
called A2. Over time, cows started to naturally produce a different
beta casein protein, called A1. More and more research suggests
this may be the reason some people say milk just doesn't agree with
them.

It is deceptive and misleading to tout the relative superiority of
the Products, based on the absence of BCM-7, when there are no
criteria for establishing potentially negative values of this
substance.

The Products' representations of their A2 content are misleading as
to their nutrient content because there are no negative effects of
A1 protein in "ordinary milk." The representations that the
Products contain more A2 than ordinary milk are misleading because
no quantification is provided with respect to the actual amount of
A2 contained in standard milk products. To the extent that the
images of the A1/A2 and A2 cows indicate the quantity of A2
contained in ordinary milk, this information is imprecise because a
consumer has no way of knowing how much A2 is contained in the
A1/A2 "ordinary milk."

The representations convey that the A2 proteins are superior in
their ability to prevent and/or limit digestive discomfort through
reliance on "independent research." In fact, the research relied
upon has been shown to be performed by groups, organizations and
researchers with close ties to defendant.

The representations that the Products are "easier to digest" is
misleading because it is misleading comparison (suffix "-ier") to
the digestibility of traditional milk. However, A2 milk and
ordinary traditional milk both contain lactose, which is the
component of milk which provides digestive difficulty to affected
persons, and the lactose content is not impacted by whether the
proteins are A1 or A2.

All reasonable scientists agree there are no detrimental effects of
A1 protein from traditional milk on human digestion and that A2
protein does not provide "easier" digestion, quantified by
gastrointestinal transit time in clinical studies of relevant
population groups. The studies purporting to support the Products'
claims that A2 proteins provide nutritional, health and functional
advantages vis-a-vis A1 proteins are poorly designed, implausible,
contrary to human physiology and represent the view of a minority
of scientists.

The Products contain other representations which are misleading and
deceptive. Excluding tax, the Products cost no less than $4.99 per
gallon and according to a 2017 news report, $9 per gallon, a
premium price compared to other similar products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

AA AND K: Valle Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
Ramon Valle, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AA and K Restoration Group, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; Katherine M. Biscardi,
individually; and, Alfred Miller, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-20873-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2019), seeks to
recover money damages and other relief brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is similarly situated to at least four other
contracted employees who work or have worked during any part of the
past three years at any of the work locations to which the
defendant employed people to clear debris occasioned by natural
disasters.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated work or worked in
accordance with their status as W-2 employees specifically
contracted to clear storm debris from areas affected by natural
disasters, and required to be paid at a negotiated base rate of
hourly pay.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were routinely required
to work long hours and even around the clock to ensure that storm
debris was removed from public areas affected by natural
disasters.

On a daily basis, because available housing in affected areas was
greatly diminished, employees were required to stay at hotels
designated by the defendant located at considerable distances from
the work locations, thus necessitating substantial travel to and
from the designated work sites and the designated housing sites
provided by the employer.

The defendant fails to keep reliable time-keeping records, but
purports to pay in round figures by direct deposit which bear no
relationship with the negotiated hourly rates for work provided by
the plaintiffs.

The defendant does not specifically or finally pay on account of
hours worked and in fact does not attempt to keep track of or
otherwise account for the number of hours worked actually worked by
them.

The defendant further avoids the responsibility of paying a minimum
and overtime wages to employees by failing to pay wages on the
negotiated and established pay day, and failing to pay at all for
the last days of an employee's tenure of employment.

On at least two pay periods, during the period of time covered by
this Complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were
paid less than necessary to cover the required minimum wage for all
hours worked during respective pay periods, and failed to at the
required premium rate for hours worked in excess of 40 on any given
workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: 305 665-9211
          Facsimile: 305 328-4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Associates, Chavarin-Aguilar Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY CHAVARIN-AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04996
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Chavarin-Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as
sales associate.

ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., doing business as Victra,
retails Verizon Wireless products and services. The company offers
smartphones and cellphones, tablets, audio products, headphones,
batteries, chargers, holders, kits, memory products, screen
protectors, and others. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Greenville, North Carolina with
additional office in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Washington et al Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
MAGUN WASHINGTON and SOLOMON BROWN on behalf of herself and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE
SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01415 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as hourly wage
workers for Acceptance. Acceptance did not pay Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees proper overtime wages of one and
one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above
40 hours in a work week. By way of example, Acceptance did not pay
Plaintiff Magun one and one-half times full regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40.

Also, the  Defendant collected Plaintiffs' and other employees'
biometric information for use in Defendant's time clock without
obtaining written consent, the lawsuit adds.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Winckler Says Securities Statement Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WINCKLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
ROBERT A. KOTICK, SPENCER NEUMANN, and COLLISTER JOHNSON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02095 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks
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 case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Activision Blizzard
securities between August 2, 2018 and January 10, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On April 29, 2010, the Company announced its entry, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Activision Publishing, Inc., into an
agreement with Bungie, Inc., the developer of blockbuster game
franchises including Halo, Myth and Marathon. The agreement with
Bungie gave Activision Blizzard exclusive rights to publish and
distribute video games developed by Bungie for the next 10 years.
The partnership between Activision Blizzard and Bungie yielded the
commercially successful Destiny franchise, a series of science
fiction-themed video games.

In September 2014, Activision Blizzard released Destiny, the first
installment in the franchise, developed by Bungie. Activision
Blizzard announced that the Company sold $500 million of Destiny
into retail stores and first parties worldwide on the first day of
its release, making the game the largest video game franchise
launch in history, at that time. Over the following two years,
Bungie developed and Activision Blizzard released four expansions
for Destiny. In September 2017, Activision Blizzard released a full
sequel, Destiny 2.  On September 15, 2017, Activision Blizzard
announced that Destiny 2 had "surpassed the original's records for
engagement and digital sales in launch week."

To date, Bungie has developed and Activision Blizzard has released
three expansions for Destiny 2. 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 termination of
Activision Blizzard and Bungie's partnership, giving Bungie full
publishing rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise,
was imminent; (ii) the termination of the two companies'
relationship would foreseeably have a significant negative impact
on Activision Blizzard's revenues; and (iii) as a result,
Activision Blizzard's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 10, 2019, Activision Blizzard and Bungie announced the
end of their business relationship. In a post on Bungie's website
entitled "Our Destiny", Bungie stated, in relevant part: "We have
enjoyed a successful eight-year run and would like to thank
Activision for their partnership on Destiny. Looking ahead, we're
excited to announce plans for Activision to transfer publishing
rights for Destiny to Bungie. With our remarkable Destiny
community, we are ready to publish on our own, while Activision
will increase their focus on owned IP projects."

The planned transition process is already underway in its early
stages, with Bungie and Activision both committed to making sure
the handoff is as seamless as possible. That same day, in an SEC
filing, Activision Blizzard stated that Bungie would "assume full
publishing rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise.
Going forward, Bungie will own and develop the franchise."

Following these announcements, the Company's stock price fell $4.81
per share, or 9.37%, to close at $46.54 on January 11, 2019. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Activision Blizzard develops and distributes content and services
on video game consoles, personal computers ("PC"), and mobile
devices. The Company is headquartered in Santa Monica, California,
and its common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market
("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "ATVI."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          Garam Choe, Esq.
          Michael Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-802-1486
          Facsimile: 212-602-1592
          E-mail: ScottH@johnsonfistel.com
                  GaramC@johnsonfistel.com

ALLIANCE FIBER: April 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Brodsky & Smith, LLC
regarding the AFOP Shareholder Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

          vs.

ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS,
INC., PETER C. CHANG, GWONG-YIH LEE,
JAMES C. YEH, RICHARD B. BLACK, RAY
SUN, CORNING INCORPORATED,
APRICOT MERGER COMPANY and DOES
1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 16CV294245
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Department:  1
Judge:  Hon. Brian C. Walsh


BAHMAN KHAKI, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

          vs.


ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS,
INC., PETER C. CHANG, GWONG-YIH LEE,
JAMES C. YEH, RICHARD B. BLACK, RAY
SUN, CORNING INCORPORATED,
APRICOT MERGER COMPANY and DOES
1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.


Case No. 16CV294833
CLASS ACTION


TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO WERE THE RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF COMMON STOCK
OF ALLIANCE FIBER OPTICS PRODUCTS, INC. ("AFOP" OR THE "COMPANY")
FROM APRIL 7, 2016, THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
ACQUISITION OF AFOP BY CORNING INCORPORATED ("CORNING") ON JUNE 3,
2016 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
stockholder actions (the "Actions") have reached a proposed
settlement of that litigation with the Defendants (the
"Settlement") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all
claims asserted in the Actions as well as certain other claims
(defined in the full printed Notice of Settlement of Class Action
(the "Notice")).

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT a hearing will be held on April
26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, 191 N 1st St., San Jose, CA
95113, to determine inter alia: (a) whether the Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) Plaintiffs'
petition for an Attorneys' Fee Award; and (c) whether the Judgment
should be entered.

Be advised that on January 29, 2019, the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara Court")
certified the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement,
pursuant to section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
as an opt-out class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for the Defendants who are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the Notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT.  If you have
not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy by contacting
the Notice Administrator at the address listed below.  Copies of
the Notice and other Settlement-related documents can be accessed
at the following websites: (i) www.AFOPShareholderLitigation.com,
(ii) www.weisslawllp.com, and http://www.brodskysmith.com.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not wish to participate in the
Settlement and wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must
submit a request to be excluded from the Settlement Class
("Opt-Out") to the Notice Administrator listed below in such a
manner that they are received by the Notice Administrator
postmarked on or before April 12, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in Section X of the Notice.  All Opt-Out
requests must be mailed to the Notice Administrator:

     AFOP Shareholder Litigation Notice Administrator
     c/o KCC Class Action Services
     P.O. Box 404002
     Louisville, KY 40233-4002

Any Settlement Class Member who duly objects to any aspect of the
Settlement, including Plaintiffs' petition for an Attorneys' Fee
Award may: (i) submit a written objection, (ii) appear and make an
oral objection at the Settlement Hearing, or (iii) both submit a
written objection and appear and make an oral objection at the
Settlement Hearing.  Any written objection to the proposed
Settlement and/or Plaintiffs' petition for an Attorneys' Fee Award
must be filed with the Santa Clara Court and served upon
Plaintiff's Counsel and counsel for Defendants, such that they are
received no later than April 12, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in Section IX of the Notice.

Members of the Settlement Class may attend the Settlement Hearing
and make an oral objection without first submitting a written
objection or entering an appearance in the Actions; written
objections are not a pre-requisite to being heard at the Settlement
Hearing.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  For further information regarding this
Settlement, you may contact: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, c/o Evan J.
Smith, 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90212;
Telephone: 1-877-534-2590.

DATED: February 25, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA [GN]


ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, KAYLA STOCKDALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 190102151, was
removed from the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00845-WB to the
proceeding. The suit alleges claims over insurance. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Mark J. Levin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 864-8235
          E-mail: levinm@ballardspahr.com

AMARIN CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Amarin Corporation plc ("Amarin" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN)
for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between September 24,
2018 and November 9, 2018, inclusive (the ″Class Period″), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 23, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at  brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Amarin touted the results of its
REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa, the Company's cardiovascular disease
drug candidate, while knowing the results were not as positive as
it was representing them to be. The placebo given to the control
portion of the trial may have led to an increased rate of
cardiovascular events for those patients. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Amarin, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


AMERICAN FINANCE: Sued over Defective Registration Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN BRACKEN, MICHAEL P. MILLER and JAMIE BECKETT, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
  AMERICAN FINANCE TRUST, INC., AMERICAN FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR
GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S. SCHORSCH, WILLIAM M. KAHANE,
EDWARD M. WEIL, JR., NICHOLAS RADESCA, DAVID GONG, STANLEY R. PERLA
and LISA D. KUBNICK, the Defendants, Case No. 651348/2019 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover damages as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' issuance of defective
registration statements.

The case is a securities class action arising from the issuance of
shares of American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") to Plaintiffs and
members of the class in AFIN's dividend reinvestment program
("DRIP") from April 1, 2016 through the date of AFIN's public
listing. The AFIN shares that Plaintiffs and the other class
members purchased were registered with the SEC pursuant to
defective registration statements, issued on April 1, 2016 and
December 2016.

The Registration Statements contained materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning (a) the financial impact to AFIN
and its shareholders of the changes in 2015 to the Advisory
Agreement ("2nd Advisory Agreement") between AFIN and Defendant
American Finance Advisors, Inc. ("Advisor") and the additional
changes to the Advisory Agreement in 2016, which were conditioned
upon approval of a "Merger" of AFIN and Retail Centers of America
("RCA") in early 2017 (the "3rd Advisory Agreement") (under the
same control as Advisor); and (b) the material negative impact of
the 2nd and 3rd Advisory Agreements upon AFIN and its shareholders
for a public listing liquidity event.

For instance, the Defendants failed to disclose in the Registration
Statements that public markets discount the value of externally
managed REITs like AFIN. When AFIN, then known as American Realty
Capital Trust V, Inc., went public in 2013, it filed a Form S-l 1
registration statement/prospectus on March 6, 20132 that disclosed
the higher advisory fees and market discounts for externally
managed REITs. Those facts remained true throughout the Class
Period. Yet when AFIN filed the Registration Statements on April 1,
2016 and later on October 21, 2016, November 23, 2016 and December
16, 2016. The Defendants omitted those disclosures or ideal any
warning that a public listing could result in the public violation
of AFIN shares at a deep discount to their net asset value due to
issues surrounding AFIN's external management by AR Global
affiliates.

The Registration Statements also omitted material information about
AFIN's inability to obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015
and 2016 despite a direction from the SEC to make such disclosure.
Defendants Weil, Radesca, Gong, Perla and Kubnick signed the false
and misleading Registration Statement pursuant to which the AF1N
stock was issued and Advisor, AR Global Investments, LLC ("AR
Global"), Schorsch and Kahane were controlling persons of the
issuer, AF1N.  Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act.
When AFIN finally listed its stock for public trading on the NASDAQ
in July 2018, the risks that had been concealed and misrepresented
in the Registration Statements became known and the price of AFIN
stock plunged approximately 30% below the "net asset value" of
$23.17, (which NAY defendants had publicly confirmed less than 60
days before the listing).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Olimpio Lee Suitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Removes Jarman Suit to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DEBORAH JARMAN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and CITY OF GRANITE CITY, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of
Illinois, County of Madison (Case No. 18-L-1658) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on February
14, 2019.  The clerk of court for the Southern District of Illinois
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00204-NJR-RJD. The case is assigned to
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and referred to Magistrate Judge Reona
J. Daly.

American Traffic Solutions, Inc. provides smart transportation
solutions. The company develops, delivers, and operates road safety
products and services that reduce the number and severity of
preventable crashes by enhancing compliance with traffic laws
addressing red-lights, school zones, speed limits, and school bus
safety. It also offers turnkey and customized
transportation-related business management solutions; and toll and
violation management solutions for commercial and rental fleets.
The company is based in Mesa, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
          MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
          22 West Lorena Avenue
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Telephone: (618) 216-5291
          Facsimile: (618) 551-0421
          E-mail: tmaag@maaglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joy C. Syrcle, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 259-4537
          E-mail: joy.syrcle@stinsonleonard.com

               - and -

          Jon A. Santangelo, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-0800
          Facsimile: (314) 863-9388
          E-mail: jon.santangelo@stinsonleonard.com


AMERIPRISE AUTO: Lovelace Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Belincia Lovelace, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ameriprise Auto & Home
Insurance Agency Inc., IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company,
Ameriprise Financial Inc., Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency
Inc., Progressive Direct Holdings Inc., Progressive Corporation,
and American Strategic Insurance Corp., the Defendants, Case No.
60CV-19-00154, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Little Rock) on Feb. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Arkansas
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00150-SWW to the proceeding.
The suit alleges insurance-related claims. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Susan Webber Wright.

Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance is an insurance company based in
suburban Green Bay, Wisconsin. The company sells auto, home, condo,
renters, umbrella and travel insurance.[BN]

Attorneys for the Belincia Lovelace, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated:

          David A. Hodges, Esq.
          DAVID HODGES LAW OFFICE
          212 Center Street, Suite 500
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Benjamin Honaker, Esq.
          HONAKER LAW
          212 Center Street, 10th Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 247-6975
          E-mail: ben@benhonakerlaw.com

Attorneys for Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency Inc.; IDS
Property Casualty Insurance Company; and Ameriprise Financial
Inc.:

          John A. Little , Jr., Esq.
          John A. Smyth, III, Esq.
          Thomas J. Butler, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          Regions/Harbert Plaza
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 142-1999
          E-mail: jsmyth@maynardcooper.com

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASHLEY
FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01266-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2019)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants' website
https://www.ashleyfurniture.com/ is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

During the Plaintiffs' numerous visits to the Defendant's website,
the Plaintiffs encountered multiple access barriers which denied
the Plaintiffs full and equal access to the facilities, goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public on
the Defendant's website, and its prior iterations. Due to the
widespread access barriers the Plaintiffs and Class Members
encountered on the Defendant's website, the Plaintiffs and Class
Members have been deterred, on a regular basis, from accessing the
Defendant's website. Similarly, the access barriers the Plaintiffs
have encountered on the Defendant's website have deterred the
Plaintiffs and Class Members from visiting the Defendant's
brick-and-mortar stores.

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. manufactures home furniture. It
offers living room furniture, such as chairs and ottomans,
entertainment centers, occasional tables, recliners, reclining
sofas, sectionals, sofas and loveseats, bars, lamps, rugs, wall
art, and home accessories.  Ashley Furniture Industries was founded
in 1945 and is based in Arcadia, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


ASLAN COLD: Underpays Drivers, Martinez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS ESQUIVEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASLAN COLD STORAGE, LLC;
SCOTT CRITCHLEY; and DOES I through 50, Defendants, Case No.
19CECG00612 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Aslan Cold Storage, LLC is a California liability corporation
providing logistics and agricultural labor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Daniel Conforti, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249F Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  dconforti@mahoney-law.net


AT&T MOBILITY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gorss Motels Inc. filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
its lawsuit entitled Gorss Motels Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 17-cv-403, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels Inc. v. AT&T
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-514, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 1, 2019, the Hon.
Janet Bond Arterton denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants for
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, for sending an
unsolicited fax advertisement.  The Plaintiff moves for class
certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The class is defined as:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about January 14, 2014, stating: "Visit your
     AT&T Partner online store at
     att.com/wireless/wyndhamfranchisees for your exclusive
     specials such as $50 new smartphone activation credit, $100
     instant rebate on all tablets while supplies last, 16% on
     qualifying monthly charges," and "Learn about AT&T's new
     Mobile Share Value Plan!," and "For a limited time, switch
     from T-Mobile and receive up to $450 when you trade in your
     current smartphone!."

In her ruling, Judge Arterton opined that the Plaintiff has not met
its burden to demonstrate that the requirements of Rule 23, citing
Raitport, 312 F. Supp. 3d at 234-235 (citing cases "den[ying] class
certification in cases involving allegedly defective opt-out
notices and arising under the TCPA" because of question of
individualized consent, and denying class certification for
Plaintiffs failure to show that "questions of law common to class
members predominate").[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Respondents AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Mobility National
Accounts LLC are represented by:

          Hans Germann, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8792
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Owen et al. Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A.
The case is captioned as KENNETH D. OWENS; SAMANTHA A. HOLLEY; KARA
L. GARIGLIO; NICOLETTA PANTELYAT; ISABELLE SCHERER; JONATHAN TULE;
and KELSEA D. WIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20614-MGC (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 15, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves client worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that company is
seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in the purported class
action involving IV solutions sales.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint
covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of
Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in February 2017. The court granted the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July
2018.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November
9, 2018.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments.  Baxter International Inc. was founded
in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BAYER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Feb. 22, Bayer
and its lawyers at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz routed class action
claims by consumers in New York, Florida and California who alleged
Bayer falsely represented that its One A Day multivitamins support
heart health, immunity and physical energy. The nine-member jury
could not have sided more decisively with Bayer: On the verdict
form, jurors found that class counsel from Tillotson Law and Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer not only failed to prove that Bayer's
representations were misleading or deceptive but also failed to
establish that any of the three class representatives relied on the
allegedly false statements when they bought One A Day vitamins.

Consumer class action trials are a rarity. For most defendants, the
stakes are simply too high to risk. In this case, for example,
plaintiffs' damages model put Bayer's exposure at about $600
million, and that was just for consumers in three states. Had Bayer
lost at trial and failed to overturn the verdict on appeal, it
doubtless would have faced copycat class actions by consumers in
other states, escalating its potential liability into billions of
dollars. [GN]


BROOKLYN, NY: Warden Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
WCBS 880 reports that after prisoners at a federal jail in Brooklyn
went a week without heat and electricity in February, a new lawsuit
has been filed against the warden.

The class action lawsuit says the warden of the Metropolitan
Detention Center, Herman Quay, failed to provide decent, humane
conditions for inmates living there.

The federal prison in Sunset Park was compared to a gulag during
one of the coldest weeks of the winter.

The prison had major heating issues to go along with power problems
that left inmates' cells completely in the dark.

The unbearable conditions caught the attention of Mayor Bill de
Blasio and other elected officials, who found when they tried to
help those inside, they were met initially by resistance from
Quay.

The lawsuit represents just two inmates at the moment but could
include more down the road.

One of the inmates suing says he had to survive the bitter cold in
just a short-sleeve cotton jumper.

