CAR_Public/190326.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 61

                            Headlines

3A COMPOSITES: IMF Bentham, William Roberts Lawyers File Suit
3M COMPANY: Whidbey Island Resident Files Lawsuit
3ML: Accused of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand
ACN OPPORTUNITY: Trumps Collaborated with Marketing Scheme
ACTIVISION: Offering "Potential Refunds" to Guitar Hero Live Buyers

ALKERMES PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
AM KIDS: Rodriguez Seeks Earned Wages & OT Pay for Workers
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mohammed Says
APHRIA: Class Certification Could Take a Year
APPLE INC: Faces New Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication

ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Suit
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Bevinal Class Action
AVON PRODUCTS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
AZCONA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Reyes Says

BARCLAYS PLC: Challenges Dismissal Order in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY
BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces USD LIBOR Class Action in New York
BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Case Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration
BARCLAYS PLC: USD LIBOR Cases Still Ongoing

BEAUMONT COLLEGE: College Linked to Fraud, Attorneys Claim
BLACKROCK INST'L: Court Strikes 2 Undisclosed Individuals in Baird
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Says Securities Statements Misleading
BRISTOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
CALAVO GROWERS: Faces Velez's Labor Suit in Sacramento

CATHOLIC HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Improper Wages for On-Call Hours
CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Schall Law Firm Probing Securities Violations
CELGENE CORP: Bernstein Seeks to Halt Bristol-Myers Merger
CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action Settlement
CERES, CA: $75K Settlement in Amador FLSA Suit Gets Approval

CHARMIN FRESHMATES: Settles Flushable Wipes Class Action
CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Accused by King Suit of Not Paying Overtime
COALINGA STATE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Consiglio Suit
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action in New York Still Ongoing
COMCAST CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in O'Neil Suit

COMPLETE BUILDING: Nautilus Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
DELTA AIR: $2.3MM Schofield Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
DENVER, CO: Ct. Denies Bid to Exclude Witness Testimony in "Lyall"
DESI GALLI: Galeana Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Requires Bankruptcy Status Report

DOW JONES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Horton Suit
DURA-LINE CORP: Brown Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Prep Time
DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Cash Bail System Biased vs Poor People, Suit Says
E-VERIFILE.COM: Gunn Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi
EDELSTEIN & EDELSTEIN: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA

EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Injunction Bid in Prince Suit Withdrawn
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Voluntarily Dismissed
ELITE STAFFING: Hudson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement
ENERGEN RESOURCES: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits
EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit
EQUIFAX INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Public Records Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Cybersecurity-Related Suits in Canada Still Ongoing
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Stayed

EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses' Data Breach Claims Tossed
FEDERAL AVIATION: Stephen Lynch Takes Aim at Airport Pollution
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Banneck Suit
FERROGLOBE PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Pre-Trial Discovery in Reliance Suit Completed

FINANCIAL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Encarnacion Suit Granted
FLIGHT CENTRE: To Fight $100MM Overtime Wages Class Action
FLUOR CORP: Expects Consolidated Complaint to be Filed
FORD MOTOR: Notices of Appeal Filed in Takata Airbag-Related Suit
FRONTLINE ASSET: Velez Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York

GALLATIN COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Unlawful Immigrant Detentions
GC OF CAPITAL: Settlement in Hickman Labor Suit Has Approval
GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Class Action Over Leaky Cadillac Sunroofs
GEO GROUP: Joint Bid for Discovery Dispute Determination Partly OKd
GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Pending

GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Cabrera's Claims in Woods Suit
GRAIN PROCESSING: To Pay $45MM in Iowa Pollution Settlement
HAGYARD EQUINE: Lawsuit Says Vets Altered Dates on X-Rays
HARRISON GLOBAL: Settlement in Huddlestun Suit Has Final Approval
HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark et al Suit Transferred to S.D. California

HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Summ. Judgment Bid in Cupolo-Freeman Denied
HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Shmakova Sues over Installment Loans
HUPP DRAFT: Faces Burton's Labor Suit in Sacramento
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Court Dismisses S. Loh's Wage & Hour Suit
INDIANA: Sued Over Lack of Legal Counsel During Dependency Hearings

INTERJET: Failed to Offer Refund Options to Customers, Suber Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Law Firms to Pursue Talc Litigation
KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Filed After Couple Says Car Started on Fire
KRAFT HEINZ: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
LAS 3K USA: Fajardo Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

LEND-A-HAND: Walburn et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
LIBERTY HEALTH: Brower Piven Notifies Investors of Class Action
LIBERTY POWER: Massachusetts Ct. Bifurcates Discovery in Katz Suit
LINCOLN LENDING: Court Flips Dismissal of Claim 21 in Tejera Suit

LIVE POULTRY: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Underway
LX 1204 JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Jimenez Says
LYON HOME: Vickers Seeks Back Pay
MASSACHUSETTS: Court OKs I. Liviz's In Forma Pauperis Suit

MAXWELL: Investors File Class Action to Halt Tesla Acquisition
MDL 2492: Hoffman Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kimble Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Lauback Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: MacLellan Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Moor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Purdie Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Sepanski Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Swanson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Van Doren Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Williams Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wilson Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2741: Burchfield vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Kirsch Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Poroz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Settlement in Blanchard Has Prelim OK
MICHIGAN: Transfer of M. Carter Suit to Circuit Court Affirmed
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
MIDWEST WATER: Varble Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Espinoza-Sanchez Claims

MISSISSIPPI FARM: Court Certifies Class in Britt FLSA Suit
MISSOURI: Court Denies Certification of Dalton's Class of Indigents
MISSOURI: Summary Judgment Bid in Gasca Prisoners Suit Granted
MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Baucoms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bonzos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brewsters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Collinses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Davises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Fellows Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: McCoy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Seeger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Supinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodersons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Removes Waleski Suit to M.D. Pa.
MOVIE GRILL: Tate Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
MR. KABOB: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Usmanova Says

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 99 Lakeville Seeks Return of Remaining Funds
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Brain Injury Class Action in Indiana
NAVIHEALTH INC: Nurses Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing
NEWCOMB OIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Southard FLSA Suit

OUTERSCAPE INC: Cruz Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
PACIFIC, MO: Police Dispatchers Hit Missed Breaks, Seeks Unpaid OT
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action
PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing
PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Ongoing

PRIME CONSULTING: Mims Sues over Cellular Phone Calls
PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California
PROCOLLECT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Young FDCPA Suit OK'd
PROSHARES SHORT VIX: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action
RJT MOTORIST: Taylor Suit Hits Illegal Deductions, Seeks OT Pay

SMC STONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL, Cumbe Alleges
SOCAL GAS: Removes Victorian's Labor Suit to C.D. California
SOGOU INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
SOGOU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hit Biometrics Data Sharing

STATE FARM: Fails to Provide 401(k) Plan Benefits, Sheldon Says
STATE STREET: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in April
STEIN MART: Failed to Maintain Data Security Measures, Kyles Says
SUPERIOR HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
SYMANTEC CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses M. Beyer's Suit

TARGET CORPORATION: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California
TETRA TECH: Northern California Residents File Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Remains Stayed
TRIVAGO NV: Holbrook Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
TUT'S HUB: Gonzales Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA

TWITTER INC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
U.S. XPRESS: Smith Says Financial Report Misleading
ULTA BEAUTY: Court Narrows Claims in Smith-Brown
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces Thew Suit in C.D. California
UNITED SERVICES: Faces Spielman Suit over Vehicle Insurance

UNITED STATES: Medicare Patients File Class Action Lawsuit vs HHS
UNITED STATES: Percy Seeks to Enforce S.D.N.Y Court Decision
VALE SA: Hach Rose Commences Securities Class Action
VALE SA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Action
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action

VEREIT INC: Briefing in ARCP Litigation to be Completed April 5
VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing
VERSUM MATERIALS: Poison Pill Violates Voting Rights, Fund Says
WADDELL & REED: Fairness Hearing in 401(k) Plan Suit Set April 8
WELLS FARGO: Responds to California Class Action Suit

WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Frazier Class Action
WIRECARD AG: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Felix Files Suit in Calif. Under FDCPA
WM. MULHERIN'S SONS: Faces Class Action Over Servers' Tips
WOUND CARE SOLUTIONS: Zepeda Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Retention
WPX ENERGY: Accord Reached in Kansas & Missouri Purchasers Suits
WPX ENERGY: Class Action in Nevada Underway

XOLO TACOS 2: Underpays Servers, Gaffney Suit Alleges
YOGAWORKS INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
[*] Litigation Funders Invest in UK to Launch Class Actions
[*] Right to Counsel Cases Pending Against Various States


                            *********

3A COMPOSITES: IMF Bentham, William Roberts Lawyers File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bleby, writng for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that the first legal battle against a supplier of combustible
cladding has commenced, with litigation funder IMF Bentham and
William Roberts Lawyers filing a class action in the Federal Court
of Australia.

ASX-listed IMF Bentham and William Roberts filed proceedings on
Feb.14 against the German producer of Alucobond polyethylene-core
aluminium composite panels 3A Composites GmbH and Australian
supplier Halifax Vogel Group, IMF Australia investment manager
Gavin Beardsell said.

"It's a product liability claim under the basis of consumer law,"
Mr Beardsell told The Australian Financial Review on Feb. 15.

The filing follows the opening of a register for potential
claimants by the funder and law firm in October last year. The case
only has one lead applicant so far, the owners corporation of a
17-unit development in the southern Sydney suburb of Dolls Point,
but that was enough to start a case that would draw other
claimants, Mr Beardsell said.

"You are only required to have one representative applicant and
then you push on," he said.

"Our class action involves hundreds of buildings and thousands of
affected building owners who will be claiming compensation."

Court documents have not yet been served on either of the
respondents. Bruce Rayment, the chief executive officer of
privately owned Halifax Vogel, declined to comment.

While this class action focuses on Alucobond, a market leading
PE-core panel sold into the Australian market, it was not the only
one and the IMF Australia and William Roberts Lawyers were open to
starting class actions against producers and suppliers of other
products, they said.

"We are still continuing on with investigating other potential
class actions to launch on similar grounds against other
manufacturers," William Roberts principal Bill Petrovski, Esq.--
bill.petrovski@williamroberts.com.au--  said.

The current class action is open to property owners and long-term
lease-holders who have suffered or will suffer financial loss due
to the need to remove and replace Alucobond PE cladding products,
or take other remedial measures.

It seeks compensation for property owners of residential,
commercial, mixed-use, and other non-residential buildings.

Mr Beardsell declined to quantify the value of the claim being
made, as it would depend on the number of buildings that ultimately
joined the class action, but said relief sought would be to cover
the costs of rectification, loss of market value of properties and
the costs of experts consulting to the case.

Mr Beardsell also declined to say how much IMF was spending to fund
the action.

"Most class actions require multi-million investments," he said.

Rectification costs of combustible cladding costs will vary. On
some buildings, the remedy can include keeping the cladding in
place, but add features to mitigate the risks, such as sprinklers.

In other cases, full replacement of the cladding is required.

In December, builder LU Simon and the residents of Melbourne's
Lacrosse tower settled on a $5.6 million cost for LU Simon to
replace the combustible cladding.

That agreed price was low and not necessarily a benchmark for what
it would cost to reclad similar residential towers, however.[GN]


3M COMPANY: Whidbey Island Resident Files Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Cauvel, writing for goskagit.com, reports that an Oak
Harbor resident who says her well was contaminated with chemicals
from firefighting foam used at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island has
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit accuses five companies involved in the manufacture,
marketing, sales and delivery of the firefighting foam of knowingly
putting the water — and therefore the environment and public
health — at risk in areas around NAS Whidbey Island and hundreds
of other military bases.

"As a result, significant portions of the water supply and soil on
Whidbey Island are contaminated ... exposing residents to
significant health risks and devaluing their lands," the lawsuit
states.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 5 as a class action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Seattle.

The plaintiff, Krista Jackson, is asking the court to require the
companies to pay her and potentially thousands of others who have
been affected by the firefighting foam.

The lawsuit includes seven complaints against The 3M Company, Tyco
Fire Products, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Chemguard Inc., and
National Foam Inc.

The complaints include negligence, product liability for failure to
warn and trespass.

At issue is a foam that was used for decades to fight fires,
particularly during military practices and incidents involving
petroleum-based fires such as from aircraft crashes.

The chemicals from the foam -- called perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl, or generally PFAS -- pose health concerns,
according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemicals may
increase risks for kidney and testicular cancer and can possibly
affect fetal development and the immune system.

As a result of the foam's longtime use, "Oak Harbor and Coupeville
... have widespread contamination in their water supply," the class
action lawsuit states.

The Navy itself has helped to document that contamination.

It determined through water testing that 15 residential wells in
the area had concentrations of the chemicals above the EPA's
recommended exposure limit.

As of press time, it is unclear if Jackson's well was one of those
tested by the Navy.

The Navy is providing bottled water or water filtration systems to
those with affected wells. It is also in the process of building a
water filtration system for the town of Coupeville to ensure its
residents are protected from the chemical contamination.

The chemicals don't break down in the environment, and once
consumed through contaminated water or food they accumulate in the
body, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.

So while the chemicals have been phased out of manufacturing since
about 2002, according to the EPA, they are still found in the
environment and in the blood of those exposed to contamination.

The class action lawsuit argues that it is necessary for Jackson
and others represented in the lawsuit to undergo more frequent
medical testing in order to detect and treat related medical
problems.

Jackson is seeking payment from the defendant companies for that
increased medical testing, as well as decreased property values,
the cost of the lawsuit and attorney's fees, and any other damages
the court deems fit.

The settlement amount being sought is not listed because the number
of those who qualify to be represented in the lawsuit has not been
determined, but is expected to exceed $5 million, according to the
lawsuit.

The use of the firefighting foam at NAS Whidbey Island has left
area residents with "a persistent poison lurking in their water
supply," the lawsuit states.

The team representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit has created a
website where potentially impacted current and past Whidbey Island
residents can contact them for consultation.

The team includes Robert Teel, a former Whidbey Island resident now
based in Seattle and practicing through the Law Office of Robert L.
Teel, Esq. and five members of Edelson PC, an Illinois-based law
firm that focuses on class actions and other lawsuits against major
companies.[GN]


3ML: Accused of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Pullar-Strecker, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that more
action is being taken against subcontracting firms that have been
accused of breaching employment law and exploiting migrants while
building Chorus' ultrafast broadband network.

Labour Inspectorate spokesman Michael Docherty said it had lodged a
claim with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) against a third
subcontracting firm, 3ML, and had issued infringement and
improvement notices to a further 15 firms since its crackdown began
in December.

A total of 13 UFB subcontracting firms have now received
infringement notices for breaches of employment record-keeping
obligations. These carry a fine of $1000 per breach, up to a
maximum of $20,000 in any three-month period.

Another 21 subcontracting firms have been issued with "improvement
notices" ordering them to fix their employment practices and two
more have been issued with "enforceable undertakings" requiring
them to enter into a formal agreement to "improve and rectify
compliance breaches".

The inspectorate had previously lodged ERA claims against two UFB
subcontracting firms -- Sunwin Technologies and Babylon
Communications, both of which are also based in Auckland.

Docherty said action was likely against "all 72" subcontracting
firms that it identified breaching employment law during a series
of visits by the department, Immigration NZ and Inland Revenue in
June.

"Once investigations are completed with the remaining 33, the
degree of compliance action against each can be finalised," he
said.

Labour Inspectorate national manager Stu Lumsden said in October
that the visits took place after it became aware that migrant
workers were "potentially being exploited by various subcontracting
companies undertaking work on behalf of Chorus".

The breaches it uncovered included contracting firms failing to
maintain employment records, failing to pay employees' the minimum
wage and holiday entitlements, and failing to provide employment
agreements.

Immigration NZ also found several workers who were carrying out
work on the UFB network in breach of their visa conditions and one
overstayer.

The enforcement action has encouraged Australian-listed law firm
Shine Lawyers to seek support from fibre installers for a class
action lawsuit against Chorus' main contractor, Australian-owned
Visionstream, and contracting companies working for Visionstream.

The E tu union threw its weight behind the lawsuit in January.
Union organiser Joe Gallager said he believed about 3500 workers
who had been involved in building Chorus' UFB network should have
been treated as employees rather than contractors.

The union believed those workers could have a claim to back pay,
holiday pay and sick pay. Gallagher said the union was continuing
to encourage linesmen to talk to Shine about the potential
lawsuit.

Chorus has been providing protection to a group of whistleblowers
who approached Stuff to relate largely separate allegations
concerning the roll-out of UFB and who later agreed to meet with
the company.

The allegations ranged from conflicts of interest around business
interests held by some Visionstream and Chorus staff, through to
concerns subbies were not being paid correctly for work and a
suspicion a Visionstream manager had accepted bribes for approving
linesmen to carry out work on the broadband network.

Chorus spokesman Ian Bonnar said on Feb. 9 that both Chorus and
Visionstream had taken action with regard to some of the lesser
matters raised by the whistleblowers, while their investigations
continued.

Those actions concerned conflicts of interest held by employees who
were involved in UFB subcontracting companies on the side.

The various investigations have not affected investor confidence in
Chorus, which saw its shares climb to a record high of $5.08 on
Feb. 8 -- more than triple their price five year's ago. [GN]


ACN OPPORTUNITY: Trumps Collaborated with Marketing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Orden, writing for CNN, reports that an amended class-action
lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Feb. 21 accused
President Donald Trump, his three eldest children and his company
of collaborating with a fraudulent marketing scheme to prey on
investors -- including by recruiting teenagers, promising them
success as "The Trumps of Tomorrow."

The lawsuit alleges that in exchange for "secret" payments, Trump
and three of his adult children used his former reality TV show
"The Celebrity Apprentice" and other promotional events as vehicles
to boost ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company
linked to a nonprofit that used Trump's brand to appeal to teens.

After Trump joined the board of the nonprofit in 2009, the lawsuit
alleges, it distributed an edition of its magazine, "Success from
Home," that contained an article titled "The Trumps of Tomorrow,"
announcing his involvement and featuring an interview with him.
Included in the magazine was an image of four teenagers, as well as
references to Trump's children, "who all now work with the Trump
dynasty."

Trump's association with the nonprofit "lent a gloss of legitimacy
to ACN's efforts to reach a new generation of potential recruits,"
according to the lawsuit, which also notes that information about
the board "disappeared" from the group's website around May 2016.