He says when he complained of numbness in his hand and an infection
on his skin, he was ignored. [GN]


CABLE BAHAMAS: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Service Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rashad Rolle, writing for Tribune 242, reports that Wayne Munroe
wants to launch a class-action lawsuit against Cable Bahamas,
hoping to force the service provider to provide customers with all
they pay for, or supply credits when it can't do so.

Mr Munroe, in Facebook posts, invited disgruntled customers to join
his suit.

He told The Tribune: "I don't watch a lot of TV because I'm not
home a lot but it's annoying that you go to a channel you want to
watch and it's temporarily off air.

"In my case, I watched five or six channels and the issue came to a
head over the weekend where I had an issue where channels were out
for almost two weeks and on the weekend, most of them went out.
Somebody called Cable Bahamas from my house; a representative said
they would see if they could get someone there about three, four
days later.

"It struck me that here it is that's ten percent of the month
without a service and they don't compensate us when they don't
provide the service you contracted for. Bahamas Power & Light is
different because when the power out you're not charged because
you're not consuming electricity."

Mr Munroe said his action would hopefully force companies like
Cable Bahamas to hire the number of staff needed to ensure it does
not take days for representatives to respond to concerns.

He said: "If they had to give you credit for the time when they
aren't providing a service, they might keep on more staff. I don't
know whether they're able to see that two of the 30 channels Munroe
is paying for are out so they can work on that even before I call
them, but if they cannot do that, why? Is it that the technology
doesn't exist? Maybe the technology costs a bit of money so they
can get away without buying it. That's the thinking behind holding
them to the strict contract they have entered into with us."

Mr Munroe said a number of people have expressed interest in
joining a lawsuit.

"URCA should force them," he said, "by saying if you're not giving
the service pay for, give a credit to customers. Then I don't care
if it takes two weeks to come to my house because then I don't have
to pay them for the two weeks the service isn't being provided. But
it can't be right that they take three days to come and we have to
pay them for the three days. We know that if you're a day late in
paying them, they cut you off, right?"

Mr Munroe said a lawsuit would be a service to the community.

"As a lawyer, I now see there is something wrong cuz I witness it,"
he said. "Having witnessed it, I can't sit back and let it continue
because what good will that do? How right would it be that they may
put an alert in the system so that when I call them they come deal
with my issue so I won't sue them, but they don't do the same to
all the rest of the people who are paying and not getting the
service?" [GN]


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Jensen Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit PAUL JENSEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CABLEVISION
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; ALTICE N.V., and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-100
(ADS)(AKT), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
      exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Mitchell Smooke;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
      exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck;
      and

   3. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23.

The Defendants have moved to exclude the reports and testimony of
Dr. Jennifer Golbeck and Dr. Mitchell Smooke.  The Defendants argue
that this Court should exclude the expert report and testimony of
Dr. Jennifer Golbeck because she lacks the qualifications to render
expert opinions on this case and the opinions contained in her
expert report do not meet the standards for admissibility outlined
in Daubert and its progeny. Dr. Jennifer Golbeck is an associate
professor in the College of Information Studies at the University
of Maryland. She was an assistant professor from 2007 until 2013,
when she received tenure. While at the University of Maryland, Dr.
Golbeck focuses her research and teaching on the internet as well
as various aspects of social media. At her deposition, she
testified that she also focuses her research on issues of trust,
privacy, and network analysis.

The Court said, "While Cablevision's practices may have violated
certain consumers' expectations of privacy and autonomy, as Dr.
Golbeck notes in her expert report, the Plaintiff has failed to put
forth any evidence that any damage resulted from violating customer
expectations. Even if Jensen did assert an invasion of privacy
claim, i.e. the unauthorized collection of data, "Sec. 349 injury
has been recognized only where confidential, individually
identifiable information -- such as medical records or a Social
Security number -- is collected without the individual's knowledge
or consent."[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7 th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201

               - and -

          Joseph H. Bates, Esq.
          THE CASEY LAW FIRM LLC
          20 NE Thompson Street
          Portland, OR 97212

               - and -

          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., 14 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

               - and -

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
          6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          Matthew D. Ingber, Esq.
          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020

CAMPBELL SOUP: Simon Says V8+ Energy Products Packaging Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renzil Simon individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Campbell Soup Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01209 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes and sells products
which purport to be described as capable of supplying steady energy
whereby the caffeine absorption would be tempered by constituents
of green tea, among other things.

This warrants to consumers that caffeine in the Products does not
result in a "crash" which is a typical result of a
caffeine-enhanced beverage. The Plaintiff and class members relied
on defendant’s claims, paying more than they would have.

Campbell Soup manufactures, bottles, packages, markets, distributes
and sells fruit and vegetable beverage blends with green tea
extracts in the V8+ Energy product line ("Products"). The Products
are sold in regular, sparkling and diet, in cans including 8 and 12
oz, nationwide to consumers from retail stores and websites, and
from defendant directly.
The product line includes no fewer than 14 varieties.

Regular: Peach Mango, Pomegranate Blueberry, Black Cherry, Orange
Pineapple, 100% Vegetable Juice, and Strawberry Banana

Sparkling: Sparkling Orange Pineapple, Sparkling White Grape
Raspberry, Sparkling Blackberry Cranberry, and Sparkling Kiwi Melon
Diet: Diet Strawberry Lemonade, and Diet Cranberry Raspberry.

Sparkling Diet "Energy drinks" are sought by consumers to feel more
energetic, alert, focused, creative, and productive.

These products have come under scrutiny for their harmful effects
in part due to their high potential for abuse and excessive
caffeine content. The active ingredient for the "energy" is
caffeine, a central nervous system stimulant. Caffeine induces
mental and physical changes associated with "energy": increase
alertness, wakefulness, motivation, and motor activity; enhance
physiological arousal, by activating sympathetic nervous system by
increasing heart rate and blood pressure and the hypothalamic
pituitary adrenal axis by increasing cortisol.

It takes about 45 minutes for 99% of caffeine to be absorbed in the
body, and the discharge rate is steep -- 50% within two hours. This
fast metabolism of caffeine leads to drowsiness and fatigue, due to
elevated levels of adenosine, causing dopamine to be repressed --
referred to as a "crash."

The Products provide 80 mg of caffeine (per 12 oz) and emphasize
its source on the front label and compare the caffeine levels to
similar foods on the side label. The representations are that the
caffeine in the Products will not produce the typical "crash"
associated with caffeine because its source is green tea, indicated
in the ingredient list. The "steady energy" claims are repeated and
promoted in the marketing campaign.

It is false, deceptive and misleading to claim and/or imply the
caffeine in the Products from green tea will last longer, be
metabolized or absorbed at a different rate ("steadily") and will
not cause a typical caffeine crash from caffeine not derived from
green tea.  This claim is based upon faulty science, implausible
studies and consumers’ erroneous impressions, which the labels
take advantage of.

Tea is associated with calming and soothing effects in part because
it's consumed slowly (hot), by the cup, and has less caffeine per
ounce than caffeinated beverages like coffee. When tea is converted
into a powdered extract, the caffeine content becomes higher since
there is no water, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plainitff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119

CARELINK INC: Walthrust et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Health Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZANETTA WALTHRUST, KATIANA WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE MOLIERE, FRANCOISE
M. GUELCE, MARILYN PASCHALL, KATHLEEN BERNARD, MARTHA ELIZABETH
ABRAMS, MICHELINE CANTAVE, MARIE PIERRE BERNADIN, MATHEW J. DI
NORCIA, SANDRA OLIVER, JORDELINE JEAN BAPTISTE, NIRVA N. MONCHAIS,
and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CARELINK, INC., ENA
BAILEY and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 504599/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 1, 2019), alleges that Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants for more than 40 hours per week and were illegally not
paid any wages for many of their hours worked.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class plaintiffs were home health
aides who worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which they were
illegally paid for only 13 of the 24-hours worked, as they did not
get meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and
a full 8 hours of sleep during the shifts.

The Plaintiffs complain that they are entitled to back wages from
Defendant for (a) hours worked for which they did not receive wages
including wages as required under the Wage Parity Act, (b) overtime
hours worked for which they did not receive time and one half the
minimum wage or time and one half their actual wages, and (c)
spread of hours work performed for which they did not receive an
extra hour of pay, as required by the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiffs also complain that they are entitled to damages
under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act because Defendants did
not provide proper notices to the Plaintiffs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

           William C. Rand, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
           501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
           New York, NY 0017
           Telephone: (212) 286-1425
           Facsimile: (646) 688-3078

CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS: Yin et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN LEI YIN, FANG WANG, YUEPING HUANG, and YU ZHANG, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CARIBBEAN BLUEWATERS GROUP, LLC d/b/a YIHAN SPA, "Amy" Su (first
name unknown), and Geoffrey Allard, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02032 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed FLSA Collective:

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

CEDAR SHAKE: ZRD Sues over Price Fixing of Roofing Material
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ZRD GROUP, LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE
BUREAU, a Washington nonprofit corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS,
LTD, a British Columbia corporation; ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a
British Columbia Corporation; and G&R CEDAR LTD, a British Columbia
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01312 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 6, 2019), targets Defendants' wrongful and anticompetitive
actions that had the intended purpose and effect of artificially
fixing, raising, maintaining, and stabilizing the price of cedar
shakes and shingles to Plaintiff and class members in the United
States. Indeed, 90% of all cedar shakes and shingles manufactured
in Canada are exported to the United States.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and on behalf
of a plaintiff class consisting of all individuals and entities who
purchased cedar shakes and shingles for end use and not for resale
that were manufactured by one of the Defendants or a co-conspirator
named in this complaint in the United States from no later than
February 27, 2015 through the present.

Cedar shakes and shingles are roofing and siding material produced
from cedar logs and cut blocks. The use of cedar shakes and
shingles dates back hundreds of years. A cedar shake is a
rustic-looking roofing shingle that has been hand split,
replicating the look of an ax or mallet cut. Shakes are rough and
variable and almost always used for roofing. Conversely, cedar
shingles are uniformly sawn for a consistent and even thickness,
and provide a uniform machine-like look. Shingles are used for both
sidewalls and roofing.

The Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau ("CSSB") is a trade association
serving the shake and shingle industry in the United States and
Canada. CSSB owns the trademark to "Certi-Label" shakes and
shingles, which include the Certi-Grade, Certi-Sawn, Certi-Split,
and Certi-Ridge registered trademark labels. CSSB Certi-Labeled
shakes and shingles account for an estimated 95% of the high-end
cedar shake and shingles utilized in the United States product
market. All CSSB members participate in and sell the vast majority
of their high-end cedar shake and shingle products in the United
States.

The CSSB Board of Directors comprises several of the largest
manufacturers of cedar shakes and shingles, including Anbrook
Industries Ltd., Waldun Forest Products Ltd., and G&R Cedar Ltd.

At least some members of the CSSB -- including Manufacturer
Defendants -- colluded to fix prices on cedar shake and shingles.
The CSSB plays a large role in regulating the cedar shake and
shingle industry in the United States and Canada. The CSSB drafted
and holds the copyright to the CSSB-97 grading and packing rules,
which have been almost universally incorporated into building codes
throughout the United States and Canada.

The CSSB has aggressively and successfully promoted its CSSB-97
grading rules and its trademarked Certi-Label shakes and shingles.
Virtually all of the manufacturers of high end shakes and shingles
sold and used in the United States in the past 20 years have been
members of the CSSB. Membership in the CSSB trade association is
necessary to effectively compete in the U.S. market for high-end
shakes and shingles. CSSB members hold at least 90% of the shares
of this market.

The cedar shake and shingle industry has become significantly
consolidated over the past two decades. Shake and shingle
manufacturers now operate only in Washington, Idaho, and British
Columbia.

Manufacturer Defendants have a concentration of power in the CSSB,
partly due to the consolidation of the shake and shingle industry,
and partly due to the voting structure of the CSSB, which weighs
votes based on each manufacturer member's annual shake and shingle
production.

In fact, through the CSSB, Manufacturer Defendants have used their
voting power to terminate members from the CSSB who compete on
price and who are unwilling to follow the price and product
leadership of Manufacturer Defendants.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the
class paid artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes and
shingles during the Class Period, i.e., February 27, 2015 through
the present. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid
for cedar shakes and shingles if the price had been determined by a
competitive market. Thus, Plaintiff and class members suffered an
antitrust injury as a result of Defendants' conduct.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          Veronica M. Bosco, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN
             ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-545-4600
          Facsimile: 212-686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  newman@whafh.com
                  bosco@whafh.com

CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Masteller Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA MASTELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00755-EGS (W.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Central Portfolio Control Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon S. Masters, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SHARON S. MASTERS
          50360 2201 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 322-5277
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: shmasters@hotmail.com


CHOICE HOTELS: De La Rosa Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Javier De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Choice
Hotels International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2019-CH-01258 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 7, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01638.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois
Biometrics Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), through the use of
"fingerprint" technology. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant collects, stores, uses, and discloses employee biometric
information when the employees clock in or out of work without
first obtaining informed written consent or publishing their
retention policies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Illinois.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
            jsheikali@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
     191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60606-1901
     Phone: (312) 416-6200
     Facsimile: (312) 416-6201
     Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

          - and -

     Joel Griswold, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
     SunTrust Center
     200 S. Orange Ave., Suite 2300
     Orlando, FL 32801-3432
     Phone: (407) 649-4088
     Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Charach Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
AHRON CHARACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00230-RSW (E.D. Mo., Feb. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to District Judge Rodney W. Sippel.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. Client Services, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based
in Saint Charles, Missouri with additional locations in Lenexa,
Kansas, as well as Costa Rica. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 x101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


COMBE INC: New Judge to Handle Jurisdictional Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that former U.S. District Judge
David Herndon presided over 8,655 claims of injury from Just for
Men hair dye for two and a half years, and now that he is retired,
District Judge Staci Yandle must solve a jurisdictional puzzle.

Judge Yandle has to decide whether plaintiffs can amend complaints
they filed against dye maker Combe Inc. in 2016, alleging the
product caused burns, scars, and discoloration.

Attorney John Driscoll of St. Louis moved to amend the complaints
on Feb. 22, admitting they don't meet a jurisdictional standard the
U.S. Supreme Court adopted in 2017.

He wrote that it would be unfair for defendants to benefit from the
Court's decision and not permit plaintiffs to amend and update
their personal jurisdiction allegations in light of the change the
Court wrought in Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of
California.

Mr. Driscoll and other lawyers filed suits for 3,709 plaintiffs in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Combe, a Delaware
corporation in White Plains, N.Y. About six percent of the
plaintiffs lived in Illinois.

Plaintiffs also sued two Combe subsidiaries in Illinois and two in
other states.

Combe removed the suits to federal court, where Judge Herndon
coordinated them for discovery and other pretrial purposes.

Judge Herndon appointed Mr. Driscoll, Roger Denton of St. Louis,
and Richard Schulte of Dayton, Ohio, to an executive committee for
plaintiffs. He also appointed Kristine Kraft of St. Louis as
liaison counsel.

For a steering committee he appointed Joseph Osborne of Boca Raton,
Fla., Jon Conlin of Birmingham, Ala., Angela Mason of Dothan, Ala.,
Jay Urban of Milwaukee, and Tad Thomas of Louisville, Ky.

At some point plaintiff lawyers reached a tolling agreement with
Combe for 4,946 cases they didn't file, for a total of 8,655.

Combe and two subsidiaries in other states moved to dismiss claims
from plaintiffs in other states, arguing the court lacked personal
jurisdiction.

All subsidiaries moved to dismiss for failure to state a valid
cause of action.

All five defendants moved to strike class allegations.

In November 2016, Judge Herndon suspended the proceedings in favor
of mediation through former Madison County judge Daniel Stack.

He held six status conferences in 2017, issuing no orders until the
last one.

On Dec. 13, he wrote that he held Combe's motions in abeyance while
the parties addressed other issues.

He wrote that he judicially termed the motions with the
understanding that they could be reinstated.

"The court hereby confirms that the merits of these motions will
not be affected in any way while they are termed," Judge Herndon
wrote. "If they are reinstated at a later date, they then will be
fully briefed and decided on the merits."

He wrote that no issue of waiver was raised.

After a status conference last June, Herndon appointed Randi Ellis
of Baton Rouge, La., as mediation facilitator.

He bestowed power on her "to do all things necessary."

What Stack couldn't accomplish alone, he and Ellis couldn't
accomplish together.

Judge Herndon declared defeat after a hearing this Jan. 4, his
final day on the job.

"This hearing represented a culmination of a year plus of mediating
intensely and frequently in order to attempt in every way to reach
a compromise of this litigation," he wrote. "Without blame to
either side, that particular point at which any piece of litigation
can be compromised because each side sacrifices some and gains some
could not be reached here."

He reinstated Combe's motions and wrote, "There is much work to be
accomplished, which is rare in cases with a lengthy time on file
already."

On Jan. 9, the court clerk assigned the cases to Judge Yandle.

On Jan. 16, she asked for briefs on the status and posture of the
action.

She set a hearing the following week.

On Jan. 17, she told them not to bother.

"In light of the information contained in the transcript of the
status conference conducted by Judge Herndon on January 4, it is
not necessary for the parties to submit a joint memorandum on
January 22, as previously directed," she wrote.

On Jan. 19, plaintiffs moved to amend complaints.

On Jan. 23, Judge Yandle stayed briefing on the motion to dismiss
subsidiaries and the motion to strike class allegations, pending a
ruling on personal jurisdiction.

She suspended all discovery not related to personal jurisdiction.

On Feb. 6, plaintiff liaison counsel Kraft moved to conduct
jurisdictional discovery and compel depositions.

She wrote that plaintiffs never had an opportunity to amend
complaints because they focused on fact sheets and settlement
negotiations.

"Plaintiffs' counsel anticipated that a subsequent judge or
defendants may unfairly try to punish plaintiffs for cooperating in
the process established by Judge Herndon given the passage of three
years," Kraft wrote.

On that date, a connection between the action and the Supreme
Court's jurisdiction decision from 2017 appeared in the record for
the first time.

In that decision, the Justices found a court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a company only if a claim arises out of a
defendant's contact with the forum.

In a brief opposing Kraft's motion, Combe counsel Stephen Strauss
of St. Louis wrote, "For a company to be subject to general
personal jurisdiction, that company ordinarily has to be domiciled
in the state."

"In other words, in most instances, in order for a company to be
subject to general personal jurisdiction, the company must either
be incorporated in the state or have its principal place of
business in the state," Strauss wrote.   

In the week of Feb.18, plaintiffs filed motions to amend complaints
in the 22 cases underlying the coordination file.

Mr. Driscoll wrote in one of the motions that, "If plaintiffs had
known that their good faith attempt to settle the litigation would
ever preclude the opportunity to amend their complaint, they would
never have agreed to this process."

The court should not punish plaintiffs now by denying their motion
to amend the complaints and the requested jurisdictional discovery
for complying with the court's settlement process,"
Mr. Driscoll wrote.

On Jan. 22, Judge Yandle stayed Kraft's motion for jurisdictional
discovery pending a ruling on amending the complaints. [GN]


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal
from a ruling in the case, Gibson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville,
Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center, is still pending.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated
Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly
improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors
and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated
plaintiffs.

The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.

Community Health said, "We have appealed both rulings to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending.
We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously
defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Against Affiliate Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Ruston
Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit entitled, Bowden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital
Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
September 7, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Ruston,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.


The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Neither motion is
currently set for hearing.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion
seeking class certification of a consolidated class action lawsuit
in Tennessee is still pending.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege
that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices
for our common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to
dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended
consolidated class action complaint which was filed on October 5,
2015. The company's  motion to dismiss was filed on November 4,
2015 and oral argument took place on April 11, 2016.

The company's motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on
June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On
December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court.

The company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February
9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24,
2018. The company also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of
the Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is pending.

Community Health said, "We believe this consolidated matter is
without merit and will vigorously defend this case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Zwick Partners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's motion to dismiss the new claims raised in the amended
complaint filed in the case, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta
amended complaint is pendinq.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is also pending.

This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of QHC shareholders and
allege that the failure to record a goodwill and long-lived asset
impairment charge against QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC
violated federal securities laws.

The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on
April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on September
14, 2018, and the company's motion to dismiss the new claims in the
amended complaint is pending. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is also pending.

Community Health said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Deadline to Opt Out or Object to Deal Due May 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that deadline
for purported class members to opt out of or object to the
settlement in the litigation over cyber attacks is May 18, 2019.

on August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target
of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company believes it
occurred between April and June, 2014.

The company and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert
engaged by the company in connection with this matter, believe the
attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used
highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack the company's
systems.

The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain
non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names,
addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security
numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or
clinical information.

The company worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities
in connection with their investigation and possible prosecution of
those determined to be responsible for this attack. Mandiant has
conducted a thorough investigation of this incident and continues
to advise us regarding security and monitoring efforts.

The company has provided appropriate notification to affected
patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal and state
law.The company has offered identity theft protection services to
individuals affected by this attack.

The company have incurred certain expenses to remediate and
investigate this matter. In addition, multiple purported class
action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain
subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was
unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the company.

The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of
recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any
identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the
purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated complaint was filed and the company filed a motion
to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on
February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court
greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with
specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue.

Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community
Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally,
the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the
remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to
continue their cases. On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the
bench, the court dismissed additional claims and following this
oral ruling only eight of the forty plaintiffs remained, with
significant limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims
for damages. These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order
filed on September 12, 2016.

On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on
February 15, 2017 this motion was denied.

Plaintiffs refiled their motion for permission to seek
interlocutory appeal on March 15, 2017, and that motion was also
denied. The company have settled these class action lawsuits, and
the settlement has been approved by the District Court.

Notices of the settlement and claim forms have been mailed to
purported class members. The deadline for purported class members
to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 18, 2019.

The company is also currently responding to two government
investigations related to the 2014 cyber-attack. The first is being
conducted by various State Attorneys General, and the second is
being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office for Civil Rights. We are cooperating fully with both
investigations.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Smith Sues over Juvenile Program
-------------------------------------------------
The case, Jason Smith on his own behalf and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Timothy Evans, Chief Judge of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Avik Das, William Patterson, Jennifer
Nunez, Sharon Throw Koc, Kate Gailbraith- Verrant, Lloyd Marshall,
Steve Kasperki, Michael Newman, and Roberta Lynch, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01539 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2019), contends that:

     -- Chief Judge Timothy Evans, who oversees the Cook County
Juvenile Probation and Court Services Department, discriminated
against Plaintiffs and similarly situated or tolerated
discrimination of them on the basis of their race through his
subordinates with him; and

     -- AFSCME Council 31 and Local 3477 through their
subordinates, conspired and colluded with the Defendant and his
subordinates.

The lawsuit contends that:

     A. Greater or harsher discipline has been imposed on
plaintiffs and other African American officers than on by
non-African-American probation officers for purported offenses of
the same character and degree;

     B. Different and harsher terminology has been used or allowed
to describe the misconduct allegedly committed by African-American
probation officers than for misconduct of the same kind or
character allegedly committed by non African-American probation
officers;

     C. Language in the collective bargaining agreement has been
circumvented to allow and terminate African American probation
officers compared to non-African American probation officers;

     D. Defendants have a pattern and practice of carrying out this
racially-based disparate treatment, trying recently to cover-up
past racially based disparate treatment by scapegoating white
probation officers through claims of misconduct and discipline;

     E. Defendants failed to follow the procedures of the
collective bargaining agreement and adhere to the language when
they disciplined and terminated the plaintiff and other similar
situated individuals;

     F. Defendants violated the plaintiff and other similar
situated individuals' constitutional rights by terminating and
allowing the decision to stand for the plaintiff and other similar
situated individuals and refusing to forward this matter to
arbitration; and

     G. The Union conspired and colluded in the violation of the
plaintiff and other similar situated individuals' rights and failed
to provide fair representation because of their race, freedom of
association and non support of AFSCME by refusing to arbitrate this
matter or provide representation.[BN]

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burns Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIOBHAN BURNS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02935 (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 5, 2019),
seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois. Each time the
Plaintiff began and ended her workday, she was required to
"clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that operated, at
least in part, by scanning Plaintiffs hand. As an employee, the
Plaintiff was required to scan her hand multiple times so Defendant
could create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/ or
obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff.

The Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in a
biometric database. The Defendant then used Plaintiff's biometrics
as an identification method to track her time, potentially with the
help of a third-party vendor. While most establishments and
employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information
and belief, mandated and required that employees have their hand
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- hand-based biometrics are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks.

For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach --
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this
information.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates
Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an
individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a handprint or hand geometry
scan, and biometric information derived from it.

BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its employees in writing
that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being
collected or captured; to tell its employees in writing for how
long it will store their biometric data or information and any
purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.

BIPA makes all of these requirements a precondition to the
collection or recording of fingerprints, hand geometry scans, or
other associated biometric information -- under the Act, no
biometric identifiers or biometric information may be captured,
collected, purchased, or otherwise obtained if these pre-capture,
pre-collection, pre-storage, or pre-obtainment requirements are not
met.

The State of Illinois takes the privacy of biometric data
seriously. There is no realistic way, absent surgery, to reassign
someone's biometric data. A person can obtain a new social security
number, but not a new hand, which makes the protection of, and
control over, biometric identifiers and biometric information
particularly important -- particularly given the increasing use of
biometric information or identifiers in the stream of commerce and
financial transactions and the ever-increasing rate of corporate
data breaches.

On or about 2014 to on or about 2017, the Defendant has taken the
rather invasive and coercive step of requiring employees to be hand
scanned, and then using biometric information captured from those
hand scans, and data derived therefrom, to identify the employee
and track employee work time. After an employee's hand scans are
captured, collected, and/ or recorded by Defendant, employees are
subsequently required to scan their hand into one of Defendant's
biometric time clocks when they clock in or out at work.

The Defendant captured, collected, stored, and/ or otherwise
obtained the employee's biometrics in order to identify the
employee who is clocking in or out. Moreover, Defendant caused
these biometrics to be associated with employees, along with other
employee personal and work information. The Defendant has a
practice of using biometric time clocks to track its employees,
albeit without regard to Illinois' requirements under BIPA, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

No Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Underpays Account Specialists, Duran Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10286 (E.D. Mass., Feb. 14, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Duran was employed by the Defendant as account
specialist.

Curriculum Associates, LLC operates as an education publishing
company that designs research-based print and online instructional
materials, screens and assessments, and data management tools for
students and educators. The company was founded in 1969 and is
based in North Billerica, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
           Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
           LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C
           729 Boyslton Street, Suite 2000
           Boston, MA 02116
           Telephone: (617) 994-5800
           Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
           E-mail: apagano@llrlaw.com
                   slissllrlaw.com
                   www.llrlaw.com

                - and –

           Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
           ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
           8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
           Prairie Village, KS 66208
           Telephone: (913) 766-5585
           Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
           E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
           Wwww.rmlegalgroup.com


DELTA AIRLINES: Tourism Tax in Mexico Flights Illegal, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Moran Rojas, Miguel Hilarion Jiminez, Olivia Isabel Gonzales,
Mayra Luisa Castillo Casteneda, Luzmaria Armendaiz De Arroyo,
Patricio Mercado, and Alexandra Almanza, individually and on behalf
of the class of injured persons they represent., the Plaintiffs,
vs. Delta Airlines, Inc. ("Delta"); United Airlines, Inc.
("United"); American Airlines, Inc. ("American"); Aerovias De
Mexico S.A. De C.V., Inc. ("AeroMexico"); ABC Aerolineas, S.A. De
C.V. ("Interjet"); Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. De C.V. ("Viva
Aerobus"); Southwest Airlines, Co. ("Southwest"); and JetBlue
Airways Corporation ("jetBlue"), the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00665-GJH (D. Md., March 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants
and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract,
combination, or conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of passenger air transportation, by
uniformly and unlawfully including a charge for the Tax to Exempt
Travelers on flights between the United States and Mexico, in
violation of the Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs are Mexican citizens who now live or previously
lived in the United.  They represent a putative class of primarily
Mexican citizens who, like plaintiffs themselves, flew to Mexico
from the United States as ticketed passengers on one or more of the
defendants' airlines.

Mexico has historically charged a tourism tax for non-Mexican
citizens entering its country. The defendants, through a common
fraudulent scheme, charged the plaintiffs this tourism tax even
though it was not owed by Mexican citizens, and then kept that
money for themselves. Most or all of the defendants continue to use
this scheme to unlawfully collect money from unwitting
Mexican-citizen passengers for a tax they do not owe, apparently
believing loophole in the laws of the 50 states, purportedly formed
through the intersection of the Airline Deregulation Act's
preemption clause with various state statutes and common laws
intended to prevent this very type of unlawful behavior, protect
them from any consequences.

Defendants are members of "Camera Nacional de Aerotransportes"
("CANAERO"), an association of airlines that transport passengers
to and from different countries, including Mexico and the United
States.  CANAERO, and each of the defendants, executed a
self-imposed undertaking -- a contract with the Mexican government,
initially in 1999 ("the CANAERO Agreement"), under which each
agreed to collect a Mexico Tourism Tax on behalf of the Mexican
government from certain persons traveling on flights to Mexico from
the United States. Defendants were then to deliver the collected
fees to the Mexican government. There is no provision in the
CANAERO Agreement, or any other known agreement, that allows the
defendants to collect the Tax from Mexican citizens, and there is
no provision in the CANAERO Agreement, or any other agreement, that
allows the defendants to keep the Tax for themselves.

But every defendant airline can and does determine which passengers
are exempt. They do this so that they can determine how much of the
money they collect as a Tourism Tax to remit to the Mexican
government, and how much of the improperly collected tax funds they
can keep for themselves. After each flight from the United States
to Mexico, each defendant reports to Mexico the total number of
passengers on each flight, and the number of passengers from whom
the Tax should have been collected. The defendants do not pay to
Mexico the taxes they charged to Exempt Travelers. Instead, all of
the defendants brazenly keep the ill-gotten tax funds for
themselves, making no attempt to remit the funds to the improperly
charged passengers or Mexico.

In practice, the scheme has created a nearly cost-free profit
center for defendants through a uniform and artificially fixed
surcharge to air fare for Mexican citizens flying from the United
States to Mexico. The defendant airlines perfected this scheme, and
maintained this scheme, in a coordinated fashion, and by agreement
among the defendants. They needed this close cooperation because
without it, at least two situations would result. First, and at
least in the earlier stages of the scheme, if any one of them had
done so alone, without coordination among the other defendant
members of CANAERO, it would be in serious danger of being turned
in by its competitors to Mexican authorities. Second, if only one
of them used this outrageous practice of overcharging
each Exempt Traveler $25 per ticket, it would be at a competitive
disadvantage to the other carriers.

If the airlines could fix the overcharge price the same for each or
most of them, then passengers would have few, if any, alternate
choices. As Mexico eventually caught wind of certain anomalies
surrounding defendants' compliance with their contractual
obligations, defendants coordinated their responses. Throughout the
years, defendants were confronted by Mexican authorities who
suspected defendants were unlawfully charging the Tax to Exempt
Travelers. Defendants at times refused to provide a cogent
response, or at other times promised they would cease the improper
practice. They did not. When questioned together and separately by
Mexican authorities and other representatives about their tax
collection procedures, defendants either lied about their system,
or refused to provide accurate information to the Mexican
authorities. Defendants then jointly decided to resist any attempt
by Mexican authorities to deny their ability to collect the Tax,
and kept the terms of their contract with the Mexican government
secret from the public, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Tejinder Singh, Esq.
          Eric F. Citron, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 850
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 362-0636
          Facsimile: (866) 574-2033
          E-mail: tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com
                  ec@goldsteinrussell.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq.
          Christopher Faucett, Esq.
          Stephen W. Abbott, Esq.
          Brent T. Caldwell, Esq.
          PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT, PLLC
          8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: (832) 743-9260
          Facsimile: (832) 742-9261
          E-mail: mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com
                  cfaucett@pfalawfirm.com
                  sabbott@pfalawfirm.com
                  bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Michael Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON LLP
          3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite B350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
                  mangelovich@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          John D. Sheppard, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & SHEPPARD LLP
          3701 Kirby Dr., Ste. 1000
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 489-1206
          Facsimile: (713) 893-8370
          E-mail: jsheppard@morrowsheppard.com
                  nmorrow@morrowsheppard.com

DIRECT FUNDING: Ricco Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ANDREW RICCO, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIRECT FUNDING NOW LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00411 (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2019),
alleges that Direct Funding has placed numerous calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 6452, using an
"automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1).  The Direct Funding used fake caller
identification information to mask its identity (referred to as
"spoofing"). Furthermore, incoming calls from Direct Funding would
often appear as telephone numbers similar to the the Plaintiff's
(i.e. containing the same area code).

The purpose of spoofing is to prevent the recipient from screening
the incoming call. Similarly, since the caller's telephone number
constantly changes, the recipient is unable to block the caller.
Automatic telephone dialing systems allow callers to engage in such
spoofing techniques. When the Plaintiff inadvertently answered a
call from Direct Funding, there was a lengthy and unnatural pause
from the time the call was answered by the Plaintiff to the time a
representative came on the line, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          Facsimile: 310-201-9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 219 925-8200
          Facsimile: 267 639-5422
          E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com
                  jabay@sackslaw.com

ELECTROLUX HOME: Diller Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Brandon Diller, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Care
Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03032 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., March 7, 2019) seeks relief from Electrolux's practice of
collecting "biometric identifiers" or "biometric information" from
people working at its Illinois facilities, in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), an Illinois statute
regulating and protecting the privacy of biometrics.

Electrolux has collected, captured, or otherwise obtained
biometrics (including fingerprints or fingerscans) from Plaintiff
and other persons working at its facilities in Illinois, and has
done so (a) without first disclosing in writing that it was
collecting or capturing biometrics, the specific purpose and length
of term for which the biometrics were being collected, stored, and
used and (b) without first obtaining their informed written consent
or a release, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked under the direction and control of Electrolux at
its facility from September 25, 2018 to October 16, 2018.

Defendant Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
     Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
     Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
     134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 658-5500
     Email: service@classlawyers.com


ELI LILLY: Appeal in Strafford Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal from a
decision in the case, Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company,
still pending.

The company is a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now
called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving
Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all
persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta,
asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of four
states, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and
sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various
alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with
Cymbalta.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification. The district court dismissed the suits and
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit dismissed the suit.

In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case.
Plaintiffs' appeal of this denial is currently pending before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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.


ESHAI CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Tahbout Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MUSTAPHA TAHBOUT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESHAI CORP d/b/a COURIER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC; and COURIER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No 2:19-cv-00698 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiff Tahbout was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

Courier Distribution Systems, LLC provides courier, freight, and
logistics services in the United States. The company offers same
day delivery, freight service, expedited delivery, scheduled
delivery, and nationwide delivery services. It also provides less
than truckload delivery service, white glove delivery, live animal
delivery, and medical delivery services which provide delivery to
hospitals, medical and dental clinics, nursing homes, and hospice
care. It provides its services in Indianapolis, Louisville,
Madison, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. The company was founded in 2001
and is based in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-021
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                  mgroh@phillemploymentlawyer.com


FBCS INC: Dillard Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
YVONNE DILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00968-KAM-RER (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2019) alleges violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto and referred to Magistrate Judge Ramon E.
Reyes, Jr.

Federal Bond and Collection Service, Inc. provides collection
services. The Company offers products such as consumer credit,
healthcare, commercial, auto, education, and utilities. Federal
Bond And Collection Service also provides telephone, mailed, and
moneygram payment services. Federal Bond and Collection Service
serves customers in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          237 Club Dr
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (718) 855-3834
          Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
          E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


FCA US: Grigorian Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Mariam Grigorian, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FCA US LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company; and Third Party Defendant Mudd, Inc.,
doing business as: Mudd Advertising, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-mc-00003, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Middle District of Florida
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-mc-20747-MGC to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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

FUJITSU AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342670 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Johnson was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt field employee.

Fujitsu America, Inc. develops business technology solutions and
provides related services. Fujitsu America, Inc. was formerly known
as Fujitsu North America Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Fujitsu America, Inc. in April 2009. The company was founded in
2008 and is based in Sunnyvale, California. Fujitsu America, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Fujitsu Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Castro et al. Sue over Defective 2.4L Engine
------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO CASTRO; and LILIA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05040 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's
2010-2013 motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the
2011 Buick Lacrosse, contained one or more design and manufacturing
defects in their engines that cause them to be unable to properly
utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume
abnormally high amounts of oil.

According to the complaint, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects, including but not limited to, defects causing
the Subject Vehicle's engine to be unable to properly utilize
engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume
abnormally high amounts of oil; defects causing the illumination of
the check engine light; defects causing the failure and/or
replacement of the intake and exhaust camshaft sensors; defects
causing the storage of Diagnostic Trouble Code; defects requiring
the reprogramming of the HVAC module; defects causing the failure
and replacement of the intake and exhaust camshaft actuators;
defects causing the HVAC to make abnormal noise; defects causing
the HVAC to make an intermittent grinding sound; defects requiring
the HVAC mounting bolts to be tightened; defects causing the
Vehicle to stall on freeway or at stop light; defects causing the
Vehicle to shake; defects causing the engine to make a rattle
noise; defects causing the failure and replacement of intake and
exhaust camshaft position actuator solenoid valves; defects causing
the Vehicle to make a ticking noise when turning right; defects
requiring the adjustment of the backing plate; defects causing a
coolant leak; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of the
water pump; defects causing a clatter type noise.  The defects
substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Subject
Vehicle.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: dtai@slpattorney.com
                  tdolin@slpattorney.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sanderlin Sues over Defective 2.4L Engine
---------------------------------------------------------
DONALD SANDERLIN; and MICHELLE SANDERLIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV06081 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2019) alleges
that the Defendant's 2010-2013 motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L
engine, including the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox contained one or more
design and manufacturing defects in their engines that causes them
to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and to improperly burn
off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Subject Vehicle
contained or developed defects defects causing the Subject
Vehicle's engine to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and,
in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts
of oil; defects requiring the replacement of the key and/or FOB;
defects causing the engine to make a rattle noise; defects causing
failure and/or replacement of the balance chain and/or chain
tensioner; defects causing the rear console accessory port to fail;
defects requiring performance of Recall 12312; defects requiring
the engine control module ("ECM") to be reprogrammed; defects
causing the valve cover gaskets to leak; defects causing the
Vehicle to misfire; defects causing seepage at the cover axle seal;
defects requiring the performance of Recall 14535; defects
requiring the performance of Recall 43180; defects requiring
replacement of the high pressure fuel pump; defects causing the
illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects causing
storage of Diagnostic Trouble Codes ("DTC") P0013, P0324, P0116,
P0117 and/or P0326; defects causing the exhaust camshaft to stick;
defects causing the air conditioner condenser to leak; defects
causing the failure and replacement of the air conditioning
condenser; defects causing the lower ball joint to be torn; defects
causing a knock sensor circuit fault; defects causing the failure
and/or replacement of the knock sensor, camshaft sensor, camshaft
actuator, crank sensor, valve cover and chain guide; defects
causing the failure of the timing chain guide; defects causing the
failure and replacement of the engine piston and rings; and/or any
other defects identified in the repair history.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: dtai@slpattorney.com
                  tdolin@slpattorney.com


GENERAL PROVISION: Richards Seeks All Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
COLBY RICHARDS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff(s), v. GENERAL PROVISION, LLC a Florida
limited liability company, and TIMOTHY HASSE, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60555-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2019),
contends that the Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff,
and all other employees similarly situated, of overtime during the
course of their employment and have unlawfully misclassified
Plaintiff as an independent contractor.

GPL offers co-working opportunities for start-up companies and
business professionals in at least two physical locations within
Broward County, Florida. GPL employs individuals such as Plaintiff
to perform manual labor at its locations to ensure its facilities
remain in proper working condition for their client's use.

During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, GPL has multiple
other employees, handled and worked with various good and/or
materials that have moved through interstate commerce, including,
but not limited to: wrenches, hammers, nails, paint, tape,
computers, telephones, office supplies and equipment, and other
tools necessary to perform maintenance and repair work.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but
was not properly compensated in accordance with the FLSA for all of
the overtime hours he worked. The Defendants advised Plaintiff he
was to be paid at a regular hourly rate of $21.00 per hour.
However, the Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for
the hours he worked from August 2018 through February 2019. The
Defendants were expressly aware of the work performed by Plaintiff,
and in fact instructed and directed Plaintiff to perform much (if
not all) of this work, but nevertheless required Plaintiff to
continue working without receiving proper compensation for the
hours worked during the relevant period of his employment, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com

GEO GUIDANCE: Faces Ramsey Labor Suit in Kern County
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Geo
Guidance Drilling Services, Inc. The case is assigned to GARRETT
RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEO GUIDANCE DRILLING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100463 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 20,
2019). The case is assigned to Stephen D. Schuett.

Geoguidance Drilling Services, Inc. Offers directional drilling
services to oil, gas, and geothermal industries. The company is
headquartered in Bakersfield, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          YOON LAW, APC
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211


GETSWIFT: ASIC Civil Action Potentially Game-Changer
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Boyd, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that fast-growing software company GetSwift is at the centre of a
fascinating case study of the intersection between allegedly bad
corporate behaviour, class actions and the long-term interests of
shareholders.

Sitting in the middle of this morass are three independent
directors who have chosen to defend the company and its officers
against allcomers.

But the independent directors -- chairman Michael Fricklas and
non-executive directors David Ryan and Belinda Gibson -- could come
under intense pressure from shareholders to change their hard-line
legal strategy.

ASIC has now taken out a civil claim against GetSwift and its chief
executive Bane Hunter and president and managing director Joel
Macdonald. David Rowe

First, a bit of context. In January last year The Australian
Financial Review revealed that GetSwift had been neglecting to tell
the ASX about changes in the status of key contracts even though it
had previously regarded these contracts as price-sensitive
information.

GetSwift attacked the Financial Review for its "negative" coverage.
But within a month of the revelations the Australian Securities and
Investment Commission began investigating its disclosures.

ASIC followed that up with a civil claim against GetSwift and its
chief executive Bane Hunter and president and managing director
Joel Macdonald for contraventions of the Corporations Act. The
company, Hunter and Macdonald are accused of false and misleading
conduct.

ASIC wants the company and the two executives to pay pecuniary
penalties. It also wants Hunter and Macdonald banned from managing
corporations for a period to be determined by the court.