The lawsuit, brought initially in October on behalf of four
anonymous individuals, accuses the Trumps of pocketing millions in
payments between 2005 and 2015 to promote what they described as
promising business opportunities: ACN Opportunity; the Trump
Network, a vitamin and health product marketing company; and The
Trump Institute, a seminar program that "purported to sell Trump's
'secrets to success.' "

The suit is being funded by the nonprofit Tesseract Research
Center, which has ties to Democratic candidates, according to a
spokesman for the law firm Kaplan, Hecker & Fink. A partner in that
firm, Roberta Kaplan, as well as Andrew G. Celli Jr., of Emery,
Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, are representing the plaintiffs.

An attorney for Trump and his three eldest children didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the original
complaint, saying in court papers: "While the Complaint purports to
allege malfeasance by various Trump entities, it seeks relief for a
single class of putative victims -- those who paid money to a
business Mr. Trump does not own, has never owned, and over whose
operations he has never exercised control."

As with the original lawsuit, the amended complaint alleges that
the Trumps profited off the poor, seeking "to enrich themselves by
systematically defrauding economically marginalized people looking
to invest in their educations, start their own small business, and
pursue the American dream."

The suit claims that the Trumps, in fact, "deliberately misled"
consumers about the likely success of their investments.

The lawsuit, which runs 186 pages in its amended form, further
claims the Trumps engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity"
and "were aware that the vast majority of consumers would lose
whatever money they invested in the business opportunities and
training programs" offered by the three companies. None of the
three companies is named as a defendant. [GN]


ACTIVISION: Offering "Potential Refunds" to Guitar Hero Live Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen S. Good, writing for  Polygon, reports that Activision is
offering "potential refunds" to some buyers of Guitar Hero Live,
whose catalog of streaming songs to play was cut to about 10
percent of its size at the end of 2018 (so, nine times worse than
decimated).

The company isn't giving any reasons why in a tersely worded claims
form page, but it's rather obvious that Activision's decision to
obliterate a library that counted almost 500 songs at its peak, and
a resulting lawsuit -- dismissed less than two weeks ago -- is the
culprit. The refunds are only good for those who:

   * Bought Guitar Hero Live in the United States.

   * Bought it between Dec. 1, 2017 and Jan. 1, 2019.

   * File a claim by May 1, 2019.

And whose purchase of the game, subject to the above conditions,
"can be confirmed by Activision." That means providing either a
receipt or a credit card statement showing the relevant charge.
Those who have neither can still file a claim, and Activision will
try to verify whether the purchase is legit. The claim form
requires a claimant to provide both an email address and the
Gamertag or online ID of the platform where they bought and played
Guitar Hero Live.

In June 2018, Activision announced that Guitar Hero TV, the
streaming music service for Guitar Hero Live, would close in
December, leaving the game with just the 42 songs provided on the
disc. Guitar Hero TV had a song catalog of 484 at the time of the
announcement.

When it launched in October 2015, Guitar Hero TV took a
Spotify/Apple Music approach to catalog management, forsaking the
premium DLC model of Rock Band and past Guitar Hero games in favor
of a much larger rotation (for a single game) available to players
for free. The catch was that the songs would only be available for
as long as Activision supported it, and the bell tolled for that in
December.

Shortly after this announcement, a Los Angeles man filed a lawsuit
against Activision in U.S. District Court, alleging false
advertising and seeking class action status. Robert Fishel argued
that he bought the game two years after its launch for the
discounted price of $22.43 "reasonably expect[ing] that Activision
would not subsequently eliminate his ability to use the vast
majority" of the songs.

In a motion dated Jan. 22, Fishel voluntarily dismissed his case
without prejudice (which means he could choose sue again on the
same allegations).

Guitar Hero Live released Oct. 20, 2015, on PlayStation 3,
PlayStation 4, Wii U, Xbox 360 and Xbox One. It, as well as Rock
Band 4 momentarily resuscitated a music gaming genre that had gone
into hibernation following 2010's Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock.

But a year after Guitar Hero Live's release, Activision Blizzard
fired several workers at UK-based FreeStyleGames, which developed
the game, following advice to investors that Guitar Hero Live had
sold "lower than expected."[GN]


ALKERMES PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alkermes plc. ("Alkermes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALKS)
and certain of its officers and directors.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York, and indexed under 19-cv-00624, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Alkermes securities between February 17, 2017
through November 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alkermes securities between
February 17, 2017, and November 1, 2018, you have until February
25, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Alkermes is incorporated in Ireland and is a biopharmaceutical
company which researches, develops and commercializes
pharmaceutical products.  

The complaint alleges that Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had advised
Alkermes to follow a certain protocol in connection with its New
Drug Application submission for ALKS 5461; (2) Alkermes had failed
to follow that protocol; (3) consequently, an FDA advisory
committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461; and (4)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

On April 2, 2018, Alkermes reported that it received a Refusal to
File letter from the FDA regarding its NDA for ALKS 5461.  The
Company stated that "the FDA has taken the position that it is
unable to complete a substantive review of the regulatory package,
based on insufficient evidence of overall effectiveness for the
proposed indication and that additional well-controlled clinical
trials are needed prior to the resubmission of the NDA for ALKS
5461."

On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $12.73 per share or
nearly 22% to close at $45.23 per share on April 2, 2018.

On October 30, 2018, the FDA released a briefing document
concerning Alkermes' NDA for ALKS 5461.  The briefing document
stated the FDA did not agree with Alkermes' methodologies and that
Alkermes disregarded the FDA's advice.

On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $0.57 per share or
over 1.4% to close at $39.80 per share on October 30, 2018.

Then, on November 1, 2018, Alkermes disclosedthat the FDA advisory
committee voted 21 to 2 against the approval of ALKS 5461. That
same day, Xconomy reported that "[a]t the hearing, FDA
representatives said the agency specifically told Alkermes not to
analyze its data through an average, which it still did."

On this news, shares in Alkermes' stock fell $3.09 per share or
over 7.5% to close at $37.74 per share on November 2, 2018,
damaging investors.

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


AM KIDS: Rodriguez Seeks Earned Wages & OT Pay for Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. AM KIDS, INC. d/b/a C TOWN
SUPERMARKET and KIDS AM, INC d/b/a C TOWN SUPERMARKET and ANTHONY
DIAZ and MARIANO DIAZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01358 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and earned wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class
work or have worked at the C Town Supermarket controlled and
operated by Defendants Anthony Diaz and Mariano Diaz, respectively.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect
to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff worked at C Town Supermarket from 2004 through
February 2019. The Plaintiff's job duties as a butcher's helper
included preparing and arranging meat for garnishes, using hand and
electric food service equipment, setting up and decorating the meat
area and cleaning the equipment and the work area. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work
more than 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff was only paid for the
first 40 hours he worked each week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 100017
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mohammed Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HASIM A. MOHAMMED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES; and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342788 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Feb. 19, 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 Mohammed was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt, hourly employee.

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The
company provides scheduled air transportation services for
passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services. The
company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth,
London Heathrow, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and
Phoenix, as well as in Washington, D.C. As of December 31, 2018, it
operated a fleet of 956 mainline aircraft. The company was founded
in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. American
Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, 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
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  lilit@setarehlaw.com


APHRIA: Class Certification Could Take a Year
---------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that another proposed class action has commenced
against cannabis-producer Aphria, but it could take a while before
it's certified by a judge.

Rochon Genova LLP says the suit is on behalf of people who
purchased Aphria shares between Jan. 29, 2018 up to and including
Nov. 30, 2018.

Back in December, Koskie Minsky LLP also announced a proposed class
action against the Leamington company.

Both suits allege Aphria did not make adequate disclosures to
shareholders regarding its acquisitions of assets in Colombia,
Argentina and Jamaica.

"The kind of allegations that have been made are not great," said
Jay Strosberg, Esq.-- jay@strosbergco.com -- partner at Strosberg
Sasso Sutts LLP, a firm which focuses on class action suits based
in Windsor and Toronto.

In a statement, Joel P. Rochon, Esq. -- jrochon@rochongenova.com --
managing partner at Rochon Genova, said "proper disclosure levels
the playing field among all investors" and that "accurate and
timely public disclosure is the lifeblood" of capital markets.

Were acquisitions worthless?

In early December, short-sellers Quintessential Capital Management
and Hindenburg Research alleged that Aphria's acquisition of the
LATAM holding assets in Colombia, Argentina and Jamaica totaling
$280 million from Scythian Biosciences were "largely worthless."

Proposed class action against Aphria after alleged 'callous
disregard' for full disclosure

Cannabis producer Aphria to review acquisition slammed by short
sellers

The allegations drastically affected Aphria's stock prices, causing
them to drop 30 per cent.

Then in January, a Bloomberg report questioned those short-sellers'
allegations, after a reporter found assets in Jamaica that were
claimed by short-sellers to be inoperational.

Strosberg said these proposed class actions launched against Aphria
are different from usual shareholder class actions -- where
financial statement misrepresentation or accounting errors are
commonplace.

But with Aphria, it's about transparency.

"This isn't just an accounting error. These are very serious
allegations."

Class action timeline

Plaintiffs can hope their case will be heard by a judge within a
year and a half's time to determine if it will be certified, said
Strosberg.

For the class actions to be certified, plaintiffs need to convince
the judge that "Aphria, or its management, made misleading
statements or failed to give investors full and complete
information."

Some of that evidence plaintiffs can bring include the information
that the short-sellers have, according to Strosberg.

But if plaintiffs want to find their own evidence on Aphria's
disclosure, he said, "it's not going to take a tremendous amount of
an investigation to marshal those facts and present it to the
court."[GN]


APPLE INC: Faces New Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Purcher, writing for Patently Apple, reports that a Plaintiff
by the name of Jay Brodsky has filed with a California court a
formal complaint against Apple Inc. in an effort to get a class
action approved. The nature of the action, according to the formal
complaint, is based on Apple locking out Plaintiff from use of his
personal devices by a business policy requiring two-factor
authentication that cannot be disabled after a lapse of an initial
fourteen (14) days.

Once two-factor authentication is enabled either by default, on a
software update or accidentally by a user and 14 days have lapsed,
Apple does not allow any mechanism to disable two-factor
authentication. Two-factor authentication imposes an extraneous
logging in procedure that requires a user to both (i) remember
password; and (ii) have access to a trusted device or trusted phone
number to receive an additional six-digit code that needs to be
entered at the time of logging in addition to the user set
password. A user does not have an option to disable such doubled up
security measures and is stuck with wasting time to log on to his
own device. Two-factor authentication requires additional steps to
access any third-party apps or services requiring passwords.
Two-factor authentication is required each time you turn on a
device.

Apple does not get user consent to enable two-factor
authentication. Apple does not get user consent to then remove the
option forever to disable two-factor authentication, once it is
enabled. An email with a long paragraph thanking the user and
highlighting the good features of two-factor authentication
followed by a simple single last line in an email saying that the
link will expire on a given date is insufficient to put the user on
notice of his options and make an informed decision as to whether
to click the link to disable it.

As a result of Apple's coercive policies with regards to security
of Plaintiff owned devices, Plaintiff and millions of similarly
situated consumers across the nation have been and continue to
suffer harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered economic
losses in terms of the interference with the use of their personal
devices and waste of their personal time in using additional time
for simple logging in.

Plaintiff and the Class seek monetary damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Apple from continuing
its practice of not allowing a user to choose its own logging and
security procedure.

Causes for Action

Count 1: Trespass to personal Property

Count 2: Violation of the invasion of privacy act

Count 3: Violation of the Computer Crime Law

Count 4: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [GN]


ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic 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 parties in the case
styled Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., are still awaiting a court
ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

A purported class action complaint (Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al.)
related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc. and Klaus Kleinfeld.

A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
August 25, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al.,
against Arconic Inc., two former Arconic executives, several
current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in Arconic’s Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016
Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual Highlights Report.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. Briefing on that motion is now closed and the parties await
a ruling.

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

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered
Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation
and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is
based in New York, New York.


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

Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO)
Class Period: common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to
Arlo's August 3, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the
"Offering").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/arlo

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was
a flaw and/or quality issue with Arlo's newly designed battery for
its Ultra camera systems; (2) this flaw and/or quality issue with
the Ultra battery could result in a shipping delay of Arlo's Ultra
product; (3) such a shipping delay endangered Arlo's chances of
launching the Ultra product in time for the crucial holiday season;
(4) such a shipping delay would allow Arlo's competitors to
capitalize on the Ultra product's missed launch, thereby increasing
their own market share; (5) Arlo's consumers had been experiencing
battery drain issues and other battery-related issues in connection
with recent firmware updates; (6) because of the foregoing, Arlo's
fourth quarter 2018 results and consumer base would be negatively
impacted; and (7) as a result, Arlo's Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Bevinal Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 has been
named as defendant in a purported shareholder's class action
complaint entitled, Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc.

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain present and
former officers of the Company.  

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Avon common stock between August 2, 2016 and
August 2, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with
respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms
for representatives in Brazil.  

Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could
result from an unfavorable outcome."

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
north Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


AVON PRODUCTS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosedthat a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Avon Products, Inc.
(NYSE:AVP) common stock during the period between August 2, 2016
and August 2, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in
the Southern District of New York and is captioned Bevinal v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420.

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

The complaint charges Avon and certain of its current and former
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products. Avon's business is conducted primarily in one channel,
direct selling to Avon representatives. Avon representatives then
resell Avon products to end-user customers. As of December 31,
2016, Avon had approximately 6 million active representatives.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, in order to
inflate its reported revenue and representative growth metric, Avon
engaged in an undisclosed scheme whereby it significantly loosened
its credit terms in order to recruit new representatives in Brazil,
its largest market. Avon did not disclose the changes to its credit
terms in Brazil. Avon also failed to increase its allowance for
doubtful accounts to account for the changes to its credit terms in
Brazil. As a result of the concealment of defendants' scheme during
the Class Period, the price of Avon stock was artificially inflated
to as high as $6.89 per share.

On November 3, 2016, Avon filed its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016 and disclosed that its operating
expenses and margins had been negatively impacted by higher bad
debt expense. Over the next two days, the price of Avon stock
dropped $0.47 per share to close at $5.94 per share on November 4,
2016, a decline of more than 7%. On February 16, 2017, the Company
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2016 results
and held a conference call to discuss the results. The Company
reported a net loss of $0.03 per share and a 2% decline in active
representatives. The Company also disclosed a $35 million bad debt
charge attributable to the previously undisclosed changes to credit
terms to recruit new representatives in Brazil. As a result of this
news, the price of Avon stock dropped $1.09 per share to close at
$4.77 per share on February 17, 2017, a decline of nearly 19%. On
the following day, February 18, 2017, the price of Avon stock
dropped again, falling over 3% to close at $4.61 per share. On May
4, 2017, Avon issued a press release announcing its first quarter
2017 results and held a conference call to discuss the results. The
Company reported a net loss of $0.10 per share and a 3% decline in
active representatives. On the call, Avon disclosed that despite
its earlier assurances that the Brazil bad debt problem had been
fully accounted for in 2016, the Company was recording another
significant charge for bad debt tied to Avon's decision to loosen
its credit terms to recruit new representatives in Brazil. As a
result of this news, the price of Avon stock dropped $1.03 per
share to close at $3.62 per share on May 4, 2017, a decline of
22%.

Then, on August 3, 2017, Avon issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2017 financial results and held a conference call to
discuss the results. The Company reported a net loss of $0.12 per
share and a 3% decline in active representatives. The Company also
reported that Brazil revenue was "down 2% in constant dollars,
primarily driven by a decrease in Active Representatives." On the
call, Avon's CFO acknowledged that, despite Avon's earlier
representations, the remedial actions in Brazil (i.e., stricter
credit terms applied to recruiting new representatives) were
negatively impacting active representatives and revenue in Brazil.
As a result of this news, the price of Avon stock dropped $0.36 per
share to close at $3.00 per share on August 3, 2017, a decline of
nearly 11%.

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

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Website: www.rgrdlaw.com
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


AZCONA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Reyes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAR REYES and FIDEL RAXCACO IZAGUIRRE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AZCONA INC. and MANUEL AZCONA,
as an individual, Case No. CV 19-1188 (E.D.N.Y., February 28,
2019), accuses the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to
pay required overtime wage compensation, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Azcona Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.
The Company is a corporation authorized to do and doing business in
New York.  The Company is owned and/or operated by Manuel Azcona.

Based in Inwood, New York, Azcona serves surrounding communities
specializing in demolition and trucking/hauling.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Challenges Dismissal Order in SIBOR/SOR Suit in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the
SIBOR/SOR case in the the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) are challenging the court's order
dismissing all the claims against the company.

In 2016, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other defendants, alleging
manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and
Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR).

The plaintiffs amended their complaint in 2017 following dismissal
by the court of the claims against Barclays for failure to state a
claim. In October 2018, the court dismissed all claims against
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI, a decision that the
plaintiffs are challenging.

Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.


BARCLAYS PLC: Continues to Defend Japanese Yen LIBOR Suit in SDNY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company remains a
defendant in the Japanese Yen LIBOR cases in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

In 2012, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against
Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a
plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint
also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen
Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which
Barclays Bank PLC is not a member.

The complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the
Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and
Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010. In 2014, the court dismissed
the plaintiff's antitrust claims in full, but the plaintiff's CEA
claims remain pending.

Discovery is ongoing.

In 2017, a second putative class action concerning Yen LIBOR which
was filed in the SDNY against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and
BCI was dismissed in full. The complaint makes similar allegations
to the 2012 class action. The plaintiffs have appealed the
dismissal.

Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.


BARCLAYS PLC: Faces USD LIBOR Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company faces a
consolidated USD LIBOR class action suit in  US District Court in
the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

In January 2019, two putative class actions were filed in the SDNY
against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, other financial
institution defendants and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) and
certain of its affiliates, asserting antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims on allegations that, beginning in 2014,
defendants manipulated USD LIBOR through defendants' submissions to
ICE, which took over rate-setting duties for LIBOR from the British
Bankers' Association in 2014.

These two actions were consolidated in February 2019.

Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.


BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Case Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the plaintiff in the
Sterling LIBOR Case in the US District Court in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) has asked the court to reconsider the
decision in granting defendants' motion to dismiss.

In 2015, a putative class action was filed in the SDNY against
Barclays Bank PLC and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks by a
plaintiff involved in exchange-traded and over-the-counter
derivatives that were linked to Sterling LIBOR.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate between 2005 and 2010 and, in
so doing, committed CEA, Antitrust Act, and RICO violations. In
2016, this class action was consolidated with an additional
putative class action making similar allegations against Barclays
Bank PLC and BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in December 2018. The
plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider this decision.

Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.


BARCLAYS PLC: USD LIBOR Cases Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC 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 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a multidistrict litigation over USD LIBOR.

The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in
various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes before a single judge in the US District Court in the
Southern District of New York (SDNY).

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, amongst other
things, that Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other
financial institutions individually and collectively violated
provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act (Antitrust Act), the US
Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates.