GetSwift on Feb. 25 irrefutably denied the allegations made by ASIC
and said it will vigorously defend the proceedings. In response,
the shares plunged 31.82 per cent to a two-year low of 30¢.

As well as defending itself against ASIC, GetSwift is defending
itself against three separate class actions. These are the subject
of an appeal to the High Court after the Federal Court said all
three should be rolled into one.

Thanks to a boom-time capital raising before the Financial Review
blew the whistle on its disclosure practices, GetSwift has about
$87 million in cash and cash equivalents in the bank.

It can afford to fight the class actions for as long as necessary
and delay an inevitable settlement. Given the usual legal tactics
and court delays it could be four years before there is a final
settlement.

Of course, class actions only go ahead if sufficient shareholders
back them. Otherwise the class action financiers walk away.
Shareholders may not wish to back a class action for fear it might
kill the company before it reaches its full potential.

This is why the ASIC civil action is potentially a game-changer. In
the post-Hayne world ASIC could be able to push through a judgment
much faster than the usual two to three years.

If ASIC wins its case that might influence shareholders to either
back a class action or force the independent directors to think
about winding up the company. Repaying all the money in the bank
back to shareholders could be smarter than spending it all on
lawyers.

After all, what is the use of a technology company that cannot
employ as "officers" of the company the two big brains behind its
success? All the more reason to fight to the death.

One critical factor that must be on the minds of the independent
directors is the fact that the company is burning about $2 million
in cash each month. Legal bills could see the cash burn increase
despite the rapid increase in revenue from selling the GetSwift
logistics software. [GN]


HALCON ENERGY: Appeals Jan. 30 Judgment in Vodenichar Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., filed an appeal from a judgment
entered on January 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Jeffry S.
Vodenichar, David M. King, Jr. and Leigh V. King, husband and wife,
Joseph B. Davis and Lauren E. Davis, husband and wife, Grove City
Country Club, and Richard Broadhead, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc.,
Morascyzk & Polochak and Co-Exprise, Inc., d/b/a CX-Energy, in the
Mercer County Court of Common Pleas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves alleged breaches of contracts over land rights,
specifically, gas and oil leases, and all of the land at issue is
located exclusively within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Vodenichar, J., et al. v. Halcon
Energy Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 301 WDA 2019, in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Richard Broadhead, Joseph B. Davis, Lauren E.
Davis, Grove City Country Club, David M. King, Jr., Leigh V. King
and Jeffry S. Vodenichar are represented by:

          David A. Borkovic, Esq.
          JONES GREGG CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
          411 7th Ave., Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15129
          Telephone: (412) 261-6400
          E-mail: dab@jgcg.com

               - and -

          Richard Allen Finberg, Esq.
          300 Mt Lebanon Blvd., Suite 206b
          Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
          Telephone: (412) 341-1342
          E-mail: richardfinberg@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Co-Exprise, Inc., is represented by:

          James Robert Hankle, Esq.
          Nicholas Louis Fiske, Esq.
          SHERRARD, GERMAN & KELLY, P.C.
          535 Smithfield St., Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 355-0200
          E-mail: jrh@sgkpc.com
                  nlf@sgkpc.com

Defendant-Appellee Morascyzk & Polochak is represented by:

          Stephen Paul Plonski, Esq.
          Daniel Mahony Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          535 Smithfield St., Suite 1100
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (724) 272-1942
          E-mail: splonski@margolisedelstein.com
                  dtaylor@margolisedelstein.com

Defendant-Appellant Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., is represented
by:

          Kevin L. Colosimo, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          501 Grant St., Suite 800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (724) 743-3433
          E-mail: kcolosimo@fbtlaw.com


HI-TECH METALS: Underpays Manual Workers, Rojas Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HI-TECH METALS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
702847/2019 (N.Y. Super., Queens Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Rojas was employed by the Defendant as manual
worker.

Hi-Tech Metals, Inc. provides metal finishing services to the
aerospace industry, as well as automotive manufacturers. Its
services include aluminum processing, passivation, electroplating,
non-destructive testing, organic finishing, powder coatings, and
heat treatments. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in
Denton, Texas. As of November 7, 2016, Hi-Tech Metals, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of ESCO Technologies Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


HIGHLAND BAKING: Underpays Line Workers, Ontiveros Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEODORO ONTIVEROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHLAND BAKING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02062 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 15,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as line worker.

Highland Baking Co., Inc. bakes bread products. It offers table
breads, dinner rolls, pan breads, hamburger buns, rolls, and subs,
as well as frozen products. The company was founded in 1984 and is
based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          Lorraine T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880


HYATT HOTELS: Website Lacks Features for Disable, Strojnik Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER STROJNIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT HOTELS CORP. D/B/A HYATT PLACE
PASADENA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01148-PA-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb.
14, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's third party booking
website www.hotels.com and its own website www.hyatt.com failed to
describe accessible features to reasonably permit individuals with
disabilities to assess independently whether the Defendant meets
the standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hyatt Hotels, a hospitality company, develops, owns, operates,
manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to hotels,
resorts, residential, and other properties. The company was
formerly known as Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to
Hyatt Hotels in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels was founded in 1957 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John William Gentry filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit styled John Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America,
Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00030-NKM-JCH, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Virginia at Charlottesville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the cases
captioned JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ALIM ABDURAHMAN, ET AL., Plaintiff, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants. JIHAD ABDUL-MUMIT,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00030, 3:14 cv-00002, 3:14-cv-00005
(W.D. Va.), involve allegations that Hyundai Motor America, Inc.,
misstated or misrepresented the gas mileage obtained by Hyundai
Elantras.  Gentry is a class action against a single defendant,
HMA.

The cases previously were stayed, transferred to MDL 2424, and then
partially remanded by the MDL back to the Court in September 2015.
Each case contains a claim under the Virginia Motor Vehicle
Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law); the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act of 1977; and for false or misleading advertising.

The appellate case is captioned as John Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai
Motor America, Inc., Case No. 19-1219, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, individually and on behalf
of all other Virginia owners similarly situated, is represented
by:

          James B. Feinman, Esq.
          JAMES B. FEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
          1003 Church Street
          Lynchburg, VA 24504
          Telephone: (434) 846-7603
          Facsimile: (434) 846-0158
          E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com

Defendant-Appellee HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Steet
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          James F. Neale, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Ashley Walker Winsky, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          E-mail: awinsky@mcguirewoods.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued over Defective GDI-Equipped Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SHORT and OLIVIA PARKER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and
KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00318
(W.D. Wash., March 4, 2019), alleges that Hyundai and Kia failed to
disclose or remedy several serious defects of design and
manufacturing that can cause the engines of certain vehicles
equipped with gasoline direct-injection ("GDI") engines to suddenly
stall while at speed or to burst into flames.

These vehicles include the 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson, the 2012-2016
Kia Soul, and the 2011-2012 Kia Sportage.

The lawsuit contends that Hyundai and Kia knew or should have known
about these defects before these vehicles went on sale, and it
failed to correct these dangerous defects or disclose them to their
customers. Moreover, once the vehicles were on the road, Hyundai
and Kia failed to recall and repair these defective vehicles for
years, leading to hundreds or thousands of engine failures, sudden
stalls, and fires.

According to the complaint, only recently -- after years of
concealing serious safety defects -- have Hyundai and Kia begun to
recall these vehicles, such a recall will be inadequate to remedy
the problem or to compensate the customers who bore the risk that
their cars might suddenly stall while driving or, worse, burst into
flames.

In the past, Hyundai and Kia have recalled numerous vehicles with
GDI engines to repair defects that could lead to engine fires, but
fires have recurred despite the recalls, and Hyundai and Kia are
recalling many of those vehicles yet again for the same problems.

Consumers have every reason to suspect that a recall at this late
date will not be an adequate solution to the defect. These
consumers also have every reason to suspect that now that the
problem has become known and publicized, the resale values of their
vehicles has likely plummeted. These consumers did not get the
vehicles they bargained for at the time of purchase, have gone
years without an adequate repair, may have suffered diminished
resale value, and cannot now be made whole merely be recalling and
repairing the vehicles, the lawsuit says.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs and other owners
and lessees of the Class Vehicles overpaid at the time of purchase
or lease for vehicles that were actually defective, have or will
suffer the costs associated with extensive repairs, have owned and
leased vehicles that were less valuable than those for which they
bargained, and have seen their vehicles likely lose market value.
Defendants still have not provided to the Plaintiffs the vehicles
bargained for, and even a future repair would not restore
purchasers and lessees to the benefits of ownership for which they
bargained and that they would have received but for the defect.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc., (HMA) is a manufacturer and
distributor of new motor vehicles under the Hyundai brand and is
incorporated and headquartered in the state of California. Hyundai
Motor Company (HMC) is a multinational auto manufacturer with its
headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai Motor Company controls
and operates its subsidiaries in the Hyundai Motor Group, which
includes Hyundai Motor America, Inc., as well as Kia Motors
Corporation and Kia Motors America, Inc. Kia Motors America, Inc.,
(KMA) is a manufacturer and distributor of new motor vehicles under
the Kia brand and is incorporated and headquartered in the state of
California.

Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) is a multinational auto manufacturer
with its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. It is the corporate
parent of Kia Motors America, Inc., and is a part of the Hyundai
Motor Group. Hyundai Motor Company holds a controlling stake in Kia
Motors Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

IAIRE LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
ANGEL RUIZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. IAIRE LLC, and CHUCK DANIELSON,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00397-GAP-DCI (M.D.
Fla., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover all wages owed to the
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to the Plaintiff, during
the course of their employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

During his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and
multiple other employees, handled and worked with various good
and/or materials that have moved through interstate commerce,
including, but not limited to: computers, HVAC products, cell
phones, vehicles, wrenches, screw drivers, screws, nails, glass,
hammers, aluminum, washers, gages, drills, Allen keys, bullet
vacuum pumps, flat heads, meters other common tools, company
clothing and uniforms.

The Plaintiff became a salaried employee. However, the Plaintiff
remained a non-exempt employee under the FLSA. Beginning on or
about November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff's annual salary of
$36,000.00 was intended to cover only his first 40 hours of work.
From November 20, 2018 until the end of his employment on or about
February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff worked an average of 100 hours per
week, yet was not paid the proper overtime rate of
time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate. The Defendants failed to
maintain accurate and proper time records for the Plaintiff during
the relevant time period. The Plaintiff expressly advised
Defendants that he was working overtime hours for which he was not
properly compensated.

Despite their knowledge of the work the Plaintiff performed,
Defendants nevertheless required the Plaintiff to continue working
without receiving proper overtime compensation for the hours
the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week during the relevant
period. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the proper
overtime compensation required at the federally mandated rate of
time-and-one-half for work exceeding 40 hours per week. The
Defendants were either recklessly indifferent as to the overtime
requirements under federal law, or in the alternative,
intentionally violated federal law so that Defendants could avoid
having to pay the Plaintiff his lawful (and hard-earned) wages, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides air purification and energy saving products
in the State of Florida, and has been doing so since at least
2014.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com

INOGEN INC: Fabbri Says Financial Report Misleading
---------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FABBRI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INOGEN, INC., SCOTT WILKINSON and
ALISON BAUERLEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01643 (C. D.
Cal., March 6, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act.

Inogen is a medical technology company that primarily develops,
manufactures and markets portable oxygen concentrators used to
deliver supplemental long-term oxygen therapy to patients suffering
from chronic respiratory conditions.  By overstating the strength
of Inogen's salesforce acumen and the size of the total addressable
market ("TAM") for its portable oxygen concentrators throughout the
Class Period, Inogen and its senior executives led the market to
believe the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were
much stronger than they really were, causing a sizable run-up in
the price of Inogen common stock -- which skyrocketed from its
close of $101.65 per share on November 7, 2017 to reach a Class
Period high of more than $282 per share by September 14, 2018.

Unbeknownst to investors, Inogen was overstating the true size of
the TAM for its portable oxygen concentrators, claiming it was
upwards of 3 million people; misstating the basis for its
calculation of the TAM; falsely attributing its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, when in reality it was due
in large part to nefarious sales tactics designed to deceive its
elderly customer base (including inducing them to purchase portable
oxygen concentrators from Inogen at inflated prices by claiming
that Medicare did not otherwise cover payment for such devices if
obtained from other providers); that as such, the growth in
Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to home medical
equipment ("HME") providers was inflated, unsustainable and was
eroding direct-to-consumer sales; that very little of Inogen's
business was actually coming from the more stable Medicare market;
and that as a result, defendants' Class Period statements about
Inogen's business metrics and financial prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

Inogen released its third quarter 2018 financial results after the
market closed on November 6, 2018. While the quarterly financial
results were in line with expectations, defendants revealed that
the growth in domestic business-to-business sales to HME providers
had slowed precipitously to 32% from 56% in the second quarter of
2018. And Inogen also reduced its guidance for fiscal 2018 adjusted
EBITDA to $60-$62 million from $65-$69 million. As a result, the
price of Inogen common stock fell over 19%, or $37.44 per share, to
close at $155.86 per share, on volume over the preceding five
trading days.

Then, following the publication of detailed investigative reports
by stock analysts on February 8, 2019 and February 12, 2019, which
challenged, among other things, the size of Inogen's actual TAM,
the basis for its prior TAM claims, and the nefarious source of its
Class Period sales growth, the price of Inogen common stock
declined precipitously to close at $138.05 per share on February
12, 2019.

Finally, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Inogen
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and fiscal
year 2018 ("4Q18" and "FY18") financial results for the period
ended December 31, 2018, and conducted a conference call with
investors and stock analysts to discuss its business metrics and
financial prospects. During the conference call, defendant Scott
Wilkinson backtracked on the Company's prior TAM estimate of 2.5 to
3 million patients, and blamed Inogen's poor "domestic
business-to-business sales" on "order activity [that] slow[ed] from
one national home care provider in the fourth quarter of 2018."
Inogen also reported that its 4Q18 non-GAAP EBITDA was $10.5
million, 9.5% lower than fiscal 2017, and significantly reduced its
previously provided fiscal 2019 net income guidance.

On this news, the price of Inogen common stock fell an additional
$33.77 per share, or more than 24%, from a close of $140.06 per
share on February 26, 2019, to a close of $106.28 per share on
February 27, 2019, on unusually high volume of more than 3.64
million shares traded, or more than seven times the average daily
trading volume over the preceding five trading days.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Inogen common stock between November 8, 2017 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive.  Throughout the Class Period, Inogen
common stock traded on the NASDAQ, an efficient market, under the
ticker symbol "INGN." As of February 22, 2019, Inogen had more than
21.8 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasky, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/231-1058
          Facsimile: 619/231-7423
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

J-M MANUFACTURING: Sued over Rounding of Employees' Time
--------------------------------------------------------
JOBANY RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiffs, vs. J-M MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
dba JMEAGLE; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-at-00151 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to
provide compliant meal breaks, and failed to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by JM Eagle as
a Loader in or about August 2017. Throughout his employment, the
Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. As such, he was entitled to be
paid at least minimum wage for every hour he worked. Throughout his
employment, however, Plaintiff and JM Eagle's other non-exempt
employees were not paid for every hour they worked.

JM Eagle employed, with regard to Plaintiff and its other
non-exempt employees, an impermissible but uniform policy and
practice of rounding its employees' time. 9 12. JM Eagle's rounding
policy is not neutral, either facially or as applied. JM Eagle's
rounding policy favors JM Eagle and consistently results in
underpayment to its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff.

For example, during the pay period of February 5, 2018, through
February 18, 2018, every single time Plaintiff clocked in early, JM
Eagle rounded his time up, and every single time the Plaintiff
clocked out late, JM Eagle rounded his time down. This resulted in
approximately 15 minutes of unpaid time, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Jobany Rodriguez and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com

JEANNIE'S DELI: Salvador et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMUNDO SALVADOR URAGA PAVIAS and JORGE LUIS MIRANDA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A
JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET), PARK FRESH DELI
EXPRESS CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP.
F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET), DELICIOUS FOOD MART, INC. (D/B/A PARK
FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD
MARKET), SUK N PARK , RICHIE DOE , and ISABEL DOE, the Defendants,
Case 1:19-cv-01881 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of
the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli,
located at 194 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10011 under the name
"Park Fresh Deli f/d/b/a Jeannie's Deli". The Plaintiffs were
employed as sandwich preparers, stocking workers and delivery
workers at the deli. Mr. Miranda was ostensibly employed as a
delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable
part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but
not limited to mopping, sweeping, cleaning the windows, preparing
yogurts, cutting vegetables, fruits and meats, stocking delivery
products, dishwashing and cleaning the sidewalk in front of the
store (the “non-tipped duties”). At all times relevant to this
Complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the
Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a
timely basis. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff
Miranda as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his
duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the
alleged non-tipped duties.

However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Miranda's non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less
in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising Plaintiff Miranda’s actual duties in payroll records
by designating him as a delivery worker instead of non-tipped
employees. This allowed the Defendants to avoid paying Miranda at
the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him above the
tip-credit but below the minimum wage.  In addition, the Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating
Plaintiff Miranda's and other tipped employees’ tips and made
unlawful deductions from Miranda’s and other tipped employees’
wages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

JH ONE PROPERTIES: Faces Suit over Unaccounted Security Deposit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CELINET SANCHEZ; and WILSON FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JH ONE PROPERTIES LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1977CV00257C (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., Feb.
20, 2019) alleges violation of the Security Deposit Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to notify the
Plaintiffs of the actual account into which their deposits were
placed. The Defendant also failed to provide the required receipts
for the security deposits, co-mingled security deposit funds with
its own operating funds; and failed to return the Plaintiffs'
security deposits as required, or pay the interest.

JH ONE Properties LLC is a Massachusetts company engaged in the
business of property management. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
          1 State Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


KIA MOTORS: Faces Pasillas Suit over Defective GDI Engine
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and DOES
1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05576 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2019) alleges that the Defendant manufacture
and sell a defective 2.0 and 2.4L Gasoline Direct Injection
engine.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011 ­ 2019 KIA Sportage,
2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019
Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine, using
the Gasoline Direct Injection technology contained one or more
design and/or manufacturing defects in their engines that results
in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings,
as well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to
experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation
and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all
due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often
causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a
knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a
fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          1 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup. com
                  Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  boyle@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          PO Box 7
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


KLEMENT FAMILY: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, BRITTANY WALLI, the Plaintiff, v. KLEMENT
FAMILY DENTAL, P.A. doing business as KLEMENT FAMILY DENTAL, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00533 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 2, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and implementing regulations by using an automatic
telephone dialing system when it sent Plaintiff and the putative
class members text messages after Plaintiff and the putative class
members requested the cessation of text messages. By sending text
messages using an ATDS to Plaintiff and the putative class members
after stop requests were made, Defendant invaded the privacy rights
and right to seclusion of Plaintiff and the putative class members.
Plaintiff, Brittany Walli, on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated.

According to the complaint, on December 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was
sent a Dentistry Text Message. The Plaintiff responded with "STOP".
Despite Plaintiff's STOP text message, Defendant sent another
Dentistry Text Message on December 20, 2018. The Defendant or a
third party on Defendant's behalf used an ATDS to send the
Dentistry Text Messages to Plaintiff and other persons and
entities.

The Dentistry Text Messages included instructions to STOP future
texts, which is the word that the Federal Communications Commission
has found to equate to the revocation of consent to be sent text
messages via an ATDS. As such, the fact that the Dentistry Text
Messages include such instructions suggests that the sender
understood that an ATDS was being used.

The ATDS used to send the Dentistry Text Messages has the present
capacity to store lists of numbers and send text messages to those
numbers automatically. The ATDS used to send the Dentistry Text
Messages has the present capacity to dial and store random and
sequential numbers and it can send text messages without human
intervention. The December 20, 2018, Dentistry Text Message was
sent after Plaintiff's STOP request was sent.

By sending the Dentistry Text Messages, Defendant harmed Plaintiff
and the members of the putative class by: (1) invading their
privacy and right to seclusion; (2) wasting their time; (3) causing
the risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction;
(4) forcing them to incur charges; (5) depleting a cell phone's or
wireless phone's battery, resulting in increased electricity costs;
(6) intrusion upon and occupation of the capacity of a cell phone
or wireless phone; and (7) causing the risk of personal injury due
to interruption and distraction, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin FL 34698
          Telephone: (305) 323-6433
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          Bennett & Bennett
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
                  richardbennett27@gmail.com

KROGER CO: Faces Murphy's ADA Suit in District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL G. MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00472-DME-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 15, 2019) alleges
violation of the American with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge David M. Ebel and referred to Magistrate Judge N.
Reid Neureiter.

The Kroger Co., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
retailer in the United States. It also manufactures and processes
food products for sale in its supermarkets. The Kroger Co. was
founded in 1883 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin James Sweet, Esq.
          SWEET LAW FIRM PC
          186 Mohawk Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: (412) 742-0631
          E-mail: ben@sweetlawpc.com


LCL 18: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONG ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LCL 18 Inc. TRADING AS Kumo
Sushi, Yong Cheng Cai, and Luis "DOE" (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), the
Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-01206 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and/or attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
other and former nonexempt employees who have been or were employed
by the Defendants at their restaurant locations for up to the last
three years.  The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for
minimum wage or overtime compensation according to state and
federal laws. The Plaintiff was not compensated for New York's
"spread of hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than 10
hours, one day each week. The Defendants did not provide the
Plaintiff with a wage notice in the Plaintiff's primary language at
the time of their hiring. The Defendants did not provide the
Plaintiff with a correct wage statement with every wage payment.

As a delivery person, the Plaintiff was required to use his own car
to make deliveries. The Plaintiff was not reimbursed for the costs
and maintenance. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants, he spent $400 per month on gas and maintenance. The
Plaintiff also received traffic ticket for about $400, which
Defendants did not reimburse, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: 718 353 8588
          E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com

LENNAR CORP: Daniel Brings Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Daniel, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lennar Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00452 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2019) is a class action
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act("TCPA").

The Defendant Lennar has violated the TCPA through its unauthorized
contact of consumers on their respective cellular telephones.
Specifically, Lennar has violated the TCPA by sending consumers
unsolicited text messages for marketing and advertising purposes,
without prior express written consent, invading their right to
privacy, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the city of Irvine, in Orange County,
California.

Lennar Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Marc L. Godino, Esq.
     Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
     Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     Email: info@glancylaw.com
            mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
     Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq.
     JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
     300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
     Glendale, CA 91202
     Phone: (818) 630-7280
     Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
     Email: michael@jlglawyers.com
            ryan@jlglawyers.com


LIFE INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Walker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Joyce Walker, et al. v.
Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No.
2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
and the Defendant filed appeals from court rulings in the lawsuit.

The Hon. James V. Selna previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The Court adopted this class definition:

     All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon
     Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was
     issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who
     resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and
     who received an illustration on or before the date of policy
     application.

The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its
life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus
Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under
the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations
of California's Illustration Statute.

The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life
Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 19-55241, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 28, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on April 29, 2019;

   -- Appellant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest's opening
      brief is due on June 6, 2019;

   -- Appellees Taline Bedelian, Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce
      Howlett, Muriel Spooner and Joyce Walker's answering brief
      is due on July 8, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

The briefing schedule in the cross-appeal is set as follows:

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on June 6, 2019, for Life
      Insurance Company of the Southwest;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on July 08, 2019 for
      Taline Bedelian, Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce Howlett, Muriel
      Spooner and Joyce Walker;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on August 8, 2019, for
      Life Insurance Company of the Southwest;

   -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Taline Bedelian,
      Oscar Guevara, Kim Bruce Howlett, Muriel Spooner and Joyce
      Walker is due within 21 days of service of Third brief on
      cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, MURIEL
SPOONER, TALINE BEDELIAN and OSCAR GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lyn Agre, Esq.
          Margaret Alexandra Ziemianek, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          E-mail: lagre@kasowitz.com
                  mziemianek@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP
          351 California Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 305-7117
          E-mail: bbrosnahan@cornerlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER & CALHOON
          270 East Douglas Avenue
          El Cajon, CA 92020
          Telephone: (619) 231-9449
          E-mail: cmiller@craigmillerlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Saunders , Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 288-7904
          E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com

Defendant-Appellant LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a
Texas corporation, is represented by:

          Noah A. Levine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Martens, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6291
          E-mail: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Andrea J. Robinson, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-6200
          E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com


LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks Full Back Pay for Agents
--------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-05042-PKH (W.D. Ark., March 1, 2019), seeks full back pay,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, and any and all
other relief to which each Plaintiff is entitled as a result of
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff further seeks declaratory
relief that certain Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements
required by Little John as a condition of employment are void and
unenforceable under Arkansas law.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a company-wide collective action
of all persons who worked for or work for Little John as an Agent
and who were/are subject to Little John's unlawful pay practices
and policies at any point from March 1, 2016, to the present.

As its model for employment, Little John uses full-time salaried
employees known as "Agents" to procure freight customers and then
to broker such freight either to Landstar-designated carriers or to
third-party carriers as may be allowed by the customer. Little John
then receives a percentage of the profit from each brokered load
pursuant to an agreement with Landstar.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were all directly
employed as Agents of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Putative
Plaintiffs were not compensated for hours they worked exceeding 40
hours in any given week. Little John does not pay overtime to its
Agents, the lawsuit says.

Little John acts as an agency for the transportation company
Landstar Systems, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          George M. Rozzell IV, Esq.
          Jenna R. Fogleman, Esq.
          KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER,
          SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC
          224 S. 2nd St., Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: 479-621-0006
          Facsimile: 479-631-6890
          E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com
                  jfogleman@arkattorneys.com

LUCKY 2: Lewis Suit Seeks Back-pay, Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lucky 2 Logistics, LLC dba "Need It Now Courier", Case
No. 2:19-cv-323 (E.D. Wis., March 1, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant allegedly violated these laws by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other members of the class at "time
and one-half" their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours
worked. Instead, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
drivers, were paid primarily on a day rate basis. This class and
collective action seeks to recover damages and back-pay to
compensate all current and former drivers of Defendant for their
unpaid overtime.

The Plaintiff, Rhonda Lewis, is an adult resident of this District.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver by Defendant during
the statutory period and from approximately 2015 through 2019.

The Defendant Lucky 2 Logistics, LLC dba Need It Now Courier has
its principal offices at 37-18 57th St., Woodside, New York 11377.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Haynie, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Fax: (214) 346-5909
      E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
              jay@foresterhaynie.com


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dougan Files Securities Class Action in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Dougan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Maiden Holdings, Ltd., Arturo M. Raschbaum,
Karen L. Schmitt and John M. Marshaleck, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08105 (D. N.J., March 7, 2019) is a securities class action
on behalf of all purchasers of Maiden securities between March 4,
2014 and November 9, 2018, against Maiden and certain of the
Company's former executive officers seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misrepresented the
quality and nature of Maiden's underwriting and risk management
policies and practices and the risks of its reinsurance portfolio.
In particular, Defendants misleadingly claimed that they were
subjecting AmTrust's insurance portfolio to robust analysis and
cross-checks to ensure that the Company had appropriately priced
the risk of reinsuring AmTrust's insurance portfolio.

In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient underwriting
and risk management protocols and had largely abdicated its
responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance segment
priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the Company.
These failures subjected the Company, and investors, to
catastrophic losses. As those losses were realized, the price of
Maiden stock declined precipitously.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Maiden common stock during the Class Period.

Maiden is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides reinsurance
services through its subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     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
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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


MARKEL CORP: Wellington Says Financial Report Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, LANCE ARTHUR WELLINGTON, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKEL
CORPORATION, THOMAS S. GAYNER, RICHARD R. WHITT III, ANNE G.
WALESKI, and JEREMY A. NOBLE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01947 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018,
inclusive.

According to the complaint, on December 6, 2018, the Company
disclosed that it had been contacted by the US and Bermuda
authorities on November 30, 2018 regarding "loss reserves recorded
in late 2017 and early 2018 at Markel CATCo Investment Management
Ltd and its subsidiaries."  On this news, the Company's share price
fell $99.70 per share, more than 8%, to close at $1048.23 per share
on December 7, 2018, on unusually high trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that the Company's subsidiaries did not
appropriately record loss reserves; (ii) that, as a result, the
loss reserves would need to be adjusted and/or restated; (iii) that
these misleading accounting practices would lead to regulatory
scrutiny and financial loss to investors; and (iv) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants’ positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Markel is a holding company that purports to market and underwrite
specialty insurance products and programs. Markel CATCo Investment
Management Ltd., the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, is
purportedly an insurance-linked securities investment fund manager
and reinsurance manager that manages diversified, collateralized
retrocession and reinsurance portfolios covering global property
catastrophe risks. The Company is the sole investor in one of the
funds managed by MCIM, the Markel Diversified Fund, and
consolidates that fund as its primary beneficiary. MCIM also
manages CATCo Reinsurance Opportunities Fund Ltd., a closed-end
fund in which the Company holds an investment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan 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

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Frank Suit Moved to Connecticut Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Melissa Frank On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marriott International, Inc., Starwood
Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Arne Sorenson, and Does 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. FST-CV19-6039991-S, was removed from the
Stamford/Norwalk Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven) on March 6, 2019. The District
of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00326-WWE to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Warren W.
Eginton.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael J. Jones, Esq.
          IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA LLC
          170 Mason Street
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: (203) 661-6000
          Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
          E-mail: mjones@ibolaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Brian W. Song, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: bsong@bakerlaw.com

MATTEL INC: Wyatt Sues over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------
CAROL WYATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MATTEL, INC., YNON KREIZ, and JOSEPH
J. EUTENEUER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01646 (C.D. Cal.,
March 6, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of
persons and entities thatpurchased or 13 otherwise acquired Mattel
securities between February 7, 2019 and February 15, 14 2019,
inclusive.

According to the complaint, on February 15, 2019, the Company
provided disappointing outlook for 2019, citing slowing growth in
sales of Barbie and Hot Wheels. On this news, the Company's share
price fell $3.09 per share, more than 18%, to close at $13.82 per
share on February 15, 2019, on unusually high trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that demand for the Company's products, including
Barbie and Hot Wheels, was declining; (2) that the Company had an
excess of product supply; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Mattel is a children's entertainment company that designs and sells
toys and consumer products. Mattel's "Power Brands" include Barbie,
Hot 26 Wheels, Fisher-Price, and American Girl.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

MAXWELL TECH: Phillipps Says Solicitation Statement Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK PHILLIPPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEVE
BILODEAU, RICHARD BERGMAN, JORG BUCHHEIM, FRANZ J. FINK, BURKHARD
GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, and JOHN MUTCH, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01927 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of Maxwell against the Company
and members of the Company's Board of Directors for violations of
Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, in connection with a proposed acquisition of the Company
by Tesla, Inc.

On February 4, 2019, Maxwell announced that the Company had entered
into a definitive agreement and plan of merger with Tesla, pursuant
to which Tesla will commence an all stock exchange offer for all of
the issued and outstanding shares of Maxwell. Participants will
receive shares of Tesla Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share
("Tesla Common Stock"), equal to the quotient obtained by dividing
$4.75 by the volume weighted average of the daily volume weighted
average of the trading price of one (1) share of Tesla common stock
as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market for the five (5)
consecutive trading days ending on and including the second trading
day immediately preceding the expiration of the Offer (the "Tesla
Trading Price"), subject to the minimum, together with cash in lieu
of any fractional shares of Tesla Common Stock, without interest
and less any applicable withholding taxes. In the event that the
Tesla Trading Price is equal to or less than $245.90, the minimum
will apply and each share of Maxwell Common Stock validly tendered
and not validly withdrawn will be exchanged for 0.0193 of a share
of Tesla Common Stock.

On February 20, 2019, the Company filed an incomplete and
materially misleading Solicitation Statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Form 14D9 in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. Also on February 20, 2019, the Company
authorized the filing of a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with
the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Tender
Materials omit material information regarding the Proposed
Transaction.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as Maxwell stockholders need such information in order
to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in
support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, the lawsuit
says.

Maxwell Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets
energy storage and power delivery products worldwide. The company
offers ultracapacitor cells, multi-cell packs, modules, and
subsystems that provide energy storage and power delivery solutions
for the automotive, grid energy storage, wind, bus, industrial, and
truck industries; and lithium-ion capacitors, which are energy
storage devices designed to address various of applications in the
rail, grid, and industrial markets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
RICHARD BERGMAN, STEVE BILODEAU, JӦRG BUCHHEIM, FRANZ J. FINK,
BURKHARD GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, JOHN MUTCH, TESLA, INC., and
CAMBRIA ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00443-UNA (D. Del., March 1, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction announced on February 4, 2019, pursuant to which
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. will be acquired by Tesla, Inc. and
Cambria Acquisition Corporation.

On February 3, 2019, Maxwell's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Tesla.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to acquire each issued and outstanding share of
Maxwell common stock. Specifically, each share of Maxwell common
stock will be exchanged for a fraction of a share of Tesla's common
stock, equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $4.75 by a volume
weighted average price of one share of Tesla's common stock as
reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market for the five
consecutive trading days preceding the expiration of the Tender
Offer. The Tender Offer is set to expire on March 19, 2019.

On February 20, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.  The lawsuit contends that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading, in violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Maxwell Technologies is an American developer and manufacturer
headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

MCLENNAN: Davis et al Say Housing Rental Services Discriminatory
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, UNITED AFRICAN-ASIAN ABILITIES CLUB, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF
AND ITS MEMBERS; JESSIE JAMES DAVIS IV, An Individual, the
Plaintiffs, vs. CHARLES D MCLENNAN; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01513 (C.D. Cal., Feb.
28, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendants to cease their discriminatory
practices in housing rental services and rental housing management
services, and compel Defendants to implement written policies and
methods to respond to reasonable accommodation and reasonable
modification requests, pursuant ot the US Fair Housing Act of 1988
and Government Code 12925, 12927, 12955; CA Civil Code sections 51,
52.

Davis has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and is
unable to walk any distance. He also has limited mobility in his
hands and upper body. He is also a member of the Plaintiff Club.

Davis alleges that Defendant's property and website have  physical
and communication barriers that make it impossible or extremely
difficult for him to access Defendants' on-site rental
services.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          David C. Wakefield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD
          10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: 619 241 7112
          Facsimile: 619 342 7755
          E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com
                  wakefieldlawassistant@gmail.com

MDL 2492: Hurst Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Alex Hurst, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00357 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01053 to the proceeding.

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

The Hurst 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: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, BRIAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00359 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01057 to
the proceeding.

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

The Johnson 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: Kidd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Eric Kidd, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Howard Payne University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00376 (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. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01179 to the proceeding.

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

The Kidd 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: Koronkiewicz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Moved
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, David Koronkiewicz, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.  1:19-cv-00363 (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. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01064 to
the proceeding.

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

The Koronkiewicz 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: Lott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Adam Lott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00356 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01051 to
the proceeding.

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

The Lott 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: McCall Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Shedrick McCall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Maryville College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00438 (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. 27, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01124 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 Maryville College
Student-Athletes.

The McCall 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: McKinney Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MATTHEW MCKINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and THIEL COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00360 (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. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01059 to the proceeding.

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

The McKinney 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: Moore Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Kevin Moore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00353 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01045 to
the proceeding.

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

The Moore 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: Owens Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Andre Owens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Howard University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00364 (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. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01066 to the proceeding.

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

The Owens 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: Perry Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, LEON PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Baldwin Wallace University, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00361 (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. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-01060 to the proceeding.

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

The Perry 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: Staten Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ARMOND STATEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00358 (Filed Jan. 26,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01054 to
the proceeding.

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

The Staten 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: Stroud Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Larry Stroud, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Charleston Southern University, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00362 (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. 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01062 to the proceeding.

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

The Stroud 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: Thompson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Dean Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00372 (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. 22, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01175 to
the proceeding.

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

The Thompson 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: Wasil Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, WILLIAM WASIL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Ohio Wesleyan University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00352 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Feb. 22, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case
No.1:19-cv-01043 to the proceeding.

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

The Wasil 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: Webster Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Alan Webster, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00465 (Filed Jan. 29,
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. 28, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01115 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 Webster 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 Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Ryan Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Guilford College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00435 (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. 27, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01121 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 Guilford College
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 2741: Barnes Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT BARNES and MARCIA BARNES,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00838 (Filed Dec. 18, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Mar. 4, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01185-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Tad Thomas, Esq.
          John Abaray, Esq.
          THOMAS LAW OFFICES
          9418 Norton Commons Blvd., Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40059
          Telephone: 877-256-4296
          Facsimile: 877-955-7002
          E-mail: tad@thomaslawoffices.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Telephone: 937-435-7500
          Facsimile: 937-435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

MDL 2741: Bordeaux Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM BORDEAUX, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-160 (Filed Feb.
1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00960-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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

MDL 2741: Martinez Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALONZO MARTINEZ, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00150 (Filed Jan.
31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00957-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MDL 2741: Susak Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FRANK SUSAK and JENNIFER SUSAK, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00140 (Filed Jan. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00955-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2804: Dawsey Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Debra Dawsey, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No.  1:19-cv-00094, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Feb. 26, 2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-op-45092-DAP to the proceeding.

The Dawsey case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on centralization
vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential
tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs in 15
actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to
opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML
Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of
West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court.
Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER
          150 North Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5226
          E-mail: sam@kellerlenkner.com

MDL 2804: Golden Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Glenn Golden, Gretta Golden, and Michael Christy,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalic
Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Jansen
Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Undo
Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergen PL,
formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now
known as Activist Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma,
Inc., formerly known as: Watson Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; and
Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01048, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Feb. 26, 2019. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-op-45091-DAP to the proceeding.

The Golden case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on centralization
vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential
tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs in 15
actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to
opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML
Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of
West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court.
Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          William David Aaron, Jr., Esq.
          Anna A. Rainer, Esq.
          DeWayne Larry Williams, Esq.
          AARON & GIANNA, PLC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 569-1800
          E-mail: waaron@aarongianna.com
                  anna.rnr@gmail.com
                  dwilliams@aarongianna.com

MDL 2875: Longwell Suit v. Camber over Valsartan Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Veronica Longwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Camber Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Hetero USA INC., and Hetero Drugs Limited, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-12339 (Filed Nov. 7, 2018), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 1,
2019. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07463 to the proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,000 and
alleges product liability for personal injury caused by the use of
generic valsartan.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Peter J. Ainsworth, Esq.
          MEEHAN, BOYLE, BLACK & BOGDANOW, P.C.
          Two Center Plaza,Suite 600
          Boston, MA 02108-1922
          Telephone: (617) 523-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 523-0455

MDL 2879: Axelrod Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Lisa Axelrod, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60131 (Filed Jan.
15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 22, 2019. The District of
Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00516-PWG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of customers' privacy rights.

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

Attorneys for the Plainitffs:

          Thomas E Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Ave. Ste. 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

MDL 2879: Kimmel et al vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled David J. Kimmel, Michael C.
Christner, and Thomas Stabile, Individually and on Behalf of a
Class of All Others Similarly Situated,  the Plaintiffs, vs.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983 (Filed Dec.
5, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the n
District of Connecticut York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 27, 2019. The District of
Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00508-PWG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of customers' privacy rights.

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

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Daniel R Warren, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower 127 Public Square Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7145
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq.
          Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1530
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com
                  lghannoum@bakerlaw.com


MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Yannacone Says Debt Collection Illegal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, GERALD YANNACONE, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. MERCHANTS AND PROFESSIONAL BUREAU,
INC. d/b/a MERCHANTS AND PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019), sues
Defendant for unfair debt collection practices in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Texas Debt
Collection Act (TDCA).

The Defendant sought collections from Plaintiff for medical bills
that occurred between February 2014 and April 2014 for health care
services performed by Austin Family Medicine. Austin Family
Medicine did not bill for these health care services within the
time period prescribed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section
146.002.

According to the lawsuit, a health care service provider in Texas
must submit a bill within a year of service. A health care service
provider is barred from collecting on any medical bills that it
does not submit within a year of service.

Additionally, Austin Family Medicine did not sue Plaintiff within
four years of the services being rendered. The Defendant sent
Plaintiff a form letter dated October 26, 2018. In the form letter,
Defendant sought to collect $549.50 from Plaintiff for health care
services provided that were time barred. On October 30, 2018,
Plaintiff submitted a dispute letter to Defendant.

On November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff spoke to Defendant, confirming
that Defendant received Plaintiff's dispute. On November 19, 2018,
Defendant submitted another form letter. The form letters submitted
by Defendant are misleading and deceptive. The November 19th form
letter states: "We have verified with our client that this balance
is valid and owed. [Defendant] does not purchase debts. Our client
has assigned the above reference account to us for the purpose of
collecting on the outstanding balance due them."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plainiff:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          325 Shelby Street, Esq.
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Telephone: 863-838-3838
          E-mail: bernie@thelaborfirm.com

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: McGinnis Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SEAN MCGINNIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
190200969, was removed from Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on March 7, 2019. The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00970-MAK to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Mark A. Kearney.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Vincent D. Margiotti, Esq.
          MCMENAMIN & MARGIOTTI LLC
          2307 N. Broad St., P.O. BOX 180
          Lansdale, PA 19446

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Vlada Tasich, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2659
          E-mail: vxtasich@mdwcg.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DERICK M. BROWN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00339 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Browns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA BROWN and JOHNNY BROWN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00350-DDN (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Gattuccio Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN GATTUCCIO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00370 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 28, 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's  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 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: Lundys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LUNDY AND VONZELLA LUNDY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00342 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lutzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD LUTZ AND LAURA LUTZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00336-CDP (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Maestas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD MAESTAS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No 4:19-cv-00361 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Moul Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. MOUL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00337 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Navarro Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVARRO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00358 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID J. ROBBINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00338 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Rowell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL ROWELL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00354 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyders Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR W. SNYDER and BARBARA L. SNYDER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00291 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 22,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto
Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:19-cv-00898 (S.D. Ind., March 1, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for negligence, breach of express contract and fraudulent
concealment.

The Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of Colorado State University
student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges that for decades, the Defendant 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.

The Plaintiff Courtney Jones is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Texas.

The Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association with its
principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The Defendant is the governing body of
collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and
over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics,
including the football program at CSU. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Murray Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries
------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR DUSTIN THOMAS VON HOPKINS MURRAY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-731 (S.D. Ind.,
Feb. 18, 2019) is an action against the Defendant to obtain redress
for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of the Oregon
State University student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries like those the Plaintiff experienced,
the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
the Plaintiff and other Oregon State University football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Schultz Sues over Safety of Concordia Student-Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and CONCORDIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00894-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., March 1, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of Concordia student-athletes
student-athletes.