Certain of the proposed class actions have been settled. Barclays
has settled claims purportedly brought on behalf of plaintiffs that
(i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked over-the-counter transactions (OTC
Class); (ii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an
exchange; (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities; or (iv)
issued loans linked to USD LIBOR (Lender Class) and paid $120
million, $20 million, $7.1 million and $4 million respectively. The
settlements with the OTC Class and the Lender Class have received
final court approval. The other settlements remain subject to final
court approval and/or the right of class members to opt out of the
settlement and to seek to file their own claims.

The remaining putative class actions and individual actions seek
unspecified damages with the exception of five lawsuits, in which
the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in excess of $1.25
billion in actual damages against all defendants, including
Barclays Bank PLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also
seek trebling of damages under the Antitrust Act and RICO.

Barclays PLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial
products and services in the United Kingdom, other European
countries, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The
company operates through Barclays UK and Barclays International
divisions. The company was formerly known as Barclays Bank Limited
and changed its name to Barclays PLC in January 1985. Barclays PLC
was founded in 1690 and is headquartered in London, the United
Kingdom.


BEAUMONT COLLEGE: College Linked to Fraud, Attorneys Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mullooly, writing for KFDM-TV News, reports that Southeast
Texas attorneys representing students and staff members of recently
closed college campuses across the country say they have new
evidence on the abrupt closures of more than 76 campuses
nationwide, including Brightwood College in Beaumont.

Attorney Tim Ferguson, Esq., with the Ferguson Law Firm says the
firm originally filed a nation-wide class action suit against 13
defendants.

The original complaint was Brightwood College run by the Education
Corporation of America (ECA) were permanently closing and officials
knew it, but didn't deliver on promises to students and staff.

"The students were paying all this money, owing all the money back
to the government and then one day you show up to class and the
door is locked," says Ferguson.

Staff were also affected by the closure, especially those dealing
with personal battles of their own.

"She's stuck with no benefits, but the cancer is still there," says
Ferguson.

"Shannon Shroeder was the director of Career Services at
Brightwood.

She was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2018, and told on
December 5th, her job of 14 years was over.

Ferguson says Shroeder and others whose stories he's heard with
similar endings, deserve answers.

"We believe it further proves that the defendants either knew of
had reason to know that these colleges across the country were
going to be prematurely closed. [GN]


BLACKROCK INST'L: Court Strikes 2 Undisclosed Individuals in Baird
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES BAIRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKROCK
INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-01892-HSG (KAW) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A.
Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike 10 individuals that BlackRock did not disclose
until Dec. 21, 2018.

On July 5, 2017, the parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).  In their initial
disclosures, the Plaintiffs identified, among other individuals,
Mr. Jeffrey Kirsh.  BlackRock identified four individuals,
including Plaintiff Baird.  BlackRock also incorporated by
reference any individual disclosed by another party in the case.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to modify the case
schedule, including continuing the discovery deadlines.  The
parties agreed that if the extension was granted, they would not
issue any further written discovery requests on one another.  The
Plaintiffs also agreed not to seek to depose any current or former
BlackRock employee, other than Mr. Schnadt or Ms. Fung, prior to
the class certification hearing.

On Dec. 21, 2018, BlackRock served a Supplemental Disclosure, which
identified 29 individuals likely to have discoverable information.
After the Plaintiffs objected, BlackRock provided a Second
Supplemental Disclosure on Jan. 17, 2019, less than three weeks
prior to the close of fact discovery.  The Second Supplemental
Disclosure provided greater detail as to what the individuals would
be testifying to.

The parties then filed joint letters concerning ten of the
individuals identified by BlackRock's Supplemental Disclosures.  On
Feb. 21, 2019, the Court held a discovery hearing on the parties'
joint discovery letters.  At the hearing, BlackRock noted that Ms.
Jeanne Belanger and Ms. Irene Ashkenazy would be testifying as
BlackRock's 30(b)(6) witnesses.  BlackRock also emphasized that
except for Mr. Kirsh, Ms. Belanger, and Ms. Ashkenazy, the other
seven individuals at issue were identified in the event that the
Plaintiffs raised foundation objections at trial.

The Plaintiffs seek to strike 10 individuals that BlackRock did not
disclose until Dec. 21, 2018.  BlackRock responds that its
disclosures were not late, and that if they were, any delay was
harmless or justifiable.

On Dec. 21, 2018, BlackRock disclosed Mr. Kirsh, Managing Director
and Senior Counsel, on the topic of "Fiduciary process and
decisions for the plan."  BlackRock contends that it has always
identified Mr. Kirsh as a potential trial witness because its
initial disclosures incorporated the Plaintiffs' initial
disclosures.

Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that Mr. Kirsh was not sufficiently
disclosed.  With respect to BlackRock's initial disclosures, she
notes that despite incorporating the Plaintiffs' initial
disclosures, BlackRock still separately identified four individuals
who were also identified by the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures.
Specifically, Plaintiffs identified Plaintiff Baird and the
individual members of the Retirement Committee, Investment
Committee, and Administrative Committee in their initial
disclosures.  BlackRock, in turn, identified Plaintiff Baird, Mr.
Feliciani (a member of the three committees), Ms. Nedl (a member of
the Administrative Committee), and Mr. Herman (the secretary of the
Retirement Committee).  Under these circumstances, where BlackRock
specifically identified individuals who were already "incorporated"
from the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures, BlackRock cannot rely on
the incorporation of the Plaintiffs' initial disclosures to satisfy
its Rule 26 disclosure obligations.

On Dec. 21, 2018, Ms. Jeanne Belanger (Managing Director, Legal &
Compliance) was disclosed on the topic of "CTF governing
documents."  BlackRock contends the Plaintiff should have known of
Ms. Belanger because Ms. Belanger signed four declarations in
support of motions to file under seal, which stated that she was
familiar with the confidential information and documents that are
created in connection with the management, governance, and
administration of BlackRock CTIs.  The Magistrate finds that, to
the extent BlackRock intends to rely on Ms. Belanger in her
individual capacity, rather than as a 30(b)(6) witness, Ms.
Belanger was not sufficiently disclosed.  The declarations in
support of the motions to file under seal did not indicate that Ms.
Belanger was familiar with drafting the CTI plan documents, or the
processes for reviewing and revising these documents.  While
BlackRock faults the Plaintiffs for not asking more questions of
the deposition witnesses regarding Ms. Belanger's role in helping
them prepare their 30(b)(6) testimony, the Plaintiffs' failure to
ask such questions does not absolve BlackRock of its Rule 26
disclosure obligations.

In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Irene Ashkenazy
(Managing Director, Head of Business Economics) was disclosed on
the topic of "BlackRock, Inc. business reviews."  In the Jan. 17,
2019 second supplemental disclosure, Mr. Rajiv Khurana (Director,
Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis) was identified as
preparing Mr. Jason Strofs for his 30(b)(6) deposition, and is
involved in preparing quarterly business reviews ("QBRs").  In the
Jan. 17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, Ms. Sara Lo (Managing
Director, Global Chief Operating; Officer, Trading & Liquidity
Strategies) is identified as preparing Mr. Strofs for his 30(b)(6)
deposition, and having overseen securities lending operations which
includes analysis of the type of cost and revenue information
included in the QBRs for the securities lending business.

With respect to Ms. Ashkenazy, the Magistrate finds that to the
extent BlackRock intends to rely on Ms. Ashkenazy in her individual
capacity, rather than as a 30(b)(6) witness on QBRs, she was not
sufficiently disclosed.  BlackRock does not dispute that Ms.
Ashkenazy could not be found in any discovery to date.  As to Mr.
Khurana and Ms. Lo, she likewise finds that these witnesses were
not sufficiently disclosed.

In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Ms. Chris Christensen
(Managing Director, BlackRock Services & Operations) was disclosed
on the topic of "BTC processes related to securities lending and
cash collateral management."  In the Jan. 17, 2019 second
supplemental disclosure, BlackRock identified Mr. Ianthus Martin
(Director, Securities Lending Operations) as helping prepare Mr.
Strofs and Mr. Henige for their 30(b)(6) depositions.  In the Jan.
17, 2019 second supplemental disclosure, BlackRock also identified
Mr. Joel Munoz (Vice President) as helping prepare Mr. Henige for
his 30(b)(6) deposition.

Again, although BlackRock faults the Plaintiffs for not asking more
questions, BlackRock had an independent duty to disclose all
individuals it intended to rely upon at trial.  Therefore, the
Magistrate concludes that these individuals were not sufficiently
disclosed in prior discovery.

In the Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosure, Ms. Elizabeth Kent
(Managing Director; Former Global Chief Operating Officer, Trading
& Liquidity Strategies) was disclosed on the topic of "management
and operation of securities lending program."  In both the Dec. 21,
2018 and Jan. 17, 2019 supplemental disclosures, Mr. Eric Hiatt
(Director, Cash Portfolio Manager) was disclosed on the topic of
management of STIFs used to hold securities lending cash
collateral.

The Magistrate finds that Ms. Kent and Mr. Hiatt were not
sufficiently disclosed prior to the supplemental disclosures.  The
fact that Ms. Kent and Mr. Hiatt were listed on an organization
chart does not alone suggest that they would be witnesses in the
case.  The Plaintiffs should not be put in the position of having
to prepare for the possibility of facing every individual on an
organization chart as a potential witness.  Similarly, Mr. Strofs'
identification of Mr. Hiatt as assisting him in preparing for his
deposition is insufficient to satisfy Rule 26.

In the alternative, BlackRock argues that there is no harm from the
late disclosures because the Plaintiffs could conduct further
discovery after the class certification motion is decided.  The
Magistrate finds that BlackRock has not satisfied its burden to
prove harmlessness from its late disclosures.  The Dec. 7, 2018
stipulation only highlights the harm as the Plaintiffs agreed not
to propound new discovery prior to BlackRock disclosing 29 new
individuals in their Dec. 21, 2018 supplemental disclosures.  It is
not clear the Plaintiffs would have agreed to limit future
discovery requests if they had known there BlackRock intended to
supplement its Rule 26 disclosures with so many individuals.

Finally, BlackRock argues that the Plaintiffs complaint that
BlackRock should have formally revised its disclosures earlier is
misplaced because they only filed their Second Amended Complaint in
August 2018.  The fact that BlackRock may need these individuals as
witnesses to handle foundation objections, however, does not
warrant requiring the Plaintiffs to have to prepare for all of
these individuals as witnesses for any purpose.

For the reasons stated, Magitrate Judge Westmore struck the
individuals at issue in the joint letters except for Ms. Belanger
and Ms. Ashkenazy in their capacity as 30(b)(6) witnesses only.
The stricken individuals may not supply evidence on a motion, at a
hearing, or at trial.  Again, the ruling is without prejudice to
foundation objections to 30(b)(6) testimony that the individuals
assisted in preparing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kVRIxg from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter -- dsutter@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz --
jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S.
Selesnick -- jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson
-- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and
Wasow LLP.

Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle C. Yau, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Nina Rachel Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen Milstein Sellers
Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Michael John McCarthy
-- mmccarthy@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay,
Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Nancy Everett, Joseph Feliciani,
Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost, Daniel
Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John Perlowski,
Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W.
Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Amy Engel, Management Development & Compensation Committee of the
BlackRock, Inc. Board of Directors, Kathleen Nedl, Marc Comerchero,
Joel Davies, John Davis, Milan Lint & Laraine McKinnon, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W.
Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Mercer Investment Consulting, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Ortelere, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew
Allen Russell, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice &
Spencer H. Wan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Says Securities Statements Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., ANDREW S.
CLARK, KEVIN ROYAL, and JOSEPH L. D'AMICO, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00460-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 8, 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 a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Bridgepoint
securities between March 8, 2016 and March 7, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

Bridgepoint was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California. Bridgepoint, together with its subsidiaries, provides
postsecondary education services in the United States. The Company
was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its name to
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. Bridgepoint's
academic institutions, Ashford University and University of the
Rockies, offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral
degree programs in the disciplines of business, education,
psychology, social sciences, and health sciences. Bridgepoint
offers its programs primarily through online, and also at its
campuses. As of December 31, 2017, its institutions offered
approximately 1,200 courses and 80 degree programs, with 45,730
students enrolled.

As a means of increasing enrollment, the Company formed various
corporate partnerships with employers to offer their employees a
way to pursue and complete a college degree without incurring any
student debt, referred to as the Corporate Full Tuition Grant
("FTG") program. In 2017, enrollments in the Company's FTG program
accounted for approximately 10% of its total enrollment.

The 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) Bridgepoint's
processes for recording revenue for its FTG program were
inaccurate; (ii) Bridgepoint maintained deficient internal
controls; (iii) due to the foregoing deficiencies, Bridgepoint was
prone to and did commit material accounting errors related to
revenue, provision for bad debts, accounts receivable and deferred
revenue, which resulted in the overstatement of revenue and
expenses; and (iv) as a result, Bridgepoint's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 7, 2019, Bridgepoint announced that it had "determined to
restate the Company's previously issued unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements, and advised that those financial
statements should not be relied upon, for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2018." Bridgepoint stated that the processes
used for recording revenue for the FTG program portion of its
student contracts "were not designed with sufficient precision,"
leading to "material" accounting errors related to revenue,
provision for bad debts, accounts receivable and deferred revenue,
which resulted in the overstatement of revenue and expenses.
Bridgepoint also identified weaknesses in internal controls.

On this news, Bridgepoint's stock price plummeted by $3.21 per
share, or over 34%, to close at $6.22 per share on March 7, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume. 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, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

BRISTOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP  ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, captioned Kokareva v. Bristow Group
Inc. et al., (Case No. 4:19-cv-00509), on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bristow Group Inc.
(NYSE: BRS ) ("Bristow" or the "Company") securities between
February 8, 2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

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


Then on February 12, 2019, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the
SEC to announce: (i) that it had terminated its agreement to
purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc.; and (ii) that Jonathan E.
Baliff would retire as Chief Executive Officer and would resign
from the Board of Directors, effective February 28, 2019. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.64, or nearly 35%, to close
at $1.20 per share on February 13, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate monitoring
processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured
financing and lease agreements; (2) that, as a result, the Company
could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial
covenants; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely
to breach certain agreements; (4) that, as a result, the Company
had understated its short-term debt; (5) the required corrections
would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Bristow securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

         Contact:
         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


CALAVO GROWERS: Faces Velez's Labor Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against
Renaissance Food Group LLC. The case is captioned as MARIA VELEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RENAISSANCE FOOD GROUP LLC; CALAVO GROWERS INC.;
KENNETH J. CATCHOT; G&M HIRE ENTERPRISES LLC; GH FOODS CA LLC; and
DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00250841-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 19, 2019).

Renaissance Food Group, LLC produces and supplies fresh perishable
food products. The company offers fresh cut fruits, ready-to-eat
vegetables, recipe ready fresh vegetables, vegetable sides and
meals, and fresh overwrap melons; salads and salad kits, fresh
party trays, sandwiches and wraps, and snacks; meat component kits;
and fresh salad bar and food service trays. It offers its products
through retailers. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in
Rancho Cordova, California with production facilities in the United
States. As of June 1, 2011, Renaissance Food Group, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Calavo Growers Inc. [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


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Nurses Sue Over Improper Wages for On-Call Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Anderson, writing for Sand Hills Express, reports that  seven
current and former nurses at St. Elizabeth Regional Medical Center
in Lincoln have named Catholic Health Initiatives in a federal
lawsuit. The nurses allege that they were not paid what they were
due under state and federal law for time worked while on call on
weeknights, weekends and holidays.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 6 in U.S. District Court in Lincoln.

All of the nurses work for hourly wages, said Kathleen Neary of
Lincoln, who filed the suit with fellow Lincoln attorney Vince
Powers, Esq. -- vince@vpowerslaw.com

Both state and federal law require employers to pay employees at
least the statutory minimum wage for hours worked. The federal Fair
Labor Standards Act requires that hourly employees be paid at a
rate of 11/2 times their regular pay for any time worked beyond 40
hours a week, Neary said.

In the lawsuit, the nurses allege that they did not receive the
minimum wage, their regular hourly rate or overtime for services
they provided during on-call hours, in violation of state and
federal labor laws and of Catholic Health Initiatives' own
policies.

CHI Health officials in Omaha said in a statement on Feb. 8 that
they are aware of the allegations made in the lawsuit.

"CHI Health is looking into all matters raised in that complaint
and will handle all appropriately," officials said. "Because this
involves litigation, CHI Health cannot comment on any facts of the
matter. CHI Health takes serious(ly) the allegations raised in this
complaint, and is committed to full compliance with the law and
fair treatment for all of its employees."

Catholic Health Initiatives -- which, after a merger with Dignity
Health, is now called CommonSpirit Health -- is the parent of CHI
Health, which operates St. Elizabeth and other hospitals, clinics
and facilities in Nebraska and Iowa.

The nurses, Neary said, "thought long and hard about bringing the
lawsuit because they love their jobs, they love taking care of
their patients, but they just want what the law requires in terms
of pay."

While on call, the nurses routinely received work-related calls,
emails and texts and were required to answer and respond to
patient-related matters and occasionally speak with patients.

During the weeks they were on call, according to the suit, their
workweeks often exceeded 40 hours when their work at the hospital
was combined with the active on-call work they performed.

During the time period in question, according to the lawsuit, CHI's
on-call policies said work "that can be taken care of with a phone
call or access to work from home" would be paid at 1½ times the
employee's base pay in 15-minute increments.

The nurses say in the lawsuit that they were not paid according to
that policy.

Instead, the nurses allege, they were paid between $2 and $4 an
hour for the entire on-call shift, regardless of the time they
actually spent working. The nurses are asking to be paid the
required rates only for the time they were actively working while
on call, not for every minute of on-call time, Neary said.

All worked for one department at the hospital.

But Neary said they believe that many other employees working for
different departments at CHI facilities in Nebraska and Iowa were
also not properly paid for the on-call hours they worked.

The lawsuit asks the judge to extend the complaint to include "all
others similarly situated." The lawsuit says that group would
include all current and former hourly CHI employees who did not
receive the "statutory rate of pay and/or agreed upon wages for all
active on-call work" from Feb. 6, 2015, to the present.

In addition to St. Elizabeth, the suit lists 16 other CHI-run
health care facilities in Nebraska and Iowa.

Under federal law, Neary said, the attorneys would have to move for
class-action status to include other nurses affected but not
explicitly named in the suit. They must first wait until CHI files
an answer to the lawsuit. A judge would then have to certify or
deny class-action status.