While in school, Concordia 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 Concordia 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 Concordia 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 ANSWERNET: Salon Sues over Background Checks & Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
AURELIO P. SALON, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ANSWERNET,INC.; ENERGY CHOICE
CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
19CV342756 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019), alleges
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681.  The action also seeks to recover from the Defendants premium
wages for meal periods and rest periods, and non-payment of
overtime wages.

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

AnswerNet, Inc. provides inbound, outbound, and e-bound call center
services. The company was formerly known as AnswerNet Network and
changed its name to AnswerNet, Inc. in 2009. AnswerNet, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWPORT RIB: Underpays Cooks, Rosete Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
BONIFACIO MELENDEZ ROSETE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWPORT RIB COMPANY, INC.; NAPLES
RIB COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01051724-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Feb. 15,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Rosete was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Newport Rib Company, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Mahoney, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gandy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEON GANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05915-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Feb.
15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Michael A.
Shipp and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


NUCO2 LLC: Overcharges Customers, Townhouse Restaurant Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT OF OVIEDO, INC., the Plaintiff, vs.
NUCO2, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14085-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 6, 2019), challenges NuCO2's widespread and systematic
practice of overcharging its customers through a coordinated
deceptive scheme.

The Plaintiff is a small business that owns and operates a
restaurant in Oviedo, Florida. As part of its operations, the
Plaintiff purchases carbon dioxide (CO2) and related equipment from
NuCO2, LLC.

NuCO2 is a large beverage carbonation company that is wholly owned
by Praxair, Inc., the largest industrial and medical supply company
in North America, with more than $11 billion dollars in annual
revenue.

Like thousands of other small businesses across the country,
Plaintiff buys its CO2 and related equipment from NuCO2 pursuant to
a standard, pre-printed contract. Notably, this contract is uniform
among putative class members in all relevant aspects and contains a
six-year term, which auto-renews for additional six-year terms. The
primary purpose of the form contract is to establish fixed monthly
prices a given customer will pay NuCO2 for products and equipment.

In violation of the form contract and of Florida law -- which
governs all claims in this litigation -- NuCO2 has carried out a
systematic deceptive scheme to charge its customers more than the
agreed amounts. NuCO2 enters into the agreements knowing that it
will increase the promised prices without justification. The
contracts specifically restrict NuCO2's ability to increase prices
to two discrete circumstances: (1) annually on the effective date
of the contract (up to 5% or the amount of a specific inflationary
index) or (2) within 15 days of sending a "Price Adjustment
Notification." NuCO2 does neither. Rather, for years NuCO2 has
carried out an automated price increase practice that increases
price without the required notice and unrelated to the contractual
effective date. These increases are significant; over the standard
six-year term customers are forced to pay as much as 30% more each
month than what NuCO2 represented and agreed.

NuCO2 has also increased prices by imposing a fee it calls a "fuel
surcharge/energy surcharge" but which, in fact, has no relationship
to its increased fuel costs. Rather, NuCO2 uses the fuel surcharge
-- in intent and effect -- as a hidden price increase. The fuel
surcharge bears absolutely no relation to NuCO2's actual increased
fuel or energy costs and NuCO2 does not use the proceeds from the
energy surcharge to offset such costs. In fact, NuCO2 includes any
fuel or energy costs it might incur in delivering its products and
service through the standard rates it charges customers. NuCO2
simply uses the fuel surcharge to generate extra profit at its
customers' expense, all the while deceiving customers into
believing that the fee is a legitimate charge directly related to
specific increased costs it incurs.

NuCO2's conduct is a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, a breach of contract, and a violation of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing that underpins those contracts,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Anthony J. Garcia, Esq.
          AG LAW, P.A.
          742 S. Village Circle
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813 259 9555
          Facsimile: 813 254 9555
          E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
          Garrett Owens, Esq.
          PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
          2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 208 9588
          Facsimile: 205 208 9598
          E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
                  garrett@pricearmstrong.com

               - and -

          Taylor C. Bartlett,Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 326 3336
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Cobra Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the maker of dietary
supplements that promised greater "sexual energy" and against a
lawsuit on behalf of customers in a ruling  over the timeliness of
petitions to appeal of class certification orders.

Nutraceutical Corp. had asked the Supreme Court to reverse the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's 2017 decision allowing the
plaintiff in a consumer class action to file an interlocutory
appeal of a decertification order in a case over "Cobra Sexual
Energy" pills. The Supreme Court on Feb. 26 found that the
plaintiff had missed the 14-day deadline to petition for appeal
under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which,
despite the Ninth Circuit's contrary view, was not subject to
equitable tolling.

"Here, the governing rules speak directly to the issue of Rule
23(f)'s flexibility and make clear that its deadline is not subject
to equitable tolling," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "The rules
thus express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule
23(f)'s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might
otherwise exist."

Nutraceutical attorney John Hueston -- jhueston@hueston.com -- of
Hueston Hennigan in Los Angeles, said the ruling's impact extended
beyond that of his client.

"In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court adopted our argument
that all mandatory claim-processing rules are unalterable if
properly raised," he wrote in an emailed statement. "The Court's
decision has significant implications for civil and administrative
procedure and will provide clarity to the lower courts and
litigants on this important issue."

Plaintiff's attorney Jonathan Herstoff --
jherstoff@haugpartners.com -- of Haug Partners in
New York, did not respond to a request for comment.
The ruling is the latest Supreme Court decision to challenge
procedural rules used in class actions. On Jan. 15, the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments in Home Depot v. Jackson, which
addressed whether a third-party counterclaim defendant could remove
a case to federal court under the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act.
And, in 2016, in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, the Supreme Court struck
down a defense tactic used to wipe out a class action by offering
to pay the named plaintiffs in full.

Although interlocutory appeals of class certification orders aren't
mandatory, lawyers on both sides of class actions have fought for
appeals courts to take up more petitions for them. The Supreme
Court has addressed class certification appeals before, ruling in
2017 in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker that a plaintiff couldn't petition
to appeal such an order after voluntarily dismissing his claims.

The practical impact of the Feb. 26 ruling, however, could be less
on Rule 23(f) appeals and more on an issue that the Supreme Court
"leaves dangling," said Evan Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- of
Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C. That is, when should a lawyer file
a motion to reconsider a class certification order without losing
his right to appeal? Parties on both sides of a class action could
end up delaying or eliminating such motions in light of the Supreme
Court's holding, Tager said.

"As a practical matter, what I foresee happening is nobody is going
to fail to file a 23(f) petition within 14 days. Period. End of
story," he said. "And if they want to do a reconsideration, they
will probably wait and see what happens with the 23(f)."

In the Nutraceutical case, the plaintiff, Troy Lambert, alleged
that the labels on "Cobra Sexual Energy" pills falsely promised
"animal magnetism" and "potency wood." In 2015, U.S. District Judge
Andre Birotte in the Central District of California decertified the
class.

Mr. Lambert filed a reconsideration motion 20 days later and, when
Birotte rejected that, petitioned to appeal that decision 14 days
after the filing of his reconsideration motion. Under Rule 23,
parties must file petitions for interlocutory appeals of class
certification orders 14 days after a ruling, but the Ninth Circuit
tolled the deadline for Lambert, concluding that he had "otherwise
acted diligently."

The Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had acknowledged its
holding split with nearly half the country's federal appellate
courts on a matter of first impression.

"Whether the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to
preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions
merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably
mistaken, or otherwise deserving," Justice Sotomayor wrote. [GN]


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Proskauer Rose Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Carl
Mazurek, Esq. -- cmazurek@proskauer.com -- and Kelly Landers
Hawthorne, Esq. -- klandershawthorne@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Ninth Circuit decision,
resolving a circuit split in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f)'s 14-day deadline for a losing party to file a
petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying
class certification is not subject to equitable tolling.
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. -- (2019).

The putative class action lawsuit alleged California law false
advertising claims arising from Nutraceutical's sale and marketing
of purported aphrodisiac supplements. The original district court
judge assigned to the case certified the class and subsequently
retired. Later, the judge to whom the case was reassigned granted
Nutraceutical's motion for decertification. From that point under
23(f), the plaintiff had 14 days to file a petition with the Court
of Appeals for leave to appeal the decertification order.

Ten days into the 14-day countdown, plaintiff told the district
court at a status conference that he would file a motion in the
district court for reconsideration of the decertification order. No
mention was made of the Rule 23(f) deadline. Plaintiff filed the
reconsideration motion and, long after the 14-day deadline for a
motion for leave to appeal, the district court denied
reconsideration. Only then did plaintiff file his motion for leave
to appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Nutraceutical objected that the motion for leave to appeal was
untimely under Rule 23(f), but the Ninth Circuit found the appeal
timely, reversed the district court's order of decertification and
ordered that a class be certified. The Ninth Circuit's rationale
was that Rule 23(f)'s 14-day time limit is non-jurisdictional and
therefore necessarily subject to equitable tolling, and that the
14-day deadline was deemed tolled when, before it had expired,
plaintiff had objected to the decertification order and notified
the district court of his intention to seek recertification via
filing a reconsideration motion for reconsideration. In reaching
this result, the Ninth Circuit recognized that its decision was in
conflict with those of other circuits, which had held that Rule
23(f)'s 14-day deadline was immutable.

The Supreme Court granted Neutraceutical's petition for certiorari
and, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously reversed. The
Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that Rule 23(f) is
non-jurisdictional because it is a procedural rule. Still, the
Court clarified, the "mere fact that a time limit lacks
jurisdictional force . . . does not render it malleable in every
respect." Instead, Justice Sotomayor explained, "[w]hether a rule
precludes equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional
character," but "rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room
for such flexibility."

Reading Rule 23(f) with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
5(a)(2) and 26(b)(1), the Court found that the Rules "express a
clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)'s
deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might
otherwise exist." Plaintiff's motion was therefore untimely,
regardless of any equitable considerations.

Nutraceutical Corp. provides an important lesson to litigants,
whether plaintiffs or defendants, who find themselves on the losing
end of a class action certification motion. Litigants have the
right to seek leave to appeal the district court's certification
decision to the relevant circuit court. However, they forfeit that
right if they fail to do so within 14 days of the entry of the
order granting or denying class certification, as the appellate
court cannot forgive on equitable tolling ground defendant's
failure to adhere to that deadline, even in good faith. [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Consolidate Iron Workers & Oto Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a number of shareholders
are seeking to consolidate the Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia
Corporation, et al. and Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. cases and
to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to
be appointed lead counsel.

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v.
Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as
defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

The complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading
statements related to channel inventory and the impact of
cryptocurrency mining on the graphics processing unit (GPU) demand
between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018.

The plaintiff also alleges that the NVIDIA officers who they named
as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of equitable/injunctive or other
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities
class action was commenced in the Northern District of California,
captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783),
naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar
relief.

The two cases have been related and are before the same judge. A
stipulation to consolidate the Iron Workers and Oto actions is
pending before the Court. On February 19, 2019, a number of
shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases and to be
appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be
appointed lead counsel.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ORVIS COMPANY: Website not Accessible to Blind, Garey Says
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GAREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02075 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks
to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by
Defendant against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, pursuant to
Title III of the Americans with Disability Act.

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

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' website will thus become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired persons. Orvis is a family-owned retail
and mail-order business specializing in high-end fly fishing,
hunting and sporting goods. Founded in Manchester, Vermont, in 1856
by Charles F. Orvis to sell fishing tackle, it is the oldest
mail-order retailer in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

P CONSTRUCTION: Rodrigues et al. Seek Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------
BENVINDO RODRIGUES, ANDRE PINTO, MARCOS DASILVA, GIVANILDO SOUSA,
OLAVO PEREIRA-MARTINS, and DANIELSON MARTINS-RODRIGUE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. P CONSTRUCTION, CORP.; RONDON SIDING CORP.; EXCEL GROUP CORP;
NATIONAL LUMBER COMPANY; RELIABLE TRUSS AND COMPONENTS, INC.; WEDER
PEREIRA; CRISTINA PEREIRA; WAGNER SOUZA; JOEL DA COSTA; MANUEL
PINA; and STEVEN KAITZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10409 (D.
Mass., March 5, 2019), seeks payment of overtime premiums and other
damages due to the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated
hourly-payed workers under federal and state law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants exploited these workers,
all or most of whom were immigrants with little knowledge of their
rights. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs premium
wages for overtime work, timely wages, wages for all hours worked,
and paid sick leave. In addition, this action seeks payment for
damages resulting from Defendants' wrongful termination of certain
Plaintiffs in retaliation for the wage complaint filed by Rodrigues
with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office on behalf of
himself and similarly-situated coworkers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Chip Muller, Esq.
          MULLER LAW, LLC
          47 Wood Avenue
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 256-5171
          Facsimile: (401) 256-5025
          E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com

PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT: Underpays Bartenders, Raczkiewicz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRYCIA RACZKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALIGROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a
PALIHOUSE WEST HOLLYWOOD; PALIHOUSE SANTA MONICA, LLC; PALIGROUP
HOLDINGS, LLC; SOUTHWEST WINE & SPIRITS, LLC d/b/a WALLY'S WINE &
SPIRITS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05501
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Raczkiewicz was employed by the Defendants as
bartender.

Paligroup Management LLC operates as a real estate development and
hospitality operating company. It acquires, programs, develops,
owns, and operates hotels and residences. The company offers
design, development, and management services. Its portfolio also
includes specialized retail spaces, restaurants, bars, and event
venues. Paligroup Management LLC was formerly known as Palisades
Development Group LLC and changed its name to Paligroup Management
LLC in 2012. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in West
Hollywood, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: UPMC Pinnacle Sues AG Shapiro over New Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Several entities affiliated with UPMC Pinnacle commenced a lawsuit
against Joshua D. Shapiro, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief confirming that the Plaintiffs' rights and
obligations with respect to federal healthcare programs are set by
federal law, barring Shapiro from interfering with superior federal
law and policy, and prohibiting him from unconstitutionally
depriving nonprofits of their rights and property.

The lawsuit contends that Shapiro, purporting to act in his
official capacity, has illegally taken over nonprofit healthcare in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Without rulemaking, legislation
or public comment, Shapiro has announced new "principles" that
radically (and often in direct contravention of existing federal
and state law) change how nonprofit health insurers and providers
operate, now rendering the Attorney General the arbiter of how
nonprofit health organizations should envision and achieve their
mission.

Seizing on the unfounded idea that all nonprofits healthcare
providers and all nonprofit health insurers must contract with any
counterparty who asks, the Attorney General has imposed mandatory
contracting requirements, has forced rate-making arbitration before
panels that he hand-picks, and has ordered removal of corporate
boards to ensure his complete control. Any entity that fails to
agree to these terms faces draconian penalties, including the
potential loss of nonprofit status.

This illegal scheme fundamentally changes the law. The healthcare
industry is based on competition between closed networks of
insurers and providers, and legislative efforts to change that
model have failed. Just a few years ago the Attorney General's
office itself conceded that "there is no statutory basis to make"
payors and providers contract with each other and "no mechanism in
Pennsylvania for resolving -- price dispute[s]" between them.

But the Attorney General now asserts, pursuant to what he calls his
own "vast authority," the ability to override the current federal
and state system and impose his own rules.  The Attorney General's
principles are preempted by at least four different federal laws.
Medicare Advantage ("MA") statutes and regulations explicitly favor
competition, preserve healthcare entities' freedom of contract, and
preempt all state actions that interfere with the MA program. The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") precludes states
from regulating nonprofits that offer insurance plans through
public exchanges differently from the for-profit insurers in that
market. The Sherman Act prohibits regulatory schemes that delegate
unsupervised ratemaking. The Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") supersedes state health care initiatives that
substantially impact employer-sponsored health plans. In each of
these areas Congress' policy-making power is supreme and precludes
the Attorney General's conduct.

The Attorney General's assertion of "vast" power over nonprofits
also violates the United States Constitution. Due process prohibits
Shapiro from imposing his ultra vires requirements on nonprofits
through backroom threats with no legal process and then delegating
price fixing power to self-interested private parties. This is
particularly true where, as here, the Attorney General successfully
argued to this Court that Pinnacle Health System (now Plaintiff
UPMC Pinnacle) could not proceed with its planned merger with
Hershey Medical System because it would reduce leverage and thus
the ability of an insurer or provider to walk away from
negotiations.  Shapiro has now arbitrarily and capriciously changed
positions, seeking to eliminate all leverage in future contracts.
The Takings Clause prohibits taking Plaintiffs' federal rights to
not contract or conditioning benefits under state law, such as
nonprofit status, on Plaintiffs forfeiting such rights. And
Shapiro's failure to apply the law equally among all nonprofits
violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The case is captioned as UPMC Pinnacle; UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals;
UPMC Pinnacle Carlisle; UPMC Pinnacle Hanover; UPMC Pinnacle
Lititz; UPMC Pinnacle Memorial; UPMC Somerset; UPMC Health Plan,
Inc.; UPMC Health Coverage, Inc.; UPMC Health Network, Inc.; UPMC
Health Options, Inc.; UPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc., on
their own and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Joshua D. Shapiro, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00298-JEJ (M.D. Pa., Feb. 21, 2019).

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and All Other Members of the Plaintiff
Class:

          Leon F. DeJulius Jr., Esq.
          Anderson T. Bailey, Esq.
          David S. Torborg, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
          E-mail: lfdejulius@jonesday.com
                  atbailey@jonesday.com
                  dstorborg@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Cozen, Esq.
          James R. Potts, Esq.
          Stephen A. Miller, Esq.
          Jared D. Bayer, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Ste. 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2000
          Facsimile: (215) 701-2055

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Mulhern Hits Misclassification, Seeks Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Mulhern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01660-CBM-RAO (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2019) seeks to recover
damages from the Defendant arising from its unlawful
misclassification of him and other so-called Sales Development
Associates ("SDAs")  working for Pepperidge Farm as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

Pepperidge Farm's misclassification of its Illinois SDAs as
independent contractors rather than employees constitutes a
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, asserts
the complaint.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other SDAs operating in
Illinois, seeks to recover damages suffered as a result of
Pepperidge Farm's illegal misclassification of them as independent
contractors, including: (a) illegal deductions that Pepperidge Farm
made from their wages or compensation in violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, (b) overtime wages that Pepperidge
Farm deprived them of in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and (c) business expenses that Pepperidge Farm improperly
shifted onto them, resulting in Pepperidge Farm's unjust
enrichment, says the complaint.

Mulhern worked for Pepperidge Farm in Illinois as a so-called SDA
pursuant to a standard form Consignment Agreement.

Pepperidge Farm manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes
biscuit and snack products (cookies and crackers) and bakery
products (bread, rolls, stuffing, and croutons) throughout the
United States, including in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Freed, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Fax: (224) 632-4521
     Email: mfreed@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas V. Urmy, Esq.
     Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
     53 State Street, 13th Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: (617) 439-3939
     Fax: (617) 439-0134
     Email: turmy@shulaw.com
            imcloughlin@shulaw.com

          - and -

     Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
     Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq.
     Rudolph Friedmann LLP
     92 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: (617) 723-7700
     Fax: (617) 227-0313
     Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com
            jfriedmann@rflawyers.com


PHEAA: Fails to Credit Student Loan Payments, Winebarger Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA WINEBARGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE AGENCY and NELNET, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to rectify a
pattern and practice by Defendants of failing to credit student
loan borrowers for qualifying payments toward the
Congressionally-mandated Public Service Loan Forgiveness ("PSLF")
program.

The practice contravenes Defendants' duties under their servicing
contracts with the federal government and under applicable law, and
financially impairs thousands, if not millions, of student loan
borrowers eligible or potentially eligible for debt relief under
the PSLF program.

Ms. Winebarger is a case in point. She has diligently made payments
which meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements to count
as "qualifying payments" toward the qualifying payments required
for loan forgiveness under the PSLF program.

However, PHEAA -- which serves as the exclusive loan servicer for
borrowers actively pursuing PSLF -- has furnished Ms. Winebarger
with vastly fluctuating payment counts that do not reflect the full
number of qualifying payments she has made. Ms. Winebarger now
seeks to remedy the situation on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, public servants who have borrowed money to fund
their education but have found their progress toward promised loan
forgiveness stymied by Defendants' negligence and malfeasance.

In the aggregate, the claims of all class members exceed
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, based on the
allegations herein. Given the value of the loans eligible or
potentially eligible for forgiveness under the PSLF program (which
run to the hundreds of billions of dollars), it is readily apparent
that Defendants' negligence and malfeasance have caused much more
than $5,000,000 in qualifying payments for PSLF to go uncredited,
thew lawsuit says.

PHEAA is a public corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania. Nelnet
is a corporation headquartered in Nebraska.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and for the proposed Class:

          Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
          Janine Cohen, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Sorkowitz, Esq.
          PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
          355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 262-9333
          E-mail: twarren@piercebainbridge.com
                  jcohen@piercebainbridge.com
                  jsorkowitz@piercebainbridge.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Robinson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERELL ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00459-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 15,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Richard M
Gergel.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr., Esq.
          NORSWORTHY LAW LTD CO.
          505 Pettigru Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 804-0581
          Facsimile: (864) 756-1153
          E-mail: kenorsworthy@me.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Teiner Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Teiner, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and PRA Group, Inc., Case No.
621976/2018, was removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip) March 5, 2019. The Eastern District of New York
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01281 to the proceeding. The
suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act
violation.