But Neary said state law includes a provision that appears to let
them move ahead with the state claim "on behalf of all employees
similarly situated" without formally moving for class-action
status.[GN]


CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Schall Law Firm Probing Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Cavco Industries, Inc. ("Cavco" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CVCO)
for violations of Section 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.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Cavco filed its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2018 after the market closed on November
8, 2018. The Company disclosed in its 10-Q that it had received an
SEC Division of Enforcement subpoena on August 20, 2018. The SEC
subpoena requested records of Cavco's trading in another public
company's stock, amongst other details. Joseph Stegmayer, Cavco's
former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, received a
similar SEC subpoena on October 1, 2018. Based on the news of SEC
subpoenas, Cavco shares fell almost 23% on November 9, 2018.

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.
         
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


CELGENE CORP: Bernstein Seeks to Halt Bristol-Myers Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Bernstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celgene Corporation, Mark J.
Alles, Richard W. Barker, Michael W. Bonney, Michael D. Casey,
Carrie S. Cox, Michael A. Friedman, Julia A. Haller, Patricia
Hemmingway Hall, James J. Loughlin, Ernest Mario and John H.
Weiland, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04804 (D. N.J., February 6,
2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Celgene by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, rescinding
it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifivan, Esq.
      Jay Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Rd.
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Fax: (845) 356-4335
      Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
      Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com

             - and -

      Howard T. Longman, Esq.
      Michael J. Klein, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      Email: abrody@ssbny.com
             hlongman@ssbny.com


CEMTREX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cullinan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,    v.
CEMTREX, INC., SAAGAR GOVIL, ARON GOVIL and RENATO DELA
RAMA,Defendants.

   
No.: 2:17-cv-01067 (JFB) (AYS)

CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CEMTREX,
INC. SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 26, 2012 THROUGH
MARCH 6, 2017, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing
will be held on May 22, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1040 before
the Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY,
11722 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$625,000 (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of $156,250 (25% of the Settlement Amount), reimbursement of
litigation expenses of no more than $80,000, and an award to the
Lead Plaintiffs as follows: amounts not to exceed $22,000 to Dr.
Khetarpal; and $2,500 to each of the remaining lead plaintiffs
Benjamin Webb, Gang Chen, Timothy Heath, and Minh Nguyen should be
approved; and (4) whether the Class Action should be dismissed with
prejudice.

If you purchased Cemtrex, Inc. securities during the Class Period
from December 26, 2012 through March 6, 2017, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Class Action. If
you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement
of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims
Administrator at: Cemtrex, Inc. Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC, or going to the website,
www.rg2claims.com/cemtrex.html. If you are a member of the Class,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later
than April 15, 2019 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim. If you would like to be excluded
from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it
is received no later than April 22, 2019, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice. Any objection to the Settlement,
Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or payment to Lead
Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than May 8, 2019 by each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
100 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722

Shannon L. Hopkins
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
Fax: (212) 363-7177

Douglas W. Greene
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104-4040
Telephone: (206) 332-1380
Fax: (206) 624-7317

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

         Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
         Stamford, CT 06905
         Telephone: (203) 992-4523
         Fax: (212) 363-7171

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2019
                
                                                                   
                            BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


CERES, CA: $75K Settlement in Amador FLSA Suit Gets Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIO AMADOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CERES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00552-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' stipulation for approval of the
settlement agreement.

On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the
FLSA by omitting premium compensation items -- such as cash in lieu
of health benefits and lump sum holiday pay -- from the regular
rate of pay.

On March 16, 2018, the parties submitted their stipulation for
approval of the settlement agreement.  On March 23, 2018, the Court
issued an order directing the parties to provide supplemental
briefing addressing why the proposed settlement is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, and also directed the
parties to provide briefing on the issue of attorneys' fees.  The
Plaintiffs provided supplemental briefing on April 12, 2018, and
the Defendant provided briefing on April 13, 2018.

Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, Judge Drozd
finds that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.  Among
other things, he finds that under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Defendant will pay the Plaintiffs a total sum of
$75,300.  Each Plaintiff will receive a minimum payment of $1,200
to account for both overtime pay and liquidated damages, with some
Paintiffs receiving substantially more.

Forcing the case to proceed to trial would dramatically inflate the
fee award.  The Judge accordingly finds it likely that further
prolonging the litigation would generate needless litigation
expenses for both sides, and that both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant will likely benefit financially by settling the action
now.  Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of
approval of the parties' FLSA settlement.

Next, the release provision is limited to all grievances, disputes
or claims of every nature and kind, known or unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, arising from or attributable to the Plaintiffs' claims
that the City violated the FLSA up to and including the Effective
Date of the Agreement.  This release provision, the Judge finds, is
nearly identical to those previously found appropriate in FLSA
cases, and he similarly finds that this release provision is
reasonable.  

He also finds that there is a very low probability of fraud or
collusion because the parties used payroll record data to calculate
back overtime pay and liquidated damages, and provided all the
Plaintiffs the opportunity to review their settlement amounts, the
methodology used to calculate those amounts, and the attorneys'
fees and costs.  This approach, based on an objective analysis of
the Plaintiffs' time records, guards against the arbitrariness that
might suggest collusion.

As to attorneys' fees and costs, according to the terms of the
settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel will be paid $51,566.38 in
attorneys' fees and costs, out of a total settlement sum of
$126,866.38.  Attorneys' fees and costs represent roughly 41% of
the maximum settlement amount, which is above the benchmark, and
also slightly above comparable awards in other cases.  Moreover,
the Judge notes that although the requested fee award is above the
Ninth Circuit's benchmark, the amount recovered for the Plaintiffs
in the case appears to be high compared with the Defendants'
anticipated liability at trial.  He therefore approves the award of
$51,566.28 in attorneys' fees and costs.

For the forgoing reasons, Judge Drozd approved the Settlement
Agreement, and entered the Stipulation and Order.  Neither party is
entitled to attorneys' fees and costs except as expressly specified
in the Settlement Agreement.  He dismissed the action with
prejudice.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

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

Julio Amador, Ross Bays, Steve Carvalho, Kari Carvalho, Jason
Coley, James Dayton, Eric Gallegos, Arthur Hively, Coey Henson,
Jeffrey Travis Hudson, Dirk Nieuwenthuis, Frederico Ortiz, Jr,
Brian Petersen, Hector Pulido, Kiashira Ruiz, Charles Rushing,
Jesus Salinas, Krandall Vandagriff, Darren Venn, Jonathan Vera,
Danny Vierra, Michael Vierra, Trinidad Viramontes, Greg Yotsuya,
Mark Anderson, Oyre Echols, Derrick Faria, Tammie Johnson, Devin
Ladd, Justin Vosbein, Shawnna Yotsuya, Lorenzo Beltran, Matthew
Berlier & Keith Griebel, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary G. Goyette
-- goyetteg@goyette-assoc.com -- Goyette & Associates,
Inc.

City of Ceres, Defendant, represented by Jesse Jeremy Maddox --
jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore & Michael David
Youril -- mblacher@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.


CHARMIN FRESHMATES: Settles Flushable Wipes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that there have been
complaints that some are not really flushable and cause problems
for sewers and septic systems.

That's the class action lawsuit allegation involving Charmin
Freshmates Flushable wipes.

Scott Hardy with TopClassActions.com says a settlement means up to
$30 back for you with proof of purchase.

The company does not admit to any wrongdoing.

Get an unwanted text message from Jenny Craig?

A lawsuit alleges the weight loss business sent texts that
disobeyed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The settlement means you could get part of up to $3 million.

The company admits no wrongdoing.

No real ginger in Canada Dry Ginger Ale?

We've told you about this false advertising allegation before.

The deadline to file a claim for part of the class action lawsuit
settlement is March 19.

The company claims no wrongdoing. [GN]


CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Accused by King Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
SULTAN KING, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CLUTCH LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE, INC., AARON FRANK and PAUL
WOLANIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00452 (N.D. Ohio, February 28, 2019),
alleges that, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and
other members of the FLSA Collective at time-and-a-half rate for
all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Clutch Landscaping is an Ohio corporation with its principal place
of business in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants are the
owners of Clutch Landscaping.

Clutch Landscaping provides landscaping, ground maintenance, snow
removal and other services to customers at various locations
throughout Cuyahoga County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


COALINGA STATE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Consiglio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District California issued a Findings and
Recommendation dismissing the Complaint in the case captioned SAM
CONSIGLIO, JR., Plaintiff, v. COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-00669-BAM (PC). (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Sam Consiglio, Jr. is a civil detainee proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an
officer or employee of a governmental entity.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.  Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Coalinga State
Hospital, Inc. and (2) Brandon Price, Executive Director.

In Claim I, the Plaintiff alleges as follows: Coalinga State
Hospital, Inc. is a very corrupt corporation and many of the staff
are corrupt as well, especially Brandon Price the Program Director.
A class action needs to be filed in this matter but Plaintiff is
unable to afford an attorney. Plaintiff pleads for this court to
appoint Janice Bellucci or any other competent attorney in order to
put an end to this corruption.  

In Claim II, the Plaintiff alleges as follows: Title 9 can only be
applied to prisoners. Title 9 can not be applied to civil detainees
at Coalinga State Hospital. Defendants had no legal right to
restrict packages for civil detainees on 6/22/17 and when they were
ordered to rescind that illegal 6/22/17 memo, they had no legal
right to retaliate against all patients by placing even more severe
restrictions on packages and the Defendants then compounded these
violations of the U.S. Constitution by denying Due Process.
Defendants are being sued in their professional and personal
capacity.

The Plaintiff purports to bring this suit as a class action.
However, a pro se litigant may not bring a class action on behalf
of others. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
he cannot assert claims on behalf of other Coalinga State Hospital
civil detainees.

The Plaintiff's complaint does not include sufficient facts for the
Court to determine that he has stated a cognizable claim for
relief. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions that his rights were
violated by restrictions on the size and number of packages he can
receive are not sufficient.

The Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the restrictions are
intended to punish, are excessive or that there are less
restrictive methods. Rather, the exhibits attached to the complaint
suggest that the package restrictions were adopted to reduce
intoxication and improve the safety of staff and patients because
excess property, pruno, illegal substances, and excess stamps all
have a nexus to extortion, adverse medical outcomes, and violence.

By imposing the restrictions, the institution anticipated a
reduction in violence and safer working conditions for staff and a
safer living and treatment environment for the patient population.
Thus, it appears that the package restrictions were imposed with
the objective to reduce violence and improve safety. If a
particular condition or restriction of civil commitment is
reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does
not, without more, amount to punishment.

Civil detainees enjoy constitutional protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects against
state facilities' imposition of restrictions and other general
conditions of confinement that do not reasonably serve a
legitimate, non-punitive government objective.   

Here, the nature of the Plaintiff's due process claim is not
entirely clear. That is, the Court cannot determine from the
allegations whether Plaintiff is complaining about the procedural
mechanism for implementing the regulations at issue, the actions in
denying him particular packages, or both.

Civil detainees are protected from retaliation by the First
Amendment. A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation by a civil
detainee entails five elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor
took some adverse action against plaintiff (2) because of (3) that
plaintiff's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the
plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) the
action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.


The Plaintiff does not allege facts to demonstrate that any
defendant acted in retaliation for any protected conduct by
Plaintiff. Conclusory allegations of retaliation are not sufficient
to state a claim.

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must
consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation (2) the Court's need to manage its docket
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants (4) the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.
  
Here, the action has been pending since May 2018, and Plaintiff's
first amended complaint is overdue. The Court cannot hold this case
in abeyance awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court finds
that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of
dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in
favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the
occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson
  The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public
policy favors disposition on the merits. However, this factor lends
little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case
toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress
in that direction, which is the case here.

Finally, the court's warning to a party that failure to obey the
court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the considerations
of the alternatives requirement.

Accordingly, It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, failure to obey the Court's
orders and failure to prosecute this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s February 21, 2019 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y542h6t2from Leagle.com

Sam Consiglio, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.


COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action in New York Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend a class action over
residual annuity payments, the Company 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.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

This action has been certified as a class action. The relief sought
includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees.

Colgate-Palmolive said, "The Company is contesting this action
vigorously. Since the amount of any potential loss from this case
currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of reasonably
possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above
does not include any amount relating to the case."

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COMCAST CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in O'Neil Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH O'NEIL, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and
stay the action in its entirety during the pendency of any
resulting arbitration proceedings.

O'Neil brings the putative class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated individuals.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications failed to
protect her personal information, resulting in identity thieves
accessing that information and purchasing cell phones in her name.
She claims the Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, breached an implied contract, and
unjustly enriched themselves.

Comcast is a media and technology company.  Comcast Cable is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast.  Xfinity is a brand of Comcast
Cable, used to market its consumer cable television, internet,
telephone, and wireless services.

O'Neil has a Xfinity account for wireless internet at her
residence.  In April 2017, Comcast created a new wireless service
named Xfinity Mobile.  The Plaintiff never added Xfinity Mobile
services to her account.  In November 2017, she was alerted that
several cell phones she did not purchase herself had been charged
to her Xfinity account and shipped to various addresses in the
United States.  The phone purchases were processed in her name
through Xfinity Mobile.  Similar unauthorized purchases in her name
occurred a few months later.  The Plaintiff ultimately expended
significant time and resources resolving these fraudulent purchases
with Comcast and reporting the incidents to local law enforcement.

In June 2018, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit, claiming that the
Defendants used existing cable and internet subscribers' personal
information to open Xfinity Mobile accounts without their knowledge
or consent.  Because of the lack of security measures, unauthorized
users could easily access these accounts and then fraudulently
purchase cell phones.

The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and all other
Comcast subscribers who had cell phones fraudulently purchased in
their name, through an account they neither created nor had
knowledge of.  She brings three counts, arguing: (1) Defendants
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, by opening Xfinity Mobile accounts without
subscribers' consent or knowledge, and failing to protect
subscribers' personal information from unauthorized third parties;
(2) the Defendants breached an implied contract to reasonably
safeguard subscribers' personal information; and (3) the Defendants
unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the
putative class.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff twice agreed to use
arbitration for dispute resolution.  Following installation of
Comcast internet in her residence in November 2015, the Plaintiff
received a copy of the Defendants' standard Subscriber Agreement.
When the Plaintiff signed a work order confirming the installation,
she both acknowledged receipt of the 2015 Subscriber Agreement and
agreed to be bound by it.  In August 2017, Comcast updated the 2015
Subscriber Agreement.  Comcast sent her the 2017 Subscriber
Agreement along with her August 2017 billing statement.  Both the
2015 Subscriber Agreement and its 2017 replacement contain terms
requiring arbitration in the case of a dispute.

The Defendants now move to compel the Plaintiff to pursue her
claims in individual arbitration, and to stay the action during the
pendency of any resulting arbitration proceedings, pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.

Judge Leinenweber finds that the Defendants have made a prima facie
showing that the 2017 Subscriber Agreement is a contract that binds
the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to
counter the Defendant's prima facie showing.  Accordingly, the 2017
Subscriber Agreement constitutes a written agreement to arbitrate.

Having found that a written agreement to arbitrate exists, the
Judge turns to the question of whether the dispute at issue is
within the scope of that agreement.  He finds that the Plaintiff
apparently views her Xfinity Mobile account as requiring a
different contract with its own arbitration agreement.  However,
the Judge need not resolve that argument because he has already
found the Plaintiff's claims to be within the scope of the
arbitration provision in the 2017 Subscriber Agreement.
Accordingly, the Defendants have satisfied the three requirements
for a motion to compel arbitration.

Finally, the Judge finds that the arbitration provision is not
"unlimited" in scope.  It is confined to disputes regarding the
parties' relationship.  As already discussed, the Plaintiff had a
meaningful opportunity to opt out of the arbitration requirement
without repercussions.  Such an option "weighs strongly against"
finding substantive unconscionability.  Thus, the 2017 Subscriber
Agreement is not substantively unconscionable.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Leinenweber granted the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay
Litigatio.  The Plaintiff will comply with the written arbitration
agreement in the 2017 Subscriber Agreement.  The action is stayed
in its entirety during the pendency of any resulting individual
arbitration proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/xgTrPT from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth O'Neil, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Sweetnam,
Sweetnam LLC & Natasha Singh, Sweetnam LLC.

Comcast Corporation & Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing
business as, Xfinity Mobile, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey
Thomas Norberg -- jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com -- Neal & McDevitt,
Meredith Connie Slawe -- mslawe@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Michael W. McTigue, Jr. --
mmctigue@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, pro
hac vice.


COMPLETE BUILDING: Nautilus Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over an insurance dispute has been filed
against Complete Building Corporation Inc., et al.  The case is
styled as Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Eloy Alonso,
Mary Leigh Arnold as Receiver for Eloy Alonso, Complete Building
Corporation Inc., Tri-County Roofing Inc, Palmetto Pointe at Peas
Island Condominium Property Owners Association Inc and Jack Love,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00518-BHH (D. S.C., February 21,
2019).

Complete Building Corporation provides building and construction
services. The Company offers design, preconstruction, site
supervision, general contracting, construction management, and
value engineering services. Complete Building serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Janice Holmes, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 779-1833
   Fax: (803) 779-1767
   Email: jholmes@gwblawfirm.com

      - and -

   Shelley S Montague, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 779-1833
   Email: smontague@GWBlawfirm.com



DELTA AIR: $2.3MM Schofield Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH L. SCHOFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00382-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement.

The case is a class action for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and the Business and Professions Code.  The
Plaintiffs are individuals who applied for employment at Defendant
Delta Airlines and were given inadequate disclosure documents when
consenting to background checks.  More specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant did not provide a stand-alone form
consisting of solely a background check disclosure form, as
required by the FCRA and its counterpart state laws.  The parties
have agreed to settle the dispute and now seek the Court's approval
of the proposed settlement.  The pending motion requests the Court
grants preliminary approval of the class settlement.

The Settlement Agreement releases the FCRA and the state law claims
related to the Defendant's conduct in obtaining background checks
on applicants without using a stand-alone authorizing document that
complies with the FCRA and accompanying state laws.  The settlement
is for $2.3 million for a class of approximately 44,100 class
members.  The class members will not need to make a claim but
instead will automatically be enrolled in the class unless they
choose to opt out.  The notice provides an opportunity to opt out
or object to the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement allows the Plaintiff's counsel to seek up
to a third of $2.3 million.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's counsel can
seek up to $766,666.66 in fees subject to court approval.  The
Plaintiff's counsel is going to seek 25% of the settlement amount.
If the escalator clause causes the settlement amount to increase,
the Plaintiff's counsel will seek up to 25% of the full amount, but
not more than $766,666.66, since the settlement provides that is
the maximum amount that can be awarded.

Judge Chen, having fully reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the supporting
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declarations, including
the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, and Notice of
Settlement, and for good cause appearing, granted preliminary
approval of the settlement based upon the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.  