PRA Group, Inc. or PRA, is a publicly traded debt buyer based in
Norfolk, Virginia. PRA was listed in the Federal Trade Commission's
Report on the Debt Buying Industry as one of the largest debt
buyers in the US. PRA was among the top five debt buyers in the FTC
Report.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 704-6288
          E-mail: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com

PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Trantham Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANNAH TRANTHAM, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00037-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 6,
2019), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and other relief from Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for wages due and owing.

In or around February 2018, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to sell
AT&T products and she continued in that capacity until she resigned
in February 2019. The proposed collective class of individuals
consists of employees of Defendant, who like Plaintiff were hourly
workers, who performed overtime work for which they failed to
receive compensation and who otherwise worked off the clock without
receiving compensation.

Throughout her employment, Plaintiff routinely stayed late and
performed work off the clock when Defendant's stores should have
been closed, all at the instruction and knowledge of her
supervisors. The similarly situated employees are also believed to
have performed work off the clock at the direction of Defendant
acting through its agents, servants and employees and to have
worked overtime for Defendant who failed to pay them for their
overtime pay.

The Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $11.10. She worked from
10:30 or 11:30 in the morning until after Defendant's stores were
closed, sometimes as late as 9:00 at night. The FLSA requires an
employer to pay its employees at a rate of at least minimum wage
for all hours worked and also requires an employer to pay its
employees time and one-half when they work more than 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid for any
hours worked after their 40th hour of the week despite working an
average of two overtime hours per week throughout her
employment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244-2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com

PROVIDENT CREDIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilkerson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAY WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROVIDENT CREDIT UNION; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV00916 (Cal. Super., San
Mateo Cty., Feb. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

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

Provident Credit Union operates as a credit union that provides
banking products and services to its members from employer groups
in the United States. Provident Credit Union was formerly known as
CTA Credit Union. The company was founded in 1950 and is based in
Redwood City, California with branches in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


RADIOLOGY BOARD: Sued over Maintenance of Certification Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SADHISH K. SIVA, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF RADIOLOGY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01407 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2019),
challenges the Board's practice of requiring all radiologists to
purchase maintenance of certification product (MOC) to maintain
their initial American Board of Radiology (ABR) certifications.

The case is about ABR's illegal and anti-competitive conduct in the
market for initial board certification of radiology physicians and
the market for maintenance of certification of radiologists. In
very general terms, a radiologist identifies and assesses
abnormalities in imaging studies such as X-rays, computer
tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.
ABR is illegally tying its initial certification product to its
maintenance of certification product, referred to by ABR as MOC.

The case is also about ABR's illegal creation and maintenance of
its monopoly power in the market for maintenance of certification.
ABR is the monopoly supplier of initial certifications for
radiologists. Beginning in or about 1994, ABR used its monopoly
position in the initial certification market to create a monopoly
in the market of maintenance of certifications for radiologists,
which is the subject of this lawsuit. Since then ABR has used
various anti-competitive, exclusionary, and unlawful actions to
promote MOC and prevent and limit the growth of competition from
new providers of maintenance of certification for radiologists.
ABR's conduct, including but not limited to tying and exclusive
dealing, has harmed competition by preventing competition from
others providing cheaper, less burdensome, and more innovative
forms of maintenance of certification desired by radiologists.

The tying product is ABR's initial board certification, which it
sells to radiologists nationwide. ABR currently sells initial
certification services to radiologists in four primary areas of
radiology, diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, medical
physics, and interventional radiology/diagnostic radiology, and
several subspecialties within the field of radiology. Many
radiologists hold multiple initial ABR certifications, purchasing
one or more primary certifications or subspecialties.

The tied product is MOC, ABR's maintenance of certification. ABR
has tied MOC to its initial certification.  To drive sales of MOC
and to monopolize the market for maintenance of certification, ABR
has forced radiologists to purchase MOC, charged supracompetitive
monopoly prices for MOC, and thwarted competition in the market for
maintenance of certification. Currently, approximately 1,500-2,000
radiologists in the United States purchase ABR primary initial
certifications annually. ABR has throughout the relevant period
controlled the market for initial certification of radiologists in
the United States.

In 2016, the last year for which data is publicly available, ABR
sold its MOC product to approximately 26,000 radiologists. Through
its MOC program, ABR controls the market for maintenance of
certification of radiologists. ABR has unlawfully obtained and
maintained its monopoly power in the market for maintenance of
certification services for the anti-competitive purpose of
requiring radiologists to purchase MOC and not deal with competing
providers of maintenance of certification services.

Established in 1934, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) is a not
for profit physician-led organization. It oversees the
certification and ongoing professional development of specialists
in diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology and medical
physics.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          C. Philip Curley, Esq.
          Cynthia H. Hyndman, Esq.
          Laura R. Feldman, Esq.
          Benjamin E. Schwab, Esq.
          ROBINSON CURLEY P.C.
          300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 663 3100
          Facsimile: 312 663 0303
          pcurley@robinsoncurley.com
          E-mail: chyndman@robinsoncurley.com
                  lfeldman@robinsoncurley.com
                  bschwab@robinsoncurley.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREEBERG, LLC
          111 West Washington, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 750 1265
          Facsimile: 312.212.5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

REMEX INC: Maneri Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
MARGARET MANERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REMEX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05978-ES-MAH (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas and referred to Magistrate
Judge Michael A. Hammer.

Remex, Inc. is engaged as a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Telephone: (973) 227-0019
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


RENT RECOVERY: Madison Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
SHARONDALYN MADISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00406-B (N.D. Tex.,
Feb. 19, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Jane J. Boyle.

Resort Recovery Solutions, LLC provides debt collection services.
The company prepares monthly reports that include details such as
member name, contract number, amount collected, payment type, and
commission amount. Resort Recovery Solutions, LLC is based in San
Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
          SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
          6136 Frisco Blvd, Suite 400
          Frisco, TX 75034
          Telephone: (214) 210-9910
          Facsimile: (214) 594-6100
          E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com


RENT-A-TIRE LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chappel Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA N. CHAPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-TIRE, L.P.; RENT A WHEEL;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19CV342757
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Chappel was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
and hourly employee.

Rent-A-Tire Inc. is a rent-to-own custom wheel and tire retailer in
the United States. It sells wheels and tires through stores in
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The
company was founded in 1996 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas. As
of July 2002, Rent-A-Tire Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Rent A
Wheel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Sexual Abuse Victims Offended by Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY M. POPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE, a.k.a.
THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, a.k.a. THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL; THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY; THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL; and THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01403-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019) is a class action by the
Plaintiff and the class who have been harmed by:

     -- sexual abuse, perpetrated over the span of 40 years, by Dr.
Reginald Archibald, and

     -- most recently by the transmission and receipt of a highly
offensive, and extreme and outrageous correspondence directed at
them for no purpose other than to benefit the entity that for four
decades employed their perpetrator.

The Plaintiff and the class includes persons who were sexually
abused by Archibald at the The Rockefeller University Hospital, and
subsequently received a letter from the Defendants in the fall of
2018 seeking information about Archibald's abuse.  According to the
complaint, the Defendants' conduct in sending the Letter to victims
of sexual abuse who, at the time they received the Letter, believed
they had no legal recourse for the sexual abuse they endured, was
extreme and outrageous. The Defendants were reckless and
disregarded a substantial probability that the Letter would cause
severe emotional distress by reopening the wounds of the victims of
Archibald's sexual abuse.

Rockefeller University is an educational institution, which focuses
on medical research. It offers programs in fields such as
biochemistry; structural biology and chemistry; medical sciences
and human genetics; molecular, cell and developmental biology;
immunology; virology and microbiology; neuroscience; physics; and
mathematical biology. In addition the university offers Ph.D.
degree in the Life Sciences. Rockefeller University was formerly
known as Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It was
established in 1901 and is based in New York City. The university
has endowment assets worth $1372.2 million. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey M. Stern, Esq.
          Renner K. Walker, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
          800 Third Ave., 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 605-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 605-6290
          E-mail: cstern@levylaw.com
                  rwalker@levylaw.com


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY VAUGHN-LOVE, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00336-H-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Scripps Health, Inc., a nonprofit health system, operates hospitals
and medical centers. Scripps Health, Inc. was founded in 1924 and
is based in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SECURUS TECH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Romero Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-55243, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Juan Romero, Frank Tiscareno and Kenneth Elliott filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit.  That appellate case is
entitled Juan Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 18-80180.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller
(i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; and
(ii) granted in part their renewed motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Romero, Tiscareno, and Elliot filed the putative class
action on May 27, 2016, alleging Securus unlawfully recorded
detainee-attorney calls.  Securus provides inmate communication
services for correctional facilities throughout California.  The
Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney,
all of whom used Securus' telephone systems to make calls to and
from certain correctional facilities in California and allege that
their calls were recorded.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 29, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on April 29, 2019;

   -- Appellant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s opening brief is due
      on June 7, 2019;

   -- Appellees Kenneth Elliott, Juan Romero and Frank
      Tiscareno's answering brief is due on July 8, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO and KENNETH
ELLIOTT, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Nicholas Fox, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          E-mail: nfox@foley.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1520
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          E-mail: eridley@foley.com

               - and -

          Robert Teel, Esq.
          1425 Broadway
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (718) 570-7509

Defendant-Appellant SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by:

          Keith Bradley, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          1801 California Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 830-1776
          E-mail: keith.bradley@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Adam R. Fox, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          555 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 624-2500
          E-mail: adam.fox@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Gregory Schneider, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 528-4000
          E-mail: gregory.schneider@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Chassica Soo, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 624-2500
          E-mail: chassica.soo@squirepb.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Alper Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Allen Alper on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1977CV00099, was removed from the Essex
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston) on March 8, 2019. The District of
Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10436 to the
proceeding. The suit demands $750,000.

Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.:

          David S Kantrowitz, Esq.
          Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
          Goodwin Procter, LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1254
          E-mail: dkantrowitz@goodwinprocter.com
                  thefferon@goodwinprocter.com

SERVICOM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
13WREX reports that two former employees of ServiCom are filing a
class action lawsuit seeking their unpaid wages, and the wages for
everyone who lost their jobs when the company filed for bankruptcy
and closed in late 2018.

The case, filed on Feb. 26 in the Northern District of Illinois by
attorneys for Jack Rice and Randy Banfi, alleges employees worked
overtime without proper payment from October 12 until December 6,
2018. It alleges that overtime was not calculated using the
employees total compensation. It also states that employees were
not paid in a timely manner and have not been paid for their work
between November 10 and December 6, 2018. It was filed to receive
that proper payment along with a $250 loyalty bonus that was
allegedly never paid to employees.

In the last few weeks, 13WREX has spoken to multiple former
employees. All of them say they have not received payment from
ServiCom after the company closed.

The suit is filed against David Jefferson, the former founder and
owner of ServiCom LLC, and a company called AlphaStaff, which was a
co-employer. The suit alleges that company "provided various human
resources management services through a co-employment
relationship." Alphastaff did notify employees on October 18 that
it was no longer a co-employer.

"We share no employment relationship with you," that letter
states.

If the court certifies the case as class action, notices will be
sent to all former employees on how to opt in and receive payment.
The suit alleges that number could be as high as a few thousand.

"Banfi and all other members suffered damages as a direct and
proximate result of defendants' [Jefferson & AlphaStaff] common and
systemic payroll policies and practices," the lawsuit says.

13WREX has reached out to David Jefferson and his attorneys
multiple times and have not heard back. A call to AlphaStaff on
Feb. 26 has not been returned. [GN]


SHERLOQ REVENUE: Schwartz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAZER SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHERLOQ REVENUE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06301-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Feb. 20, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

SHERLOQ Revenue Solutions, Inc. specializes in extended business
office and revenue recovery solutions for hospitals and utilities.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


SI FINANCIAL: Raul Balks at Mergel Deal with Berkshire
------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SI FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., MARK D.
ALLIOD, RHEO A. BROUILLARD, ROGER ENGLE, DONNA M. EVAN, MICHAEL R.
GARVEY, ROBERT O. GILLARD, KEVIN M. MCCARTHY, KATHLEEN A. NEALON,
DENNIS POLLACK, and ROBERT C. CUSHMAN SR., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02038 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed
transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to
SI Financial stockholders before the vote on the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

On December 11, 2018, SI Financial entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Berkshire, the Company will merge with and into
Berkshire, with Berkshire continuing as the surviving corporation.
Immediately following the Merger, SI Financial's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Savings Institute Bank and Trust, will merge with and
into Berkshire's wholly-owned subsidiary, Berkshire Bank, with
Berkshire Bank as the surviving bank.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding
share of common stock, of SI Financial will be converted into the
right to receive 0.48 shares of common stock of Berkshire. Based on
the closing price of Bekshire Hills Bancorp common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange on December 11, 2018, the last trading day
before public announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the value
of the per share merger consideration payable to holders of SI
Financial common stock would be $15.02.

The consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to certain
closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of
SI Financial. The Company has scheduled a special shareholder
meeting for April 2, 2019 in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Proposed Transaction as currently constituted is
unfair to SI Financial shareholders because it does not adequately
value the Company's future growth prospects, which will inure to
Berkshire if the Proposed Transaction is consummated.

The lawsuit also contends that the consideration to be paid to the
class members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate
because, among other things: (a) the intrinsic value of the stock
of SI Financial is materially in excess of $15.02 per share, giving
due consideration to the possibilities of growth and profitability
of SI Financial in light of its business, earnings and earnings
power, present and future; (b) the $15.02 per share price is
inadequate and offers an inadequate premium to the public
stockholders of SI Financial; and (c) the Company received an
indication of interest letter proposing a 100% stock transaction
valued at $16.00 per share, with a fixed exchange ratio established
at the time of a signing of a definitive agreement. In addition,
the potential acquiror expressed a willingness to provide up to 30%
of the merger consideration in the form of cash. Defendants' action
in proceeding with the Proposed Transaction is wrongful, unfair,
and harmful to SI Financial's public stockholders, and will deny
them their right to share proportionately in the true value of SI
Financial's future growth in profits and earnings.

On February 26, 2019, in order to convince SI Financial's
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Board, jointly with Berkshire, authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading definitive proxy statement
with the SEC (the "Proxy Statement"), in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

SILVER LAKE: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN; HOWARD MUEHLGAY; CARMINE
GARELLI; and SCOTT SNOEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL DELL; DAVID DORMAN; EGON
DURBAN; WILLIAM GREEN; ELLEN KULLMAN; SIMON PATTERSON; MSDC DENALI
INVESTORS, L.P.; MSDC DENALI EIV, LLC; SUSAN LIEBERMAN DELL
SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST; and SILVER LAKE GROUP LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2019-0115-JTL (Del. Ch., Feb. 19, 2019) challenges a share
exchange transaction through which the controlling stockholders of
Dell expropriated billions of dollars in value from Dell's Class V
Stockholders in flagrant disregard of their fiduciary duties.

The complaint alleges that pursuant to the Transaction, Dell
redeemed all outstanding shares of Class V Stock for a combination
of cash and Dell Class C Stock purportedly valued at a total of
$120 per Class V share. This consideration was woefully inadequate.
Class V Stock was intended to track, on a one-for-one basis, shares
of VMware, Inc., which consistently traded far in excess of $120
per share. Moreover, the consideration was not worth anywhere close
to $120 per share. That valuation was based, among other things, on
the demonstrably untenable notion that the value of Dell's
non-public Class C Stock had multiplied several-fold during the
negotiations themselves. To obtain this price, Dell's controllers
created a sham Special Committee that was riddled with conflicts ab
initio, failed to obtain appropriate and independent advice, and
ultimately aligned itself with Dell and negotiated nothing of value
for the benefit of the Class V Stockholders the Committee
purportedly represented.

Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. operates as an investment management
firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services
to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds, charitable
organizations, and investment companies. Silver Lake Group serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike, Bdg C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

               - and -

          Chad Johnson, Esq.
          Noam Mandel, Esq.
          George Phillips, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000

               - and -

          Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108


SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN VIRGINIA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC.; SIMPLIFIED STAFFING LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TOLL
GLOBAL FORWARDING (USA) INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05288 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

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

Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a professional
recruitment agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT E. WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


SIRENA RESTAURANT: Ayasi Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips Under NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Ayasi, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Sirena Restaurant, Inc. dba Garguilo's
Restaurant, et al., Case No. 504596/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings
Cty., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, including
unpaid minimum wages and unpaid monies such as tips and gratuities
under the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all
of the Defendants' catered events.

The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the State of New
York, and has worked for the Defendants in various food and service
capacities from approximately 2014 through 2016 at the Defendants'
catered events.

The Defendant Sirena Restaurant, Inc. dba Garguilo's Restaurant is
a domestic corporation, with a headquarters and principal place of
business located at 2907-2915 W. 15th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11224
and is engaged in the hospitality industry.

The Individual Defendants own and manage the restaurant and its
catering business.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SNC-LAVALIN: Strosberg Sasso Files Class Action in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Reynolds, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. faces new legal troubles as a shareholder
has initiated a class-action lawsuit in connection with the
company's disclosure about the criminal charges against the
embattled engineering firm.

Law firm Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP filed a proposed class-action in
Ontario Superior Court on Feb. 25 that alleges the company failed
to disclose soon enough that federal prosecutors declined to invite
it to negotiate a remediation agreement.

The allegations have not been tested in court.

The Montreal-based company is at the centre of a scandal enveloping
Ottawa after the Globe and Mail reported the Prime Minister's
Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to
steer prosecutors to hammer out a remediation agreement that would
have averted a criminal trial.

The legal action says the head of the federal prosecution service
told SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she would proceed with fraud and
corruption charges stemming from the company's business in Libya.
The company did not inform shareholders until Oct. 10, at which
point the share price dropped more than 13 per cent.

"That should have been disclosed to investors," said lawyer Jay
Strosberg, who represents plaintiff John Peters.

Provincial securities law requires publicly held companies "to
publicly disclose any material changes" in the business, according
to the Ontario Securities Commission.

"Take for example someone who bought shares between Sept. 4 and
Oct. 10. If he would have known, maybe he would not have bought the
shares. And if the information was disclosed, he would have bought
the shares at a lower price," Mr. Strosberg said.

The lawsuit seeks $75 million in damages for shareholders who
acquired SNC-Lavalin securities between Sept. 4 and Oct. 10, he
said.

SNC-Lavalin declined to comment.

The proposed class-action suit is the second against SNC-Lavalin in
three weeks. Earlier in February, shareholder Ruediger Martin Graaf
sought authorization from Quebec Superior Court to bring a
class-action for what he calls the company's "false or misleading"
statements about its predicament in Saudi Arabia.

SNC chief executive Neil Bruce said in January that ongoing
diplomatic tensions between Ottawa and Riyadh were hurting business
and forcing the company to consider a possible retreat from the
oil-rich state.

The feud, as well problems with a Chilean mining project and an
arbitration loss in Australia, prompted the company to cut its
financial guidance on Jan. 28, resulting in the second of three
drastic drops in the company's shares since October. [GN]


SUMMIT STAFFING: Trottier Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JOSEPH TROTTIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. SUMMIT STAFFING, INC., Case
No.: 2019CH02731 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Feb. 28, 2019), seeks
to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant in
Illinois. Each time the Plaintiff began and ended his workday, he
was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
operated, at least in part, by scanning Plaintiffs hand.

As an employee, Plaintiff was required to scan his hand multiple
times so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct,
store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff. The
Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in a
biometric database. The Defendant then used Plaintiff's biometrics
as an identification method to track his time, potentially with the
help of a third-party vendor.

While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that
employees have their hand scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprint biometrics are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates
Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an
individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry
scan, and biometric information derived from it, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

TARGET CORP: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case, MARIAH D. THOMAS, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 19CIV00581 (Filed Jan. 29, 2019), was removed
from the San Mateo Superior Court , to the U.S. District Curt for
the Northern District of California on March 1, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01155
to the proceeding.

Although Plaintiff does not pray for a specific dollar amount, in
her complaint, she alleges claims for (1) Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policy; (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation
of California Constitution; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress; (4) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. And Prof. Code
section 17200 et seq.  In connection with her claims, Plaintiff
seeks compensation for lost past and future wages, earnings,
bonuses, loss of job security, and other employment benefits.
Further, Plaintiff seeks general, consequential, and special
damages, including but not limited to, damages for emotional
distress, medical expenses, punitive damages, as well as attorneys'
fees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Samantha C. Grant, Esq.
          Sami Hasan, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: 310-228-3700
          Facsimile: 310-228-3701
          E-mail: SGrant@sheppardmullin.com
                  SHasan@sheppardmullin.com

TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Warner Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ROGER WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02590
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Feb. 27, 2019), seeks to put a stop to
the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric
data.

According to the complaint, Team Industrial provides cleaning
services in the automotive manufacturing, heavy equipment
manufacturing, aerospace and defense facility maintenance
industries. When employees first begin their jobs at Team, they are
required to scan their handprint in its biometric time tracking
system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs
or other identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised-scans of hand are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database
storing biometric information is hacked, breached, or otherwise
exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft
and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740
ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies
that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as scans
of hand. Despite this law, Team disregards its employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA.
Specifically, Team has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA
because it did not:

-- Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of
the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand scans
were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA;

-- Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines
for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class's hand scans,
as required by the BIPA; nor

-- Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the
Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain hand scans, as
required by the BIPA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Benjamin H. Richman
          J. Eli Wade-Scott
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com

TELEFONICA BRAZIL: Appeal in SISTEL Collective Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that an appeal from a
decision in the collective action by SISTEL Participants'
Association (ASTEL) in the state of Sao Paulo is ongoing.