The Judge finds that the Settlement falls within the range of
reasonableness of a settlement (even under heightened scrutiny)
which could ultimately be given final approval by the Court, and
appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections
that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing and final approval
by the Court.  He notes that the Defendant has agreed to create a
common fund of $2.3 million to cover (a) settlement payments to the
Class Members who do not validly opt out; (b) the Class
Representative service payment of up to $10,000 for the Class
Representative Joseph Schofield; (c) the Class Counsel's attorneys'
fees, not to exceed 33-1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount (the
Class Counsel is requesting attorney fees in the amount of 25% of
the Gross Settlement Amount), (d) actual litigation expenses
incurred by the Class Counsel; and (e) reasonable Settlement
Administration Costs (estimated to be approximately $70,000).

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Judge certified
the class, for purposes of settlement, of all persons in the United
States who applied for employment with Delta and were the subject
of a consumer report that was procured by Delta or caused to be
procured by Delta at any time from Oct. 17, 2012, through Feb. 14,
2019.

He approved Rust Consulting to perform the duties of the Settlement
Administrator as set forth in the Order and the Settlement
Agreement.  Within 30 days of the issuance of the Order, Delta will
provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class Member
Database, as specified in the Settlement Agreement.  Within 14 days
after receipt of the Database, the Settlement Administrator will
mail the Notice in the manner specified in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Judge ordered that any request for exclusion from the
Settlement must be postmarked no later than 45 days after the
Notice is initially mailed to the Class Members, and must be
received by the Settlement Administrator to be valid.  If more than
5% of the total number of the Class Members submit timely and valid
opt-out requests, Delta will have the option to void the
settlement.  To exercise this option, the Defendant's Counsel must
send written notification to Class Counsel within 14 days of
receiving a report from the Settlement Administrator of the total
number of timely and valid opt-out requests received from the Class
Members.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 11, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

The briefs regarding the settlement will be served and filed in
accordance with the following briefing schedule:

     a. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs - 14 days
before the deadline for Class Members to submit objections to the
settlement

     b. Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and
for Class Representative service payment - 28 days before the Final
Approval Hearing

     c. Defendant's Counsel will file with the Court a declaration
attesting that CAFA Notice has properly been served pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1715 - 14 days before the Final Approval hearing

     d. Reply briefs, if any - 14 days before the Final Approval
Hearing

The order disposes of Docket No. 40.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X5H0g9 from Leagle.com.

Joseph L. Schofield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Ashley N. Batiste,
Setareh Law Group, Farrah Grant, Setareh Law Group & Thomas
Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Paul Frederick --
andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Maureen Nicole Beckley -- maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert Jon Hendricks --
rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


DENVER, CO: Ct. Denies Bid to Exclude Witness Testimony in "Lyall"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The  United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine in the case
captioned RAYMOND LYALL, GARRY ANDERSON, THOMAS PETERSON, FREDRICK
JACKSON, BRIAN COOKS, and WILLIAM PEPPER, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No.
16-cv-2155-WJM-SKC. (D. Colo.).

Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine for
Order Suspending Camping Ban Enforcement During Trial.

The Plaintiffs are homeless persons living on Denver's streets.
Proceeding via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, they bring this class action
lawsuit against Defendant City of Denver, arguing that Denver
clears homeless encampments through unconstitutional mass sweeps.


The camping ban in question is Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC)
Section 38-86.2, which prohibits camping on public property not
expressly approved for that purpose, or private property without
consent of the property owner. Plaintiffs have not challenged the
camping ban itself in this lawsuit.

But the Plaintiffs argue that, absent an order suspending
enforcement of the camping ban during trial, Denver may deprive
them of their constitutional right of access to the courts because
Plaintiffs and their witnesses will not be able to sleep close
enough to the courthouse to make it here in time for their
testimony.

The Court presumes without deciding that it has power to enter the
requested order, regardless of how Plaintiffs have captioned their
motion.  

First, the degree to which DRMC Section 38-86.2 might disrupt a
witness's ability to testify is speculative. The Plaintiffs have
presented nothing demonstrating that Denver's enforcement of that
ordinance is continuous and systematic, such that the Plaintiffs or
their witnesses have a high likelihood on any day or night, in any
location, of being told to move along repeatedly until they have
moved so far away that they cannot make it back to the courthouse
on time.  

Second, it is always the responsibility of the party calling the
witness more specifically, the attorney representing the party
calling the witness to ensure the witness's presence, by way of
subpoena or other arrangements. The Court recognizes that this is a
greater challenge as to the named Plaintiffs and many of the
Plaintiffs' witnesses, but Mr. Flores-Williams's ability to
overcome these unique hurdles is precisely why the Court approved
him as class counsel, despite other misgivings.  The Court is
frankly surprised that Mr. Flores-Williams or the Plaintiffs' other
attorneys have not already made arrangements to ensure their
clients' and witnesses' availability at trial.

Third, the Plaintiffs' motion and attached declarations fail to
mention the various homeless shelters within easy walking distance
of the courthouse, much less explain why those shelters will not
provide adequate overnight accommodations for the named Plaintiffs
and their witnesses.

Fourth, the Court does not have anything approaching a record
sufficient to evaluate what effect an order suspending DRMC Section
38-86.2 might have on Denver. And the Court is frankly concerned
that any such order would take on a life of its own. As the
Plaintiffs' other two attorneys (Messrs. Lane and McNulty) are well
aware from their participation in an unrelated lawsuit, the Court
previously granted a limited preliminary injunction purposefully
worded very narrowly against official efforts to prevent
distribution of jury nullification literature on the exterior
grounds of Denver's Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse. The Court predicts
that if it enjoined Denver from enforcing DRMC Section 38-86.2,
similar problems may arise, and on a larger scale.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine for Order Suspending
Camping Ban Enforcement During Trial is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y3tsz52cfrom Leagle.com.

Raymond Lyall, Garry Anderson, Thomas Peterson, Fredrick Jackson,
Brian Cooks & William Pepper, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
Joseph McNulty -- AMcNulty@KLN-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman,
LLP, David Arthur Lane -- dlane@kln-law.com -- Killmer Lane &
Newman, LLP & Jason Flores -- Jason@Jasonfloreslaw.com -- Law
Office of Jason Flores.

City of Denver, municipal corporation, Defendant, represented by
Conor Daniel Farley, Denver City and County Attorney's Office,
Geoffrey Charles Klingsporn, Denver City Attorney's Office, Michele
Annette Horn, Denver City Attorney's Office & Wendy J. Shea, Denver
City and County Attorney's Office.


DESI GALLI: Galeana Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Galeana, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Desi Galli Inc., Second Desi Galli, LLC d/b/a
Desi Galli, and Priavanda Chouhan, Case No. 1:19-cv-01901
(S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to
unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay.

Desi Galli Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business in New York City.  Second Desi Galli, LLC, doing business
as Desi Galli, is a company organized under the laws of the state
of New York with a principal place of business in New York City.
Priavanda Chouhan is an owner or part owner and principal of the
Desi Galli restaurants.

The Defendants have owned and operated Indian restaurants in
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: Court Requires Bankruptcy Status Report
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order requiring Bankruptcy Filing  Status Report in the case
captioned LEE C. KAMIMURA, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH. (D. Nev.)

The parties indicated they were preparing to file a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. However,
defendant Ditech Financial LLC filed a notice of bankruptcy.

The parties shall file a status report regarding the impact of the
bankruptcy filing on the resolution of this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yytt9nw6from Leagle.com.

Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger --
dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC, Abbas
Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, pro hac
vice & Michael Kind -- mkind@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group,
APC.

Ditech Financal LLC, formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, LLC,
Defendant, represented by Donald H. Cram -- dhc@severson.com --
Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Mary C. Kamka -- mkk@severson.com
-- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Laszlo Ladi -- ll@severson.com
-- Severson & Werson & Laura R. Jacobsen --
ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano & Wilson.


DOW JONES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Horton Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, ROBERT JEREMY
HORTON, Plaintiff, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Defendan, Case No.
18 Civ. 4027 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff brings the action against Dow Jones, individually and
on behalf of members of a putative class of Wall Street Journal
("WSJ") subscribers between May 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016.  The
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy
Act.

The Defendant publishes the WSJ. The Plaintiff ordered a digital
and print subscription to the WSJ in his name on March 13, 2014,
through the WSJ website.  The subscription was for a "12 for 12"
promotion under which the Plaintiff received twelve weeks of access
to print and online materials for $12.  To complete the purchase,
the Plaintiff had to agree to a subscriber agreement by clicking a
check-box under the bolded title "Subscriber Agreement" and
clicking the "Complete Purchase" button.  The Plaintiff concedes he
entered into the Agreement.

The Arbitration Clause designates threshold issues relating to the
scope, application, and enforceability of the arbitration provision
to courts.  Section 11 of the Agreement provides that New York law,
without regard to its choice of law principles, will apply to any
and all claims arising from this agreement.  The Arbitration Clause
also contains a survival clause, which states that the agreement to
arbitrate will survive termination of the Agreement.

The First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that between May
4, 2015, and July 30, 2016, Dow Jones sold information that
identifies the Plaintiff as having purchased a subscription to the
Wall Street Journal to third parties without his consent.  He seeks
to represent a putative class of all Michigan subscribers who, at
any point in time between May 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016, had
personal Reading Information disclosed to third parties without
written consent.

The Complaint alleges that the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's class claim under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), because at least one class member is
diverse from the Defendant and the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $5 million.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that there are more than 100 class members,
each claiming $5,000 in damage.

Judge Schofield holds that the Class Waiver is enforceable and bars
the Plaintiff's claim from proceeding on a class basis, whether in
arbitration or in court.  She also holds that the Plaintiff's
Michigan state law claim is not arbitrable, but she declines to
exercise over it.

The Judge finds that the Class Waiver expressly pertains to "class
arbitrations and class actions."  A reading that confines the
prohibition on class litigation to arbitration would render
meaningless the phrase "and class actions."  This interpretation
runs contrary to the well-settled principle that "courts are
obliged to interpret a contract so as to give meaning to all of its
terms" and avoid interpretations that "render any portion
meaningless."  The Class Waiver is enforceable and bars the
Plaintiff from proceeding on a class basis.

Further, the Arbitration Clause states that except for claims
related to intellectual property and disputes that qualify for
small claims court, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to the Agreement or any aspect of the relationship between
them will be resolved by arbitration.  This language expressly
exempts disputes that qualify for small claims court from
arbitration.

Having decided that the claim is not arbitrable, the Judge declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state
law claim.  The case is in the early stages of litigation; the
parties have not conducted any discovery or engaged in any motion
practice on the merits of the state law claim.  The case is
therefore dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield denied the Plaintiff's
motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the case.  She denied
as moot the Defendant's Motion for Oral Argument.  The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket
Numbers 27, 34 and 42 and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0RFidw from Leagle.com.

Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Hedin, Hedin
Hall LLP, Sean Thomas Masson -- SMASSON@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott
Scott, L.L.P. & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV --
TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., doing business as The Wall Street
Journal, Defendant, represented by Natalie J. Spears --
natalie.spears@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Sandra Denise Hauser
-- sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Kristen C.
Rodriguez -- kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro
hac vice.


DURA-LINE CORP: Brown Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Prep Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Dura-Line Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00286 (N.D. Ohio, February 6, 2019), seeks overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

Dura-Line manufacturers and distributes communication and energy
infrastructure products and systems in Elyria, Ohio. Brown worked
as an operator at their Elyria, Ohio facility between January 2017
and January 2019. He claims overtime compensation for work
performed before and after their scheduled start and stop times,
including but not limited to, changing into and out of their
personal protective equipment and walking to their assigned area of
the manufacturing floor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Cash Bail System Biased vs Poor People, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Danielsen, writing for FirstCoastNews.com, reports that
located on prime downtown real estate, the Jacksonville Sheriff's
Office is hard to miss. Surrounding it are just as hard-to-miss
bright, neon lights of bail bonds companies.

With nearly 60 bail companies in Duval County in total, their
services are in high demand.

On Feb. 8, a day when their business seemed to be thriving, others
are questioning the justice of it all, like civil rights attorney
Bill Sheppard, Esq. -- sheplaw@sheppardwhite.com

"It's biased against poor people, it doesn't favor the rich, it
harms the poor," said Sheppard. "What we have is a system where if
you've got money, you get out."

He is fighting the cash bail system with a pending class action
lawsuit in federal court and a similar case in state court.

Bail is cash collateral meant to ensure that defendants show up for
their court date, but Shepperd argues that "fleeing" or not showing
up for court is exceedingly rare.

"Ninety-nine percent of them are going to appear in court whether
they have money or not," he said.

Like Sheppard, advocates of bail reform argue that minor crimes
keep poor people in jail for long periods, contributing to jail
overcrowding.

Because of that, he says, people are pressured to plead guilty just
to get out of jail, even when they are innocent.

"A substantial amount of people are in jail because they are
indigent," Sheppard said. "They don't have the funds to take part
in the 'buy-your-freedom' scheme."

Sheppard argues that the federal system is fair since a defendant
only has to post bail if they don't show up for their court date.

This October, California will join New Jersey in abolishing its
cash bail system, excluding people accused of violent felonies.
Sheppard believes this is the start of nationwide reform and he
plans to be a part of it.

In the 80s and 90s, he led the charge on jail reform and went on to
argue in our country's highest court.

"I'm not going away," Sheppard said. "I'm going to stay with this
issue for as long as I live."

First Coast News spoke with dozens of bail bonds agents on Feb. 8,
most of whom said they felt strongly about defending their industry
but were too busy to discuss the matter. We also reached to the
association for local bail bond businesses in Duval County, but
they were unable to comment at this time. [GN]


E-VERIFILE.COM: Gunn Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------
The case Steven D. Gunn, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. E-Verifile.com, Inc., BNSF
Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Railroad
Controls, LP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00457, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi (Jackson) on March 11, 2019. The Southern District of
Mississippi Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00176-CWR-LRA to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Carlton W. Reeves. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act
violation.

e-VERIFILE.COM, Inc. provides risk assessment, administrative
support, and workforce solutions. It offers workforce safety and
security assessments that include criminal background investigation
with optional automated adverse; action notification and/or
information analytics and grading; the U.S. government watch
searches; certificate and license verification; motor vehicle
reports; employment and reference verification; drug testing;
medical credentialing; and professional license/credentials
verification.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Stephen M. Bosak, Esq.
          O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (449) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com
                  sbosak@omdplaw.com

Attorneys for the E-Verifile.com, Inc.:

          Erica L. Calderas, Esq.
          HAHN, LOESER & PARKS-CLEVELAND
          2800 BP Tower
          200 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 274-2533
          Facsimile: (216) 274-2539
          E-mail: elcalderas@hahnlaw.com

               - and -

          Henry M. Perlowski, Esq.
          Megan P. Mitchell, Esq.
          ARNALL, GOLDEN & GREGORY-ATLANTA
          171 Seventeenth Street, NW, Ste. 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 873-8684
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8501
          E-Mail: henry.perlowski@agg.com
                  megan.mitchell@agg.com

Attorneys for the BNSF Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Railway
Company:

          John Gerak, Esq.
          Matthew T. Wholey, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
          SMOAK & STEWART-CLEVELAND
          Ste. 4100
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-6100
          Facsimile: (216) 357-4733
          E-mail: john.gerak@ogletree.com
                  matthew.wholey@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Hawkins, Esq
          COZEN O'CONNOR - PHILADELPHIA
          One Liberty Place, Ste. 2800
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2015
          Facsimile: (646) 461-2097
          E-mail: rhawkins@cozen.com

Attorneys for Railroad Controls, LP:

          Amber L. Merl, Esq.
          Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND-COLUMBUS
          280 North High Street, Ste. 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: merl@carpenterlipps.com
                  carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

               - and -

          Louis A. DePaul, Esq.
          Thomas J. Sweeney, Esq.
          ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT
          U. S. Steel Tower, 44th Floor
          600 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-6968
          Facsimile: (412) 566-6099
          E-mail: ldepaul@eckertseamans.com
                  tsweeney@eckertseamans.com

EDELSTEIN & EDELSTEIN: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Smith v. Edelstein & Edelstein, PC, an Illinois
professional corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (N.D. Ill.,
February 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act for a finding that the Defendant's form debt collection letter
violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages.

Edelstein & Edelstein, PC, is an Illinois professional corporation
and law firm that acts as a debt collector, as defined by the
FDCPA.  Edelstein operates a debt collection business and attempts
to collect debts from consumers in the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Injunction Bid in Prince Suit Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
Edge Therapeutics, 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 plaintiffs in the
case, Jeffrey L. Prince v. Edge Therapeutics et al., have withdrawn
their motion for preliminary injunction.

Edge and the Edge Board have been named as defendants in two
individual lawsuits and two putative class action lawsuits
regarding the potential merger, each of which alleges that the
registration statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-228937)
filed by the Edge on December 21, 2018 omitted material information
with respect to the proposed transaction, which rendered the
registration statement on Form S-4 false or misleading.

The case captioned Michael Condon v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case
no. 2:19-cv-00152, or the Condon Action, was filed on January 4,
2019 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The case captioned Adam Franchi et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et al.,
case no. 1:19-cv-00058-UNA, or the Franchi Action, was filed on
January 9, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The case captioned Jeffrey L. Prince v. Edge Therapeutics et al.,
case no. 1:19-cv-00280, or the Prince Action, was filed on January
10, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The case captioned Brian Foldenauer et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et
al., case no. 1:19-cv-00280, or the Foldenauer Action, was filed on
January 22, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The causes of action set forth in each of the Condon Action, the
Franchi Action, the Prince Action and the Foldenauer Action are (i)
a claim against Edge and the Board for violations of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as (ii) a claim against the Board for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In the Franchi Action, PDS was also named as a defendant in respect
of the claim regarding violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. In each case, the plaintiffs seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, rescissory damages, and an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.

Edge has voluntarily accepted service of process in the Franchi
Action and Prince Action, but has not yet been served with process
in the Condon Action or the Foldenauer Action.

On January 18, 2019, the plaintiffs in the Prince Action filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction barring any stockholder vote on
the proposed merger until revised disclosures are made to Edge's
stockholders, and withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction
on February 1, 2019.

Edge believes the litigation is without merit and in any event has
been rendered moot by amendment no. 1 to the Registration Statement
on S-4 filed by Edge on January 25, 2019 and subsequent
disclosures. This litigation remains in the initial pleadings
phase.

Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company,
discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based
therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other
conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Securities Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Therapeutics, 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 lead plaintiffs
in the case, Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., have
voluntarily dismissed the action, without prejudice, as to all
defendants.

On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against Edge, Brian Leuthner (Edge's President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (Edge's Chief Financial Officer)
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
captioned Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-8236.

The complaint alleged that Edge, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Edge's business,
operations and prospects by failing to disclose that Edge's
developmental product EG-1962 allegedly would likely fail a
futility analysis. The complaint also asserted a "control" person
claim against Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all purchasers of Edge’s
common stock between December 27, 2017, and March 27, 2018, and
sought unspecified damages.  

On December 7, 2018, the court appointed Sam Kirkpatrick and Amos
Bakouple lead plaintiffs for the putative class and appointed the
firm Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP lead counsel for the putative
class. On February 14, 2019, the lead plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the action, without prejudice, as to all defendants.

Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company,
discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based
therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other
conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


ELITE STAFFING: Hudson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Willie Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Elite Staffing Global, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00094, (E.D. Ark., February 6, 2019) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Elite is a national full-service staffing company providing
temporary workers, temporary-to-permanent placement workers,
direct-hire services and on-site managed programs staffing and
workforce needs. It assigned Hudson to the manufacturing facility
operated by Welspun Pipes, Inc., Welspun Tubular LLC, and/or
Welspun USA, Inc. Hudson claims to have regularly worked in excess
of forty hours per week throughout his tenure without the
appropriate overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Daniel Ford, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 parties in the case, William McGee v. Constant Contact,
Inc., et al., are still awaiting court approval on the unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which
named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which,
among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted
against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed
settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of
notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this
motion.

Endurance International said, "Our contribution to the settlement
pool under the proposed settlement would be approximately equal to
the $7.3 million we reserved during the three months ended
September 30, 2018 in connection with a possible settlement of both
this action and the Endurance Machado litigation. We cannot make
any assurances as to whether or when the settlement will be
approved by the court."

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

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


ENERGEN RESOURCES: Filing of 2nd Amended Ulibarri Suit Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. CIV 1:18cv0294 RB/SCY (D. N.M.),
Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Amend the Case Management Order Setting Deadlines for Filing
Amended Claims and Adding Additional Parties and Motion for Leave
to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action on behalf of himself
and other class members to recover proceeds they are allegedly owed
under Royalty Agreements with Defendant Energen.  The Plaintiff
filed both his original Class Action Complaint and his First
Amended Class Action Complaint on March 29, 2018.  He brings claims
for breach of contract and violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act.   Energen filed its Answer and Counterclaim
on May 25, 2018.

The Court filed its Order Setting Case Management Deadlines and
Discovery Parameters for Pre-Class Certification Discovery on Aug.
3, 2018.  The Court imposed a deadline of Sept. 14, 2018, for the
Plaintiff to move to amend his pleadings or add additional parties.
Non-expert discovery pertaining to class certification ended on
Nov. 30, 2018.  The Court imposed a briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, with the motion due on
March 11, 2018, and briefing complete on April 26, 2019.

Following certification-related discovery, the Plaintiff filed the
motion to amend.  He seeks to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint with three changes: (1) the removal of allegations
related to tolling under the applicable statute of limitations; (2)
the addition of White River Royalties, LLC as an additional named
Plaintiff; and (3) the amendment of the class definition to include
two newly discovered types of Royalty Agreements.  

With respect to the third change, the Plaintiff's proposed class in
the Second Amended Complaint would include all persons and entities
to whom Energen paid royalties on natural gas produced by Energen
from wells located in the state of New Mexico between March 29,
2012, and May 31, 2015, pursuant to leases or overriding royalty
agreements.  The fourth and fifth types of Royalty Agreements in
the list are new to the Second Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff's
substantive allegations and claims for relief remain unchanged.

Energen does not oppose removing the allegations regarding the
statute of limitations, but it does oppose the other two changes.
It contends that the Plaintiff learned of the information that
forms the basis for his motion in late August 2018; thus his
motion—filed approximately four weeks after the deadline to file
a motion to amend -- is untimely.

At the heart of the Plaintiff's case are leases that Energen
originally had an interest in.  Energen sold most of its interest
in the leases to Southland Royalty Co. in March 2015.  In fact, the
Plaintiff has a related case pending in the Court against
Southland.  The Plaintiff has received similar discovery consisting
of approximately 300 leases from both Energen and Southland, as
many leases that Southland currently holds were formerly held by
Energen.

On Aug. 15, 2018, Southland produced leases that contained the two
new royalty provisions that the Plaintiff seeks to add to the class
definition.  On Aug. 29, 2018, Energen produced leases with the
gross proceeds without deduction of post-production costs royalty
provision language, but no lease containing the "greater market
value or gross proceeds royalty provision" language.

On Sept. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff's counsel (Mr. Robert Harken) gave
Energen's counsel a list of the leases Southland had produced but
Energen had not, in an effort to help Energen complete its
production.  Presumably, these leases included the two new royalty
provisions.  Energen's counsel responded on Oct. 5, 2018, and
produced some, but not all of the leases on the Plaintiff's list.
Energen's counsel stated that it had no intention to produce lease
agreements with the "greater market value or gross proceeds royalty
provision" language, because that provision does not appear in the
First Amended Complaint's class definition.

On Aug. 30, 2018, Southland produced discovery that identified
White River as a potential class member.  Because White River is a
long-time client of the Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Harken reached out
to White River to determine whether and under what lease agreements
it had received royalties from Energen.  On Sept. 13, 2018, White
River Royalties confirmed it had received royalties from Energen.
Energen produced data on Sept. 19, 2018, that identified White
River as a potential class member.  White River has asked Mr.
Harken to participate in this litigation as a named Plaintiff.

Energen argues that Plaintiff lacks good cause under Rule 16 to
file its motion approximately four weeks after the deadline to
amend the complaint or add another party has passed.  Judge Brack
finds that it is clear that the Plaintiff learned of the additional
information relatively late in discovery.  The Plaintiff adequately
explained that Mr. Harken had to perform an independent
investigation of a large number of leases that were produced over
the course of several months -- some even after the deadline to
file a motion to amend had passed.  Thus, despite Mr. Harken's
diligent efforts, he was unable to meet the scheduling order
deadline.  The deadline for the motion to certify has not yet
passed, and the Court is willing to grant the parties an extension
on that briefing schedule if necessary.  For these reasons, the
Judge finds good cause to grant the Plaintiff's motion to extend
the deadline to file an amended complaint.

Having granted the Plaintiff's motion to extend the relevant case
management deadline, the Judge turns to the motion to amend the
complaint.  First, he will grant the Plaintiff's motion to remove
allegations relating to the statute of limitations, as Energen does
not oppose the request.  Energen opposes the remaining two proposed
amendments on the grounds that the Plaintiff's request is untimely
and that Energen will be prejudiced by the amendments.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff waited only weeks to file the
motion (approximately six weeks after receiving the discovery and
taking time to independently investigate the discovery, and less
than two weeks after Energen confirmed it had the relevant leases),
and the parties are not up against a trial date.  He finds that any
delay in the Plaintiff's motion was not undue.  He also finds that
Energen will not be unduly prejudiced by the addition of the two
new types of royalty provisions.

The Judge does not make the same decision with respect to the
addition of White River as a named Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff never
offers a valid reason to add White River, he merely states that
White River "requested to participate in the litigation as a named
Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff offers no further explanation to
demonstrate what benefit will accrue if the Court adds White River,
as its leases contain the same type of royalty provisions as those
held by Mr. Ulibarri -- the current named Plaintiff.  Because the
Plaintiff has not offered any legitimate reason to add White River
as a named Plaintiff, the Judge does not find that justice requires
the amendment and will deny the Plaintiff's motion as to this
amendment.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brack granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend the Case Management Order Setting
Deadlines for Filing Amended Claims and Adding Additional Parties
and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint as described.  The Plaintiff must file his Second Amended
Class Action Complaint no later than March 4, 2019.  If the parties
wish to extend any other case management deadline in the matter,
they must confer and file a motion no later than March 7, 2019.

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

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman --
mchapman@ncg-law.com -- Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George
Barton -- gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton,
P.C. & Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of
George A. Barton, PC.

Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford
C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP,
Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart LLP, pro hac vice & Lauren R. Caplan --
lrcaplan@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice.

Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice.

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Counter Defendant, represented by A. Michael
Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton, Law Offices
of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows, Law Offices of George A.
Barton, PC.


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Financial Services Corp said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 22,
2019, that the company has been named as defendant in two lawsuits
over the merger deal with Trinity Capital Corporation.

The company previously announced the proposed merger between
Trinity Capital Corporation ("Trinity") and Enterprise Financial
Services Corp (the "Merger").

A putative securities class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on
January 22, 2019 against Trinity, the members of the Trinity board
of directors and Enterprise.

In addition, a putative securities class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on February 12, 2019 against Trinity and the members of
the Trinity board of directors.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and certain rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by not disclosing in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
certain allegedly material facts.

Trinity believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are
without merit. However, to avoid the risk that the lawsuits may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, Trinity has
voluntarily made the supplemental disclosures related to the
Merger.

Trinity specifically denies that any further disclosure is required
to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/Pyg774.

Enterprise Financial Services Corp operates as the financial
holding company for Enterprise Bank & Trust that offers banking and
wealth management services to individuals and corporate customers.
Enterprise Financial Services Corp was founded in 1988 and is
headquartered in Clayton, Missouri.


EQT CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeling Intelligencer reports that EQT Corp., the defendant in a
class-action lawsuit against West Virginia landowners, reached a
tentative $53.5 million settlement with the West Virginia
landowners who filed the suit.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia in 2013, claims the natural gas
production company EQT had improperly taken post-production
deductions from the royalty payments owed to landowners. Those
claims cover the period between 2009 and 2017. Judge John Preston
Bailey presided over the case. EQT disclosedthe tentative deal on
Feb. 13.

In the settlement, EQT agrees to pay $53.5 million into a
settlement fund that will be established to distribute payments to
the plaintiffs. Additionally, certain participants may elect to
instead adopt a standard lease pooling modification in exchange for
an increase in their royalties, ranging from 2 percent to 18
percent, at the court's discretion.

"EQT is working diligently to resolve this matter with our
leaseholders and earn their confidence, as well as that of other
West Virginia residents and community leaders," EQT CEO Robert
McNally said. "This was an opportunity to turn over a new leaf in
our relationship with our West Virginia leaseholders and this
mutually beneficial agreement demonstrates our renewed commitment
to the state of West Virginia."

Linda Robertson, manager of media relations for EQT, did not return
calls on Feb. 14 seeking additional comment and further
information. The plaintiff's legal representative, Kay Company LLC,
could not be reached for comment.

EQT Corp. operates in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania with an
emphasis on the Appalachian Basin. It has been in business for 130
years and says it is the largest producer of natural gas in the
United States.[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Public Records Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 and the
plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuit over public records have
reached an agreement in principle.

Equifax has been named as a defendant in 19 putative class action
lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country relating to
its reporting of civil judgments and tax liens on consumers' credit
files.

In October 2018, Equifax and the plaintiffs' attorneys who filed
the lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the public
records-related claims at issue on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers and the company accrued an estimate of its liability for
these matters in the third quarter of 2018.

Equifax said, "The amount accrued represents our best estimate of
the liability related to this matter and is not material to the
Consolidated Financial Statements. The parties have filed notices
of settlement in the pending lawsuits and have begun drafting a
settlement agreement and preliminary approval papers to file with
the requisite court. If the final terms of a settlement agreement
cannot be agreed upon, or if the settlement is not ultimately
approved by the court, Equifax believes it has valid defenses to
each of these actions and will continue to defend against them."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions.  Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Cybersecurity-Related Suits in Canada Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 class action lawsuits in Canada in relation to a 2017
cybersecurity incident.

Seven Canadian class actions, five of which are on behalf of a
national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have
been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec and
British Columbia.

Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other
related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident.


The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization
on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was
allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident.

In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf
of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products
with Equifax around the time of the incident.

Equifax  said, "All purported class actions are at preliminary
stages, and we are opposing class certification or authorization in
cases where such motions are pending. In addition, one of the cases
in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The
Court’s order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions.  Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 Fulton County
Business Court has stayed the single and consolidated class action
lawsuit over data breach.

Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity
incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior
Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar
allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. consumer class
actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary damages,
injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia
citizens.

These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton
County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into
a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court
granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and
on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the consolidated case.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions.  Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses' Data Breach Claims Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 claims by small
businesses over a data breach in 2017 have been dismissed.

Since a 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class actions and
other lawsuits have been filed against the company typically
alleging harm from the 2017 cybersecurity incident and seeking
various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The
company  dispute the allegations in the complaints and intend to
defend against such claims. In addition, numerous governmental
agencies are investigating the company in connection with the 2017
cybersecurity incident, which may result in fines, settlements or
other relief.

Hundreds of class actions were filed against the company in federal
and state courts relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The
plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various classes
of U.S. consumers and small businesses, generally claim to have
been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in
connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a
variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and other related relief.

In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial
institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at risk
due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert various
common law claims such as claims for negligence and breach of
contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims. The
financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief and other related relief.

Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the company by the
City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident
alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances governing
protection of personal data, consumer fraud, breach notice
requirements and business practices and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and the imposition of fines the aggregate amount
of which the complaint does not specifically quantify.

Three Indian Tribes filed suits in federal court asserting putative
class actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident brought
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally
recognized Indian Tribes and Nations.

Additionally, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an action on
its own behalf and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico arising
out of the 2017 cybersecurity incident.

Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent
orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings with
respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court, including the
City of Chicago action, the Indian Tribal suits, and the Puerto
Rico action, to the Northern District of Georgia as the single U.S.
District Court for centralized pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL
Court").

Based on these orders, consolidated proceedings with respect to
U.S. consumer and financial institution federal class actions and
other lawsuits related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident have been
conducted in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has established separate
tracks for the consumer and financial institution class action
cases and appointed lead counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in both
tracks. Certain individual plaintiffs with cases pending in the MDL
consolidated proceedings, including Puerto Rico and the City of
Chicago, have sought the establishment of additional tracks and
other related relief. The MDL Court has not yet ruled on those
requests.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaints filed by the U.S. consumer, small business and financial
institution plaintiffs in their entirety. On January 28, 2019, the
MDL Court dismissed the small businesses' consolidated class action
complaint in its entirety.

The MDL Court dismissed certain claims brought by the consumer and
financial institution plaintiffs, while allowing other claims by
those plaintiffs to proceed.

Pursuant to case management orders issued by the MDL Court,
consolidated pre-trial proceedings, including discovery between the
parties, will proceed on the remaining claims of the U.S. consumer
and financial institution plaintiffs.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions.  Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


FEDERAL AVIATION: Stephen Lynch Takes Aim at Airport Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Szaniszlo, writing for Boston Herald, reports that  noise and
pollution near airports has U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch looking to give
residents below the flight paths a break.

Lynch has filed a bill that would allow the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to study the health impacts from
planes, potentially laying the groundwork for a class action
lawsuit.

The bill, filed by the South Boston Democrat, would direct the
Federal Aviation Administration to "enter into appropriate
arrangements with the National Academies" for a report on the
effects of noise disturbances that prompted 71,381 complaints in
Massachusetts alone last year, more than 10 times the 6,811 filed
in 2013, according to the Massachusetts Port Authority, which
oversees Logan International Airport in Boston, Hanscom Field and
Worcester Regional Airport.

"The impact of flying over the same homes all the time is a stress
issue based on noise and jet fuel emissions," Lynch said. "The goal
is to collect data that could lead to a class action lawsuit."

The problem, he said, began in 2013, when the FAA switched to a
navigation system designed to save jet fuel by having planes use
the most efficient routes, often flying at lower altitudes longer
while making their ascents.

"As a result, thousands of flights go over the same homes every
month," Lynch said, "when we might be able to bring relief to a lot
of people if those flights were sent over water or dispersed over
different neighborhoods."

For the last two years, R. John Hansman, director of the MIT
International Center for Air Transportation, and his students have
been working to see how advanced flight procedures might be used to
lessen the problem.

"The ultimate goal is to use technology to both improve the
efficiency of flights and minimize adverse effects such as noise,"
said Hansman.

Maryann Aberg said planes fly over her Medford home as often as
every 30 seconds, sometimes at altitudes so low she can read the
names of the airlines and see the pilots.

"The windows of the house rattle," she said. "It's impossible to
carry on a conversation in your own home."

In an email on Feb.8, FAA spokesman Jim Peters said the
administration  "does not comment on proposed legislation."

Massport spokeswoman Jennifer Mehigan said the agency "supports
scientific research" and keeps "involved in community discussions
with residents and elected officials regarding aircraft activity
and supports the work by the FAA and MIT engineers, with feedback
from the Massport CAC (Community Advisory Committee), to develop
ways to reduce the impacts of Logan operations."[GN]


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Banneck Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES BANNECK, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04657-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary
judgment.

Banneck brings the instant lawsuit against Defendant Fannie Mae
alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act ("CCRAA") and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").  Banneck claims that Fannie Mae's Desktop Underwriter
("DU") system, which is used by lenders to determine whether an
applicant's loan can be purchased by Fannie Mae, generated an
inaccurate DU findings report that negatively impacted his loan
application.  He contends that Fannie Mae prohibited mortgage
originators from providing consumers with a copy of their DU
findings report in violation of the CCRAA and FCRA.

In February 2010, Banneck completed a short sale of a residential
property after he defaulted on two mortgage loans.  After waiting
the obligatory two years from his short sale, in April and May 2013
Banneck sought mortgage loans with brokers like Southern Fidelity,
Quicken Loans, and Red Rock to purchase a property in Las Vegas.
Southern Fidelity and Quicken Loans denied his applications without
submitting them to Fannie Mae's DU system.

On June 23, 2013, Red Rock submitted Banneck's loan application
information to DU, but received a report listing his prior mortgage
loan as a foreclosure rather than a short sale.  The foreclosure
earned his report a "Refer with Caution" recommendation that
Banneck then tried to correct.  Three days later, on June 26, 2013,
Red Rock worked with Banneck and sought to correct the reporting,
but it received a response that the inaccurate information could
not be removed.  Rather than manually underwrite Banneck's
application, Red Rock ultimately denied it according to its own
policy.

The case is one of four similar cases asserting that Fannie Mae is
a consumer reporting agency ("CRA").  First, in Zabriskie v. Fed.
Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court
and held that Fannie Mae is not a CRA and cannot be held liable
under the FCRA.  In the second case, Walsh v. Federal National
Mortgage Association, the district court granted Fannie Mae's
motion for summary judgment because it was not a CRA under
Zabriskie.  In the third case, McCalmont v. Federal National
Mortgage Association, the district court again granted Fannie Mae's
motion for summary judgment in response to the dispositive
precedent set by Zabriskie.

In the instant case, Banneck filed his initial class action
complaint on Aug. 12, 2017, alleging three causes of action under
the CCRAA.  Fannie Mae moved to dismiss.  After Banneck conceded
that he did not request information from Fannie Mae, Judge Orrick
dismissed his "right-to-access" claim under California Civil Code
sections 1785.10 and 1785.15, and his "reinvestigation" claim under
California Civil Code section 1785.16 without leave to amend.
However, his "reasonable procedures" claim under section 1785.14(b)
survived because it was not "based on the same act or omission" as
the pending Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") putative class
action in Walsh v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n.

Banneck then filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2018 on behalf
of himself, three putative California classes, and one national
class.  The AC asserts three claims: (1) violation of the CCRAA,
for failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure "maximum
possible accuracy" of the reports it sold; (2) violation of the
FCRA by prohibiting users of DU software from disclosing DU
Findings Reports to consumers; and (3) violation of the CCRAA for
the same acts alleged in count two.

Banneck also brought one claim as an individual, alleging that
Fannie Mae violated the CCRAA Section 1785.10.1 by prohibiting,
dissuading, and/or attempting to dissuade, including through the
use of contracts, users of DU Findings Reports from providing Mr.
Banneck with copies of such reports to him upon request, even when
the user had taken adverse action against him based in whole or in
part on the report.

The Judge denied Fannie Mae's second motion to dismiss except for
Banneck's requests for "other" forms of equitable relief such as
disgorgement, restitution and recessionary damages.   In response
to the Order, on June 4, 2018, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
moved to intervene as conservator for Fannie Mae, seeking
interlocutory review.  Fannie Mae then filed its answer to the
amended complaint on June 7, 2018.  The Judge denied the Federal
Housing Finance Agency's motion to certify the May 18, 2018 Order
for Interlocutory Review because it did not establish that
interlocutory review would resolve a controlling question of law,
that there were substantial grounds for difference of opinion, or
provide a likelihood that an immediate appeal would materially
advance the termination of the litigation.

Fannie Mae filed the instant motion for summary judgment on Oct.
31, 2018.  The parties asked to delay the hearing until the Ninth
Circuit published Zabriskie and they had a chance to brief it for
the Judge.  The Judge heard argument on Feb. 20, 2019.

For Banneck to succeed on his claims under the FCRA and CCRAA, he
must establish that Fannie Mae is a CRA.  CRA is defined under the
FCRA as (i) any person which regularly engages in whole or in part
in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit
information or other information on consumers (ii) for the purpose
of furnishing consumer reports to third parties."  As noted
earlier, the Ninth Circuit recently held Fannie Mae is not a CRA
under either part of this definition.  In supplemental briefing,
Banneck argues that Zabriskie is distinguishable on the facts and
procedural posture.  Judge Orrick disagrees and must grant Fannie
Mae's motion fo summary judgment.  

He finds that Fannie Mae meets the first part of the CRA
definition.  The Zabriskie court found the supposed admissions from
Fannie Mae witnesses to be "taken out of context."  While there is
additional evidence from Fannie Mae witnesses that was not present
in Zabriskie, the result is no different.  The deposition testimony
does not go to "what Fannie Mae actually does" and instead repeats
the kind of evidence discussed and rejected in Zabriskie.  

The second portion of the definition was also inapplicable to
Fannie Mae in Zabriskie because there was no support in the record
that Fannie Mae assembled information for any purpose other than to
determine a loan's eligibility for subsequent purchase by Fannie
Mae.  The same is true in the instant case, the Judge holds.

He finds that the Consumer Data Industry Association exhibit that
Banneck asserts is unique to the case is not enough to distinguish
this case from Zabriskie.  The conclusion of a third party that
Fannie Mae is having problems with its foreclosure recommendations
in DU is consistent with the allegedly erroneous DU findings report
before the Ninth Circuit in Zabriskie.  The document would not
change the Ninth Circuit's finding that this evidence goes to what
DU does separate from Fannie Mae.  Nor does it undercut the Ninth
Circuit's conclusion that Fannie Mae provides DU "to help lenders
determine whether Fannie Mae will purchase the loans that they
originate based only on information provided to it by lenders and
credit bureaus.  Following Zabriskie, the Judge concludes (as did
the district court in Walsh and McCalmont) that Fannie Mae is not a
CRA.

Banneck also suggests that the Judge waits to issue the opinion
until after a petition for rehearing in Zabriskie is filed and
decided.  A pending petition for rehearing en banc would not
eliminate the precedent that Zabriskie currently provides.
Zabriskie is dispositive.  The Judge granted Fannie Mae's motion
for summary judgment.

Fannie Mae seeks to seal portions or entire exhibits to the Oakley
and Armstrong-Kielmeyer Declarations in support of its motion for
summary judgment that contain trade secret information, were
designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order, or
contain confidential business information.  The Judge holds that
sealing is not sufficiently indicated for Exhibits H, M, V, and W,
where the only reason in support is that these documents were
designated confidential.  He denied the motion to seal without
prejudice with respect to Exhibits H, M, V, and W; and granted with
respect to the other exhibits sought to be sealed.  Fannie Mae has
seven days from the date of this Order to submit an amended
declaration in support of sealing, to provide compelling reasons
beyond the confidentiality basis provided.

In addition, Banneck filed motions to seal portions or entire
exhibits to the Francis Declaration and references in supplemental
briefing to those same exhibits.  Fannie Mae provided a declaration
in support of sealing on the grounds that the exhibits contain
trade secret information on its DU functionality, trade secret
information on Fannie Mae's network for providing electronic credit
reports, and confidential business information.  There are
compelling reasons to seal references to its trade secrets and
confidential business information.  The Judge granted these motions
to seal.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Orrick granted Fannie Mae's motion
for summary judgment.  The judgment will be entered in accordance
with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IH6O6Q from Leagle.com.

James Banneck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul B. Mengedoth, Mengedoth
Law PLLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly
& Crandall, PLC, pro hac vice, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., John
Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman,
P.C., Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly and Crandall PLC, pro hac vice,
Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman PC, Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith, Goldsmith and Associates,
LLC, pro hac vice & Stephanie R. Tatar --
stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Benjamin Dean Brooks -- benbrooks@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP & Danielle Nicole Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Myers LLP.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by D. Eric
Shapland, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Michael A.F. Johnson,
Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.


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

Ferroglobe PLC (NASDAQ: GSM)
Class Period: August 21, 2018 - November 26, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/gsm

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) that there was excess supply of the Company's
products; (2) that demand for the Company's products was declining;
(3) that, as a result, the pricing of the Company's products would
be materially impacted; and (4) 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.

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Pre-Trial Discovery in Reliance Suit Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, 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 pre-trial discovery has been completed in the class action
lawsuit involving Reliance Trust Company, a company's subsidiary.

Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a
defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of
services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers.

Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well
as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The action also
makes claims against the Plan's sponsor and record-keeper.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it
has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been
completed. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or
prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no
damages. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $125 million.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this
action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability
for this action."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FINANCIAL CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Encarnacion Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OMAR ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-566-FtM-38UAM (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, (i) granted
Defendant Financial Corp. of America ("FCOA")'s Motion for Summary
Judgment; and (ii) denied Plaintiff Encarnacion's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

In 2016, Encarnacion brought his minor child, O.E., to the
emergency room at Lehigh Regional Medical Center.  Because of the
visit, Encarnacion allegedly incurred a debt, which he never paid.
About eight months later, FCOA sent Encarnacion a dunning letter.
FCOA sent the Letter on behalf of the Hospital.  Thus, the Hospital
was Encarnacion's creditor and FCOA was the debt collector.
Because Encarnacion cannot read much English, he gave the Letter to
his wife without reading it.

The dispute centers on the form and contents of the Letter.  t was
on FCOA's letterhead, including FCOA's name and contact information
in the uppermost left corner. Just below, the Letter was dated and
addressed to the Parent Of O.E. with Encarnacion's address.  Then,
the Letter began with "Responsible Party: Parent of O.E.."  The
rest of the Letter contained three boilerplate paragraphs about the
debt collection process and a detachable payment stub, which again
listed the account number and balance due.  Nowhere is the word
creditor used.  One paragraph, however, stated that the Letter was
"an attempt to collect a debt" and the "communication is from a
debt collector."

Encarnacion brought a class action against FCOA for violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Specifically, he
alleged that the Letter failed to identify the Hospital as the
creditor.

Before the Court are FCOA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the parties' responses
in opposition.  The sole issue is simple: whether the Letter
contains the creditor's name.  

Encarnacion contends that the Letter failed to identify the
Hospital as the creditor.  Particularly, Encarnacion argues that
the Letter needed more information to identify the creditor or
describe FCOA's relationship with the Hospital.  Conversely, FCOA
asserts that the Letter identified the Hospital as creditor.  It
relies on a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion as dispositive in the
case.

Judge Chappell agrees with FCOA.  She finds that much of
Encarnacion's argument boils down to his belief that the Letter
must have "something more."  Reading the Letter with care as a
whole, the least sophisticated consumer would understand the
creditor identification information.  

As Encarnacion concedes, FDCPA requires no "magic words."  Yet the
lack of magic words is the basis of his FDCPA claim.  In this
Circuit, the Judge holds that the information in the Letter would
certainly satisfy Section 1692g(a)(2) if it also stated that the
account was "placed with" FCOA for collection.  But the absence of
that statement does not obfuscate an otherwise clear creditor
identification.  Of course, debt collectors cannot evade their
obligation to identify the creditor by writing dunning letters in
Dothraki.  The Letter satisfies that requirement here even without
the magic words that Encarnacion seeks.  Because FCOA identified
the Hospital as creditor clearly enough for the least sophisticated
consumer to understand, Encarnacion cannot demonstrate a FDCPA
violation.  So FCOA is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, Judge Chappell (i) granted FCOA's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and (ii) denied Encarnacion's Motion for Summary
Judgment.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for FCOA,
terminate all remaining motions and deadlines, and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/iq7Rbk from Leagle.com.

Omar Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Marguerite
Miller, The Law Offices of Katie M. Miller, PA & Yitzchak Zelman --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, pro hac vice.

Financial Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Charles
James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com. -- Golden Scaz Gagain,
PLLC & Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz
Gagain, PLLC.


FLIGHT CENTRE: To Fight $100MM Overtime Wages Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Travelweek Group reports that Flight Centre Travel Group (Canada)
Inc. says it intends to fight back against a proposed $100 million
class action lawsuit, charging that the class action suit makes
several false assertions and factually incorrect allegations.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 20 and coming to light on Feb. 25, alleges
Flight Centre Travel Group (Canada) Inc. violated applicable
employment standards legislation and its contracts of employment
with class members by failing to pay for overtime work.

Goldblatt Partners LLP, based in Toronto, is handling the $100
million proposed class action filing, open to all current and
former travel consultants who worked for Flight Centre in Canada
since October 2010.

In a company statement issued by Allison Wallace, VP, Corporate
Communication & CSR, The Americas for Flight Centre Travel Group,
the retail travel giant responds: "Flight Centre complies with
applicable employment standards legislation governing hours of work
and overtime as the claim itself acknowledges.

"The claim makes several false assertions and many of the
allegations are factually incorrect.

"Flight Centre denies the allegations and will be vigorously
defending this claim."

The 29-page Statement of Claim, available through a link at
flightcentreclassaction.com, alleges that Flight Centre failed to
ensure that hours of work were monitored and accurately recorded,
among other things. The allegations mainly focus on failure to pay
overtime and a work environment where employees were "required
and/or permitted and/or suffered to work hours in excess of those
scheduled, including hours both below and in excess of the overtime
threshold under the applicable employment standards legislation, in
order to carry out the duties assigned to them." [GN]


FLUOR CORP: Expects Consolidated Complaint to be Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Fluor 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 the company anticipates
that the co-lead plaintiffs in the purported shareholder class
action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to file a consolidated complaint no
later than March 2019.

In May 2018, purported shareholders filed complaints against Fluor
Corporation and certain of its current and former executives in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14,
2013 through May 3, 2018, and seek to recover damages arising from
alleged violations of federal securities laws.

In December 2018, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel. It is anticipated that the co-lead plaintiffs will
file a consolidated complaint no later than March 2019, after which
it is anticipated the company will respond, likely with a motion to
dismiss the matter.

Fluor said, "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate
outcome of this matter, the company believes that the claims
asserted in the complaint are without merit."

Fluor, through its subsidiaries, provides engineering, procurement,
construction, fabrication and modularization, operation,
maintenance and asset integrity, and project management services
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy & Chemicals;
Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified Services;
and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FORD MOTOR: Notices of Appeal Filed in Takata Airbag-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company  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 notices of appeal of
the trial court's order overruling all objections and entering a
final order approving the settlement in the case entitled, In re:
Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation; Economic Loss Track
Cases Against Ford Motor Company.  

On July 16, 2018, Ford entered into a settlement agreement related
to a consumer economic loss class action pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The first case
was originally filed on October 27, 2014, against Ford, Takata, and
several other automotive manufacturers, and was brought by
consumers who own or owned vehicles equipped with Takata airbag
inflators.  

Additional cases were subsequently filed in courts throughout the
United States and consolidated into a multidistrict case before the
Florida court, which also included personal injury claims and
claims by automotive recyclers.

Ford's July 16 settlement relates only to the consumer economic
loss matters.

In these cases, Plaintiffs allege that Ford vehicles equipped with
Takata airbags are defective and that Ford did not disclose this
defect to consumers. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered several
forms of economic damages as a result of purchasing vehicles with
defective airbags. The settlement is for $299 million, which is
subject to certain discounts, and court approval.

On December 20, 2018, the court overruled all objections and
entered a final order approving the settlement.

Several objectors have filed notices of appeal of the trial court's
order.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a
range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified
vehicles worldwide. It operates through three segments: Automotive,
Mobility, and Ford Credit. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903
and is based in Dearborn, Michigan.


FRONTLINE ASSET: Velez Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Velez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, and LVNV
Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 617812/2018, was removed
form the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip) on March 7, 2019. The Eastern District of New York
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01353 to the proceeding. The
suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Frontline Asset offers collection services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
          E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com

GALLATIN COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Unlawful Immigrant Detentions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Monares, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that
the ACLU of Montana and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project filed a
class-action lawsuit for people unlawfully jailed at the Gallatin
County Detention Center at the request of U.S. immigration
officials.

Gallatin County officials are exceeding their authority under
Montana law by imprisoning people on the grounds that they may have
committed a civil violation under federal immigration law,
according to an ACLU news release.

The complaint, filed in Gallatin County District Court, named
Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin and detention center
administrator Jason Jarrett as the defendants.

Mr. Gootkin said on Feb. 26 he had not been served with the suit
and couldn't comment. He said the jail does hold inmates when
immigration officials request it.

Of the 151 inmates being held at the county jail on Feb. 26, at
least one other inmate had an immigration hold, according to the
county's jail roster.

County Attorney Marty Lambert said on Feb. 26 he hadn't seen the
lawsuit either and couldn't comment on it. Mr. Lambert said he
would contact the state's Attorney General's office as well as the
U.S. Department of Justice for help in the case.

Luis Soto-Lopez, the named plaintiff in the case, has been jailed
at the Gallatin County Detention Center at the request of federal
immigration officials since Nov. 11, 2018, the ACLU said. Upon his
arrest for a misdemeanor, his family immediately attempted to pay
his $500 bond, which would have secured his release pending trial.

Despite their attempts to pay bail, Gallatin County refused to
release Soto-Lopez due to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
hold -- commonly called an "ICE detainer," the ACLU said. Three
months later, Mr. Soto-Lopez remains in jail, while his wife and
children -- all U.S. Citizens -- wait for his release.

The lawsuit seeks to end the use of ICE detainers for all current
and future people incarcerated at the Gallatin County Detention
Center who are being held at the behest of federal immigration
authorities, according to the ACLU. It also seeks compensation for
Mr. Soto-Lopez's unlawful imprisonment.

"Gallatin County officials are illegally depriving Mr. Soto-Lopez
of his liberty," ACLU of Montana Legal Director Alex Rate said in
the release. "The law is clear: when a person posts bond, they must
be released from custody."

In May 2018, Mr. Soto-Lopez and his wife got into an argument at
their Bozeman apartment after he saw his wife drinking coffee with
a friend at a restaurant, according to charging documents.

Mr. Soto-Lopez tried leaving with their three children, but his
wife held onto their youngest daughter and called 911, according to
charging documents.

Mr. Soto-Lopez grabbed her arm and ended the call to dispatch,
court records state, and he then left with their two older children
to stay at a house he was working on in Big Sky.

Mr. Soto-Lopez turned himself in to law enforcement in November
2018 and was charged with misdemeanor tampering with a
communication device.

The ACLU suit said Mr. Soto-Lopez and his family remain willing to
pay the $500 bail.

Mr. Soto-Lopez had a jury trial scheduled to begin March 15 for the
tampering charge. [GN]


GC OF CAPITAL: Settlement in Hickman Labor Suit Has Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAURICE HICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. G. C. OF CAPITAL
CENTRE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. CBD-18-1238 (D.
Md.), Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day of the U.S. District Court
for the Maryland, Southern Division, granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement without modification.

Hickman brought claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff brought these claims as a collective action under the
FLSA, and as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.  The Plaintiff sought damages, including liquidated and treble
damages, from Defendants G.C. of Capital Centre, LLC, and Both,
Inc.  

On Jan. 24, 2019, the parties submitted their Joint Motion.  The
parties' settlement agreement states that the Defendants will pay
Plaintiff a total sum of $12,500 in compensation for his claims.
However, due to the Plaintiff's retainer agreement with his
counsel, $5,643 of that will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as
reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs incurred throughout
these proceedings, leaving the Plaintiff with $6,857.  The
Plaintiff's counsel state they incurred costs amounting to
$1,424.39 and fees amounting to $36,239.50.

The Memorandum in Support does not state how much was in
controversy at the outset, but it does state that the Plaintiff
will be recovering "approximately $625 per workweek worked by the
Plaintiff."  It also states that the Plaintiff is recovering a
substantial amount for a part-time employee who generally worked
between 20 and 35 hours per week.

Judge Day has reviewed the Joint Motion, the accompanying
memorandum in support, and the applicable law.  He finds that no
hearing is deemed necessary.  He granted the parties' Joint Motion
without modification as: (1) there exists a bona fide dispute; (2)
the settlement agreement is both fair and reasonable under the
Saman test; and, (3) while there is a dearth of information by
which to make the assessment, the attorneys' fees agreed to appear
reasonable under Saman as they are in line with what other cases
have settled for, they represent a significant reduction from what
the Plaintiff's counsel incurred while prosecuting the case, and
the Plaintiff's retainer agreement does not appear to permit him to
agree to any other division of damages.  A separate Order will
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/mFPqzV from Leagle.com.

Maurice Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle L. Perry --
dperry@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio and Rathod
LLP, Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com --
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP & Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP.

G.C. of Capital Centre, L.L.C. & Both, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Maxine Arielle Adams -- MAdams@ebglaw.com -- Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C. & Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C., pro hac vice.


GENERAL MOTORS: Averts Class Action Over Leaky Cadillac Sunroofs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Cadillac owner can't accuse General Motors
Co. of violating its warranty agreements when it allegedly forced
customers to pay for repairs to leaky sunroofs because her own
sunroof didn't leak. [GN]


GEO GROUP: Joint Bid for Discovery Dispute Determination Partly OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18cv2136-LAB (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Michael S. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute.

Ramirez, a former non-exempt "security officer," brings the
putative class action, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated non-exempt security class members against his former
employers The Geo Group, Inc. and GEO Corrections and Detention,
LLC for numerous wage and hour violations, including: (1) failing
to pay security officers according to their electronic time keeping
system; (2) failing to providing off-duty meal breaks; (3) failing
to provide off-duty rest breaks; (4) failing to provide timely and
accurate wage statements; and (5) failing to reimburse for business
expenses.  

The Plaintiff and GEO seek rulings with regard to various disputes
arising from the parties' written discovery.  There are two sets of
issues contained within this discovery dispute.  The first set
deals with the GEO's responses to the Plaintiff's requests for
production of documents ("RFPs") and interrogatories, and the
second set deals with the Plaintiff's responses to GEO's
interrogatories.

The Plaintiff and GEO disagree regarding the scope of the potential
class into which discovery should be permitted, an issue which is
pervasive to the disputes presented regarding the Plaintiff's
written discovery.  The Plaintiff maintains that discovery into
Class Members should include all non-exempt security personnel
within the security department.  GEO, however, maintains that this
is overbroad when compared to the class defined in the operative
complaint, and they are only obligated to provide discovery
responses pertaining to the potential class members holding the two
positions that the Plaintiff held during his employment,
"correctional officer" and "assistant shift supervisor."
Magistrate Judge Berg finds that the scope, as limited by GEO, is
consistent with the pleadings, reasonable and proportional to the
needs of the case.

The Plaintiff's RFP No. 1 seeks all versions of GEO's employee
manuals and/or handbooks used during the class period.  Because the
Plaintiff failed to establish why the requested information is
relevant to the case, the Magistrate denied the Plaintiff's motion
to compel further responses with respect to this topic.

The Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 20 and 21 seek information regarding any
complaints by non-exempt security personnel during the class period
and the two years prior concerning compensation and wage claims,
and meal and rest breaks, including those filed with the California
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.  The Plaintiff has
narrowed the request to any complaints made regarding compensation
and/or meal and rest breaks during the class period only: Aug. 9,
2014 to present.

Because discovery has not been phased or bifurcated in the case,
and the requested discovery is relevant to the establishment of a
class and may provide evidence relevant to Plaintiff's individual
claims, the Magistrate rejects GEO's prematurity argument.  In
light of the Plaintiff's agreement to limit the request to the
claims period, and noting the Court's limitation of the scope in
section II.A.1, supra, the Magistrate does not find the RFP
overbroad.  He granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel further
responses to RFP Nos. 20 and 21 as to this topic with regard to
complaints filed by people employed by the Defendants in California
as either correctional officers or assistant shift supervisors
during the class period.  GEO will provide supplemental responses
and documents no later than March 20, 2019.

The Plaintiff's Interrogatories No. 1 and 2 seek potential class
member names, last known home address, and phone number.  The
Magistrate denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the production
of employee phone numbers in response to Interrogatories No. 1 and
2.  He finds that GEO has already provided a significant amount of
personal information including a list of the employees' names,
personnel numbers, job titles, dates of employment, and employees'
last known addresses, as opposed to simply identifying the putative
class members as member "X" or member "Y."  The information
produced by GEO adequately addresses employee privacy concerns
while providing the Plaintiff with sufficient information to
contact potential class members who wish to communicate with the
Plaintiff's counsel.  He notes that the motion for class
certification deadline is now set for April 19, 2019.  Other
related discovery deadlines have also been adjusted.  This leaves
sufficient time for the Plaintiff's counsel to contact potential
class members using their last known addresses.

GEO's Interrogatories No. 3, 9, 11, 12, and 13, seek the
Plaintiff's arguments and opinions related to class certification.
GEO's Interrogatories No. 3, 9, and 13 ask the Plaintiff to
"describe in detail" how he will demonstrate that the Defendants'
alleged uniform policies can be proven efficiently and manageably
as a class action, how he contends the case would be tried as a
class action, and why he contends that a class action procedure is
a superior means of resolving this action compared to other means.
The Magistrate finds that contention interrogatories are premature
if the propounding party cannot present plausible grounds showing
that early answers to contention questions will efficiently advance
litigation, or if the defendant does not have adequate information
to assert its position.  To force the Plaintiff to preview the
class certification motion for GEO is premature, burdensome and
harassing.

GEO's Interrogatories No. 11 and 12 ask the Plaintiff to state all
issues that may remain for decision upon the completion of a class
action, and as to each, describe in detail how the Plaintiff
contends that such issue could be finally resolved.  These
interrogatories call for legal opinion and speculation.  As such,
the Magistrate denied GEO's motion to compel further responses to
those interrogatories.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Berg granted in part
and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion for determination of
Discovery Dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/W4BWw0 from Leagle.com.

Raymond Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC, Jacquelyn
Emilia Quinn -- jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group
& James Richard Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson
Law Group, APC.

The Geo Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Anthony Gerald Ly -- aly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Lena Kae Sims -- lsims@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Peiyi
Chen -- pchen@littler.com -- Littler & Mendelson PC.

GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC ("GEO Corrections"), a
subsidiary of GEO Group, Inc., a Florida limited liability
corporation, Defendant, represented by Peiyi Chen, Littler &
Mendelson PC & Anthony Gerald Ly, Littler Mendelson PC.


GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Gogo 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 is awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss the case styled Pierrelouis
v. Gogo Inc.

On December 10, 2018, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed an amended putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its
former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its
current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation
as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to the company's 2Ku antenna's
reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs
seek to recover from the company and the individual defendants an
unspecified amount of damages.

In February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. That motion remains pending.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will
indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs
and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have
filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers'
insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been
accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential
losses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Cabrera's Claims in Woods Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICK WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Google's motion to dismiss
as to Rene Cabrera's claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint, and
denied in all other respects.

Co-plaintiff Woods filed his initial complaint in March 2011
alleging that Google bilked him and other advertisers into
overpaying for advertising services through Google's AdWords
program and pricing scheme.  After several rounds of pleadings,
Woods' allegations were pared down to the following.  First, Woods
states a plausible claim for breach of contract based upon Google's
alleged failure to Smart Price clicks on the Display Network.  The
court found that the "measurements clause" of the AdWords Agreement
could be reasonably interpreted as requiring Google to base its
charges for Display Network clicks at least in part on the Smart
Pricing formula. Second, Woods states a plausible claim for
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to the
extent his claim is based upon location targeting.

Thereafter, the Court disqualified Woods as a class representative.
To preserve the class action, Woods and the counsel added Cabrera
as a named Plaintiff in a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").  In the
TAC, the Plaintiffs alleged that during the summer of 2008, Cabrera
researched AdWords to determine whether to advertise his software
consulting business through Google.  Cabrera allegedly began
advertising on AdWords on or about Aug. 14, 2008 and continued
advertising with Google until August 2009.  In ruling on Google's
motion to dismiss the TAC, the Court (1) denied Google's motion to
dismiss Cabrera's Smart Pricing claim and location targeting claim,
(2) granted Google's motion to strike Woods's class allegations,
and (3) directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

In October of 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
and Google filed the instant motion to dismiss raising two primary
arguments.  First, Google asserts that Cabrera lacks Article III
standing.  According to Google, Cabrera's claims are based solely
on alleged injuries to Cabrera's software consulting business,
Training Options, Inc., and that recent discovery reveals that
Cabrera sold Training Options nine years before he was named as a
Plaintiff.   Second, Google contends that the Smart Pricing claim
must be dismissed to the extent the claim is based on a breach of
contract theory the court purportedly rejected in the summary
judgment order.

Because Cabrera lacks Article III standing, Judge Davila granted
Google's motion to dismiss Cabrera's claims without leave to amend.
He finds that (i) Cabrera's AdWords account provided only the
means or vehicle through which the ads were disseminated over the
Internet; (ii) Cabrera confirmed during his deposition that he did
not "keep any of the assets of Training Options" and instead "sold
them all"; (iii) Cabrera's ownership of the AdWords account is
irrelevant; (iv) Cabrera's alleged course of performance evidence
contradicts the plain language of the APA and his deposition
testimony that he sold all the assets of Training Options; (v)
Cabrera's alleged course of performance violates the terms of the
APA and his contractual promise to make no further use of the
Training Options business or its tradename; (vi) none of Cabrera's
proposed last-minute legal maneuvers would establish his standing
to pursue the claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint; and (vii)
naming both Cabrera and the Training Options corporate shell or
substituting in the Training Options corporate shell for Cabrera
would not create standing.

The Judge denied Google's motion to dismiss in all other respects.


A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UqBVA7 from Leagle.com.

Rick Woods, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brad Edward Seidel --
bradseidel@nixlawfirm.com -- Daniel Christopher Mulveny --
dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Margaret
Elin Mazzeo  -- mmazzeo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and
Check, LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Andrew Gordon Pate --
dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Bradley E.
Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, pro
hac vice, Chad Ethan Ihrig -- cihrig@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson
and Roach, LLP, Christopher Robert Johnson -- cjohnson@nixlaw.com
-- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey John
Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Louis Bradon Paddock --
bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson, Roach, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Bryan Angelovich -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix
Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Newcomer --
mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Naumon A.
Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Ramzi
Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP,
Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Robin Winchester --
rwinchester@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Ryan Thomas Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check, LLP, Sean M. Handler, Esq. -- shandler@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Stacey Marie Kaplan --
skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Rene Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Margaret Elin Mazzeo,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP & Matthew Leo Mustokoff,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward D. Johnson --
wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
Evans -- tevans@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel Edward
Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Donald M. Falk
-- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lee H. Rubin --
lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo
-- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Sarah Eileen
Reynolds -- sreynolds@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


GRAIN PROCESSING: To Pay $45MM in Iowa Pollution Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a judge has approved a class-action
settlement between Muscatine, Iowa, residents and a local factory
that they blame for a noxious odor and haze and for causing health
problems.

District Judge John Telleen on approved the settlement over the
Grain Processing Corporation plant, which makes corn-based
products, The Muscatine Journal reported. The company, a subsidiary
of Muscatine-based Kent Corp., agreed to pay $45 million to cover
an estimated 14,000 claims and to spend $6.5 million on pollution
controls at the Muscatine plant.

Residents sued the company in 2012, alleging that the plant was
negligent with its emissions and the odor was a nuisance. The case
later received class-action status.

GPC supports the settlement and believes it's fair, said Joshua
Frank, Esq. -- jfrank@tpglaws.com -- an attorney for the company.
The company will continue to operate successfully in the area, he
said.

The settlement is groundbreaking because of the duration of
coverage, complexity and value, said Sarah Siskind, an attorney for
the residents. People who lived within 1.5 miles of the plant
between April 24, 2007, and Sept. 1, 2017, may qualify for
payment.

Plaintiff Kelcey Brackett said he was happy with the settlement.

"I think, as the judge stated during the hearing, this was probably
the most fair turn out of the case," he said. "And I think what
this does is secure a way for GPC and the community to work
together."

Brackett said he's already seen improvements, noting that GPC
invested $83 million in upgrades during the lawsuit.

"I know I've seen reduction of odors in the area," he said, "and I
want to see that continue."

Residents have until March 19 to file a claim and could receive
$2,000 to $16,000, depending on where they live.

Up to $2 million of any money remaining after the payouts will be
placed into a community fund for neighborhood improvements, Frank
said.[GN]


HAGYARD EQUINE: Lawsuit Says Vets Altered Dates on X-Rays
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Observer reports that a lawsuit filed on Feb. 7 accuses
veterinarians of falsifying the dates on X-rays of horse sold at
public auction at the Keeneland racetrack.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the lawsuit was brought Tom
Swearingen, a horse buyer and trainer who says he paid more than
$400,000 for 24 horses from 2007 to 2016.

The lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court claims veterinarians with
Hagyard Equine Medical Institute altered dates to make it look as
though X-rays were taken within three weeks of a sale when they
were actually older.

The suit seeks class-action status, claiming that "thousands of
buyers" have been duped by altered X-rays.

"Had they known it was a sham, they never would have participated
in the sale in the first place," the suit says.

Michael Casey, Esq. -- mcasey@cbmlaw.net -- is an attorney for
Hagyard. He told the paper the case is without merit.

"We will vigorously address the misrepresentations and claims made
in the suit through the proper legal channels," he said.

Some of the allegations in the lawsuit first surfaced in a 2017
suit also filed in Fayette Circuit Court. A trial date has not been
scheduled in that case.

Some veterinarians admitted to modifying X-ray dates to the
Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners, according to court
records.

The new lawsuit also names as a defendant the accounting firm Dean
Dorton Allen Ford, which provides computer and information
technology services for Hagyard. The firm had no comment when
contacted by the paper.

According to the lawsuit, Keeneland sells about a half billion
dollars in thoroughbreds at its annual horse sales, and more than
$25 million in commissions and fees are paid to consignors,
sellers, veterinarians and the sales agency.

Keeneland officials told the paper they had no comment on the
lawsuit. The track is not named as a defendant.[GN]


HARRISON GLOBAL: Settlement in Huddlestun Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HUDDLESTUN and ROBERT BENSON, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRISON
GLOBAL, LLC DBA BOSTON COACH, MTG ACQUISITIONS, LLC and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-00253-DMS-WVG
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On Aug. 17, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
class-wide settlement.  At this same time, the Court approved
certification of a provisional Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only.

The matter came before the Court at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 22, 2019.
Judge Sabraw, having carefully considered the briefs, argument of
the counsel and all matters presented to the Court and good cause
appearing, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Notice
Package was mailed to 173 Plaintiff Class members.  The deadline
for opting out or objecting was Oct. 16, 2018.  According to the
Claims Administrator, no Plaintiff Class members opted out, no
Plaintiff Class members objected, and there were 118 members of the
Plaintiff Class who returned timely claim forms and who, thus, will
receive an Individual Settlement Share.  The Participating Class
Members, as a group, represent 68% of the total Plaintiff Class.
The proposed Agreement is, thus, approved as fair, adequate and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Class
members.

The Agreement provides for an award of up to $294,000 to the Class
Counsel as attorneys' fees in this action, representing 28% of the
Gross Settlement Fund, plus actual costs, subject to the Court's
approval.  The Class Counsel requests an award of $13,301.05 as
reimbursement for litigation costs, and $294,000 for attorneys'
fees.  An award of $294,000 for attorneys' fees and $13,301.05 for
litigation costs is reasonable in light of the contingent nature of
Class Counsel's fee, the hours worked by the Class Counsel, and the
results achieved thereby.

The Agreement provides for an Enhancement Award of up to $5,000 for
each of the Representative Plaintiffs from the Gross Settlement
Amount, subject to the Court's approval.  Judge Sabraw finds that a
total service award of $10,000 for the two Representative
Plaintiffs is reasonable in light of the risks and burdens
undertaken by the Representative Plaintiffs in the Action and for
their time and effort in bringing and prosecuting this matter on
behalf of the Plaintiff Class.

The Agreement provides for payment of settlement administration
expenses from the Gross Settlement Amount.  The Settlement
Administrator seeks $10,000 in claims administration expenses.  The
amount of this payment is reasonable in light of the work performed
by the Settlement Administrator and will be awarded thereto.

The Agreement provides for a PAGA award of $6,666, from which
$5,000 will be allocated and paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").  The Class Counsel
represents that this payment is consistent with other payments to
the LWDA in similar settlements.  The (25%) remainder from the PAGA
award (i.e., a remainder of $1,666) will remain in the net
settlement fund and available for distribution to the Participating
Class Members.

Based on the foregoing findings, and good cause appearing, Judge
Sabraw certified the Settlement Class for the purposes of
settlement only.  The Settlement Class is defined to include all
California Chauffeurs who worked for Defendants Harrison Global,
LLC and/or MTG Acquisitions, LLC from March 14, 2014 to Jan. 26,
2018 (San Francisco); March 14, 2014 to Nov. 16, 2017 (Los
Angeles); and Oct. 1, 2015 to Nov. 17, 2017 (San Diego),
respectively.

The Agreement is finally approved.

The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$294,000 and litigation costs in the amount of $13,301.05.  The
payment of an Enhancement Award in the amount of $5,000 to
Representative Plaintiff Robert Benson, $5,000 to Representative
Plaintiff Mark Huddlestun, and $10,000 to the Settlement
Administrator for settlement administration services.  The PAGA
award $6,666 is approved.  From this award, a payment of $5,000
will be made to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, and a payment of $1,666 remain in the net settlement fund
for distribution to the Participating Class Members.

The net settlement fund (i.e., after deduction of attorneys' fees,
attorneys' costs, enhancement awards to the representative
Plaintiffs, settlement administration costs, and the LWDA's portion
of the PAGA payment from the gross settlement fund) will be
distributed to the 118 Participating Class Members based on each
Participating Class Member's pro rata number of work weeks during
the class period, as compared to the aggregate work weeks worked by
all Participating Class Members during said period.

The parties have stipulated to, and the Judge approved, Legal Aid
at Work as the cy pres recipient of any residual funds resulting
from uncashed settlement checks by Participating class members.

A Final Judgment in the action will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Wq7euB from Leagle.com.

Mark Huddlestun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel D. Bodell --
dbodell@BODELLLAWGROUP.COM -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Harry W.
Harrison -- hharrison@harrisonbodell.com -- Bodell Law Group LLP,
Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates,
APC & Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@bodelllawgroup.com -- Bodell Law
Group.

Robert Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Benjamin Bennett --
cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Scott
Edward Cole, Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Harrison Global, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Heather Murray Sager -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price &
Ayse Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
(CA), LLP.

MTG Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray
Sager, Vedder Price.


HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark et al Suit Transferred to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Howard Clark, Todd Hall, and Angela Pirrone,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the general public, the Plaintiffs, vs. The Hershey Company, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00356, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 11, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-mc-80060-JSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges fraud-related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

Attorneys for the The Hershey Company:

          Matthew