A class action filed by SISTEL Participantsi Association (ASTEL) in
the state of São Paulo, in which SISTEL associates question the
changes made in the HealthCare Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) of
the Association and seek the reestablishment of the status quo.

This proceeding is in the appeal phase under review by the superior
court. The amount cannot be estimated in that it entails a return
to the prior conditions.

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

Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.


TOP GOLF: Burlinski Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THOMAS BURLINSKI on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs.
TOP GOLF USA, INC. and TOP GOLF USA SALT CREEK, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2019L000263 (Ill. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., March 4,
2019), alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid bartender at Defendants' Topgolf
driving range and bar in Wood Dale, Illinois from approximately
April 2017 to July 2017. Throughout his employment, the Defendants
required him and other hourly paid employees to use a biometric
time clock system to record their time worked.

The Defendants required Plaintiff and other hourly employees to
scan their fingerprints Defendants' biometric time clock when they
started working a shift, stopped for a break, returned from a
break, and finished working a shift. Unlike an employee
identification number or employee identification card, fingerprints
are unique and permanent identifiers.

By requiring employees to use their fingerprints to record their
time, instead of identification numbers or badges only, Defendants
ensured that one employee could not clock in for another. Thus,
there's no question that Defendants benefited from using a
biometric time. But there's equally no question that Defendants
placed employees at risk by using their biometric identifiers to
"punch the clock."

In enacting the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois
legislature recognized that biologically unique identifiers, like
fingerprints, can never be changed when compromised, and thus
subject a victim of identity theft to heightened risk of loss. As a
result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendants, from
collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric
identifiers and information without adhering to strict
informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Defendants collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from
those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendants violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and
security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff
and others similarly situated, the lawsuit says.

Top Golf USA operates "Topgolf" driving range and bar facilities
through the United States, including locations in Wood Dale and
Naperville, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@tlsalaw.com
                  ztlowerree@tlsalaw.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355.7590
          Facsimile: 630 778.0400
          E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                  dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  Ukunze@fishlawfirm.com

TREVIS BERRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez-Alfaro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN VELASQUEZ-ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREVIS BERRY TRANSPORTATION; and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342736 (Cal. Super.
Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 15, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

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

Trevis Berry Transportation provides local and statewide trucking
services. The Company offers hauling solutions including flatbed,
heavy haul, and specialized transportation, as well as warehousing
services. Trevis Berry Transportation serves customers throughout
the States of California and Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS GROUP, LLP
          501 Santa Clara Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333

              - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


UNITED DEVELOPMENT: Fox Sues Over Investment Fund Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen N. Fox and Nora Fox (joint tenants with right of
survivorship), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. United Development Funding III, UMT
Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land Development,
L.P., UMT Holdings, L.P., Hollis M. Greenlaw, Todd Etter, Cara D.
Obert, Ben L. Wissink and Whitley Penn LLP Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00274 (N.D. Tex., February 4, 2019), seeks rescission and/or
rescissory damages including interest, compensatory, punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief pursuant to the Texas Securities Act and common
law.

According to the complaint, United Development Funding loans money
to developers of residential real estate, with rates above those
offered by commercial lenders. The third in a series of investment
offerings by United Development Funds (UDF) have essentially
failed. UDF was receiving funds from subsequent UDF investment
vehicles to pay its distributions. Fox was misled in foregoing the
receipt of his cash distributions from UDF and used those
distributions to purchase subsequent UDF units in the Dividend
Reinvestment Plan. The Defendants used money from investors to prop
up UMT Services, Inc., UMTH General Services, L.P., UMTH Land
Development, L.P. and UMT Holdings, L.P. without disclosure thereby
creating the appearance that UDF was a successful, productive
investment. The scheme allowed UDF to funnel cash to the UDF Entity
while giving overvalued units in lieu of cash dividends, says the
complaint.

Stephen N. Fox and Nora Fox purchased UDF III shares in its
Dividend Reinvestment Plan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      Email: guiney@whafh.com


USAA CASUALTY: Faces Koehler Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against USAA Casualty Insurance
Company. The case is captioned as SUSAN J. KOEHLER, Executrix of
the estate of Philip J. Koehler, Jr., deceased, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00715-MSG (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 19, 2019), the case is assigned to Honorable Mitchell S.
Goldberg.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company provides property and causality
insurance. The company was incorporated in 1969 as United Services
Casualty Insurance Company and changed its name in December, 1970
to USAA Casualty Insurance Company .USAA Casualty Insurance Company
is based in San Antonio, Texas. Usaa Casualty Insurance Co operates
as a subsidiary of USAA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lindsay Andreuzzi, Esq.
          Michael T. McDonnell, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          1760 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 299-4384
          E-mail: lindsay.andreuzzi@kutakrock.com
                  michael.mcdonnell@kutakrock.com


VERSUM MATERIALS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC.,
SEIFOLLAH GHASEMI, JACQUES CROISETIÈRE, GUILLERMO NOVO, YI HYON
PAIK, THOMAS J. RIORDAN, SUSAN C. SCHNABEL, ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, and
ENTEGRIS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00472-UNA (March 6,
2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 28,
2019, pursuant to which Versum Materials, Inc. will be acquired by
Entegris, Inc.

On January 27, 2019, Versum's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Entegris.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Verum's stockholders
will receive 1.120 shares of Entegris common stock for each share
of Versum common stock they own.

On February 28, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Versum is a global provider of innovative solutions to the
semiconductor and display industries with expertise in the
development, manufacturing, transportation, and handling of
specialty materials. Versum employs expertise in molecular design
and synthesis, purification, advanced analytics, formulation
development, and containers and delivery systems for the handling
of high purity materials to deliver leading-edge solutions and
critical process support to customers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

VF OUTDOOR: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Garey Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GAREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02076 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), alleges that Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

Because Defendant's website, www.jansport.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com

VIEGA LLC: Sued over Anticompetitive Press Fittings Market
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, THE PLUMBER'S SHOP AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
VIEGA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), is an
antitrust action directed at Viega's anti-competitive conduct in
the market for copper press fittings and carbon steel press
fittings.

Viega has, for several years, and continues to, possess monopoly
power in the market for carbon steel press fittings, which are
press fittings used for black iron pipe. Viega's carbon steel press
fittings were the first to market and, until July 2017, the only
carbon steel press fittings approved in the United States. Viega
controls at least 95% of the carbon steel press fittings market.

Viega also holds a well-established, dominant position in the
market for copper press fittings, which are press fittings used for
copper pipe. It controls approximately 71% of the U.S. market.

Fittings are essential components of pipeline systems that are used
to join pipes or tubes. Fittings can join pipes in straight lines
or change, divide, or otherwise direct the flow of media, including
potable water, process water, oil, gases, and fuel. Fittings are
produced in geometrical configurations of varying sizes and surface
coating.

Pipeline systems, including fittings, can be made from different
raw materials, such as copper, bronze, carbon steel, stainless
steel, and thermoplastics. The plumbing industry differentiates
between these pipeline systems because each one has optimal
benefits suited to different applications. Black iron pipe is used,
for example, to transport fuel oil and natural gas,
but is never used to transport medical oxygen.

Press technology refers to the use of hydraulic power tools and
jaws to press or crimp a joint to create a permanent seal between
the fitting and pipe. Press technology provides a faster, safer,
and more reliable method of joining fittings and pipe without
compromising the quality of installation.

Viega is a privately-owned company that manufactures, imports, and
sells fittings in the United States.

NIBCO, Inc. is Viega's most significant competitor in the copper
press fittings market. It has also brought lost-profit claims in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner in Nibco Inc. v. Viega
LLC, No. 17-1739 (Sept. 26, 2017). On average, NIBCO's prices for
copper press fittings are lower than Viega's prices for copper
press fittings – sometimes as much as 15% lower. NIBCO
does not manufacture carbon steel press fittings.

Fittings manufacturers such as NIBCO and Viega sell fittings almost
entirely through wholesale distributors. The wholesale distributors
in turn sell fittings to contractors, developers, and other end
users. To enhance or at least maintain its dominant position in the
copper press fittings market, Viega has engaged in systematic
anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct to undermine NIBCO and
other Viega competitors' attempts to compete in the relevant market
and maintain and expand their customer bases.

Viega has used its market power in the carbon steel press fittings
market to coerce wholesale distributors not to buy copper press
fittings from NIBCO and other Viega competitors. Specifically,
Viega refuses to sell its carbon steel press fittings unless a
wholesale distributor also purchases Viega's copper press fittings
and does not purchase copper press fittings from NIBCO and other
Viega competitors.

Viega also coerces wholesale distributors not to purchase copper
press fittings from NIBCO and other Viega competitors by
withholding discounts, rebates, and other pricing concessions for
its carbon steel press fittings. This pricing penalty renders the
purchase from Viega of the combination of Viega's copper press
fittings and carbon steel press fittings the only viable economic
option.

viega's conduct has denied NIBCO and other competitors free access
to the relevant market for copper press fittings and significantly
prejudiced competition in the relevant market, not because Viega
has a better product or a lower price, but because of its power in
the market for carbon steel press fittings. As a consequence,
wholesale distributors and end users are forced to pay higher
prices.

Viega's anticompetitive conduct has been, and continues to be,
effective in maintaining and stabilizing prices for both
wholesalers and end users at artificially inflated
levels, eliminating and excluding any concrete or potential
competition, extending or maintaining its market power, and
fortifying technological barriers to entry in the copper press
fittings market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Veronica M. Bosco, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN
          ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-545-4600
          Facsimile: 212-686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  bosco@whafh.com

WEIGHT WATCHERS: Potts Says Financial Report Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------
KAREN POTTS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEIGHT WATCHERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
MINDY GROSSMAN, NICHOLAS P. HOTCHKIN and ARTAL GROUP S.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02005 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2019),
alleges that Defendants are liable for (i) making false statements;
or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about the
Company.

The Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Weight Watchers
common stock was a success, as it:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding Weight Watchers'
business metrics and financial prospects;

    (ii) artificially inflated the prices of Weight Watchers common
stock;

   (iii) allowed Artal and certain Weight Watchers executives and
insiders to sell more than a billion dollars of their personally
held Weight Watchers shares at fraud-inflated prices; and

    (iv) caused the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to
purchase Weight Watchers common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Weight Watchers between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive seeking to pursue claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Potts acquired Weight Watchers
common stock during the Class Period, as set forth in the
accompanying certification which is incorporated herein by
reference, and has been damaged thereby.

Historically, Defendant Weight Watchers has offered various
products and services to assist weight loss and maintenance. The
core philosophy behind the Company's programs is to use a
science-driven approach to help participants lose weight by forming
healthy eating habits, eating smarter, getting more exercise, and
providing support. Recently, the Company has rebranded itself as
"WW" and tried to focus less on weight loss and more on maintaining
general health.

Weight Watchers earns revenues from subscriptions for the Company's
digital products and by conducting workshops, for which it charges
a fee, predominantly through commitment plans, prepayment plans,
and "pay-as-you-go" arrangements. Weight Watchers also earns
revenues by selling consumer products (including publications) in
its workshops, online and to its franchisees, collecting
commissions from franchisees, collecting royalties related to
licensing agreements, selling magazine subscriptions, publishing,
selling advertising space on its websites and in copies of its
publications and By Mail product sales.

On February 27, 2018, Weight Watchers announced its fiscal year
2017 financial results for year ended December 31, 2017 ("FY17"),
provided its fiscal year 2018 ("FY18") guidance and provided its
three-year fiscal 2020 ("end-of-2020") guidance. For FY18, the
Company stated it was on track to report revenues "approaching
$1.55 billion and earnings guidance of between $2.40 and $2.70 per
fully diluted share," emphasizing that the "guidance reflect[ed]
the operating strength of the Company's business and expected
continued global momentum through the year." Weight Watchers also
stated that it was confident in its ability to reach five million
subscribers, driving revenues in excess of $2 billion, by the
end-of-2020.

The Class Period starts on May 4, 2018. On May 3, 2018, after the
close of trading, Weight Watchers issued a press release announcing
its 1Q18 financial results and updated/increased its FY18 financial
guidance. The release emphasized that Weight Watchers' "End of
Period Subscribers in Q1 2018 [increased] 29% year-over-year to a
record 4.6 million," that its "Total Paid Weeks in Q1 2018
[increased] 27% year-over-year," and that its "Revenues in Q1 2018
of $408 million [increased] 24%, or 20% on a constant currency
basis, year-over-year."

Finally, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Weight
Watchers issued a press release and conducted a conference call
with investors and stock analysts revealing the Company's actual
4Q18 and FY18 results and financial prospects. The 4Q18 subscriber
count had again declined down to 3.9 million subscribers. The
Defendants finally conceded that enrollment would continue
declining during FY19, with Defendant Grossman revealing that while
January is typically the best time for health-focused brands and
when 40% of new subscribers typically join due to New Year's
resolutions, January 2019 had been a "hard month" for Weight
Watchers. The Company said that it was now only targeting revenues
of $1.4 billion during FY19, nowhere near the $2 billion in
annual revenues it had been projecting to achieve by the
end-of-2020 and well below the nearly $1.7 billion it had led the
market to expect for FY19.  Weight Watchers also disclosed that it
was now only targeting EPS of $1.25 to $1.50 per share for FY19,
far lower than the EPS of $3.36 defendants had led the market to
believe even following its prior misses in August and November
2018.

During the conference call, Defendant Grossman acknowledged that
the "January time period [was] such a critical component of [the
Company's] recruitment for the year," emphasizing that she finally
"had to be realistic and transparent about what that meant for the
balance of the year," when issuing the dour FY19 guidance.

In response to this news, the price of Weight Watchers common stock
declined from its close of $29.57 per share on February 26 to close
down at $19.37 per share on February 27 on unusually high trading
volume of more than 37.4 million shares trading, the lawsuit says.

Weight Watchers offers a subscription-based weight loss program and
is  headquartered at 675 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor, New
York, New York. As of February 1, 2019, Weight Watchers had
approximately 67 million shares of common stock issued and
outstanding. Weight Watchers common stock was listed and traded in
an efficient market on the NASDAQ throughout the Class Period under
the ticker symbol "WTW."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770 392-0090
          Facsimile: 770 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

WESTERN DENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Caldera Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSINA CALDERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00234-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.,
Feb. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Western Dental Services, Inc., a dental and oral health maintenance
organization, provides dental and oral health care services in
California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas.  Western Dental Services
was founded in 1903 and is based in Orange, California.  The
company has dental offices in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
Western Dental Services operates as a subsidiary of Premier Dental
Services Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Natural Gas Price Index Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against putative class actions related
to alleged manipulation of published gas price indices.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company had agreed to
indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to the company, entering final judgment in the company's
favor.

Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed
the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10,
2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the
appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case has been
remanded to the Nevada federal district court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.

On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying
class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal
district court.

The Williams Companies said, "Because of the uncertainty around the
remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is
reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions
and our related indemnification obligation could result in a
potential loss that may be material to our results of operations.
In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued
liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result,
have exposure to future developments."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WINCO HOLDINGS: Removes Petersen Case to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Winco Holdings, Inc. and Winco Foods Foundation, Inc. remove case
captioned, DENNIS PETERSEN, an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WINCO
HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; WINCO FOODS FOUNDATION, INC.,
an Idaho Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00247825-CU-OE-GDS (Filed Jan. 4, 2019), was
removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 28,
2019. The Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
2:19-at-00156 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleged causes of action for (1) failure to pay all
wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation ; (3) failure to
provide paid time off; (4) failure to provide proper wage
statements; (5) failure to pay wages at time of termination; and
(6) unfair business practices, pursuant to the Welfare Commission
Orders and California Labor Code.

Winco Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides bulk food, meat, deli, seafood,
and bakery products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Julie G. Yap, Esq.
          Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com
                  pebsworth@seyfarth.com
                  syang@seyfarth.com

[*] Class Actions Against Companies in New Zealand Increasing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for Stuff, reports that a third of the class
actions taken in New Zealand taken have been against the
Government, but an increasing number are being taken against big
companies on behalf of consumers.

University of Auckland law lecturer Nikki Chamberlain has completed
the first survey of class actions in New Zealand, legal actions
taken on behalf of large groups of people all claiming to have been
wronged in the same way by the same organisation.

She found just 36, reflecting how slow class actions have been to
develop in New Zealand, hampered by the absence of specific laws
governing them.

That could be about to change, with the Law Commission examining
whether it is time to write class actions into law.

The country came very close to a Class Actions Act in 2008, but
just as it was poised to become law, Labour lost power to National,
and the law, which would have made it easier for big businesses
like banks to be sued, was shelved.

It's now back on the agenda, after National's Amy Adams instructed
the Law Commission to begin its review before the last election.

Ms. Chamberlain called for class actions to be written into law.

"I think it's an access to justice question," she said.

Class actions enable large groups of people to band together to
take on large, well-resourced entities like the government, banks
and insurers, but they are seen as a threat by some, including
insurers which provide liability insurance for directors.

"I think certain business interests and insurers would be against
the idea of getting some formal process rules," Ms. Chamberlain
said.

When she organised a symposium in 2018, some insurers attended, and
expressed concern that making class actions easier could open the
litigation floodgates.

The courts have allowed class actions to happen, but the process
has been slow, and costly for claimants.

Ms. Chamberlain identified a number of reasons why, in the absence
of legislation, New Zealand has lagged the world in class actions.

In countries like the UK and US, a significant proportion of class
action litigation overseas was for personal injury cases. New
Zealand, which has ACC, does not allow people to sue for damages
over personal injury.

New Zealand courts have also been relatively conservative with
damages awards compared to the US, making class actions less
economically viable here.

The country's small size also means that classes are generally
smaller than in countries like the UK and US.

Chamberlain found just four cases in which there were more than
2000 plaintiffs.

And until recently, litigation funding, which was instrumental in
allowing the liquidators of Mainzeal to take a case for damages
against directors including former prime minister Dame Jenny
Shipley, was not permitted in New Zealand due to the torts of
champerty and maintenance.

The courts have now accepted litigation loans.

"The increase in the prevalence of cases involving a litigation
funder in the last decade indicates that litigation funding is on
the rise in New Zealand," Chamberlain said.

She found just three before 1980, four in the 1980s, eight in the
1990s, including seven in the Employment Court, and 13 in the
2000s, and another eight since then.

Class Action law suits
New Zealand's tradition of class action law suits, where many
people band together to seek justice is weak compared to other
countries.

The 1990s and 2000s were characterised by a sharp rise in cases
taken by investors in failed companies, with auditors among the
targets for damages.

They are not always successful. Investors who took claims against
the directors of carpet-maker Feltex saw their claim dismissed in
2016.

The last decade has seen a new development -- cases being taken in
the name of large groups of consumers. They included the 2013 class
action on bank fees against ANZ, which was eventually settled, with
cases also involving insurance and alleged faulty building products
use in leaky buildings. [GN]


[*] Mass. Companies Have Unique Exposure to Wage Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Bannon, Esq., Timothy J. Buckley, Esq., Anthony S.
Califano, Esq., Ariel D. Cudkowicz, Esq., C.J. Eaton, Esq., Robert
A. Fisher, Esq., James M. Hlawek, Esq., Bridget M. Maricich, Esq.,
Hillary J. Massey, Esq., Kristin G. McGurn, Esq., Barry J. Miller,
Esq., Alison H. Silveira, Esq., Dawn Reddy Solowey, Esq., Michael
E. Steinberg, Esq., Jean M. Wilson, Esq. and Molly Clayton Mooney,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
until recently, there has been much debate about the enforceability
of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. Courts
disagreed as to whether employers could enforce these agreements
against workers seeking to sue on a class action basis. The debate
is over. In 2018, the Supreme Court settled the issue. Arbitration
agreements with class action waivers are enforceable to the same
extent as other contracts. This means that a well-crafted and
implemented arbitration program can provide insulation from
bet-the-company wage and hour class action lawsuits.

An employment arbitration program is not right for every company.
To be sure, there are pros and cons to arbitration. With few
exceptions, however, every company with a sizeable workforce should
at least conduct an analysis and make an informed decision about
the usefulness and scope of an arbitration agreement.

In Massachusetts, companies are subject to unique levels of
exposure in wage and hour class actions that might make individual,
non-class arbitration an attractive option. For instance, triple
damages are mandatory for proven violations of Massachusetts wage
law. Unlike federal law and the laws of other states, Massachusetts
law does not allow companies to avoid paying triple damages by
proving that the wage violation was made in good faith.

Making matters worse, plaintiffs who prove their claims under
Massachusetts wage law are also entitled to their attorneys' fees
and costs, along with interest on their damages.

If these facts are not daunting enough, there is more.
Massachusetts wage law is filled with traps for the unwary and the
vigilant. And certain corporate officers, executives, and managers
are subject to individual liability for their companies' violations
of Massachusetts wage law -- some of them simply by virtue of their
job titles.

These are the realities of Massachusetts wage and hour laws.
Combine these realities with another fact: Courts have certified
classes in employment cases that consist of thousands of
employee-plaintiffs. In this light, giving modest consideration to
the potential use of a tailored arbitration agreement with a class
action waiver is a no-brainer. Some back-of-the-envelope math will
provide an order of magnitude sense of the exposure that a company
could face in a multi-plaintiff wage case under Massachusetts law
-- damages that could potentially be avoided through use of an
arbitration agreement. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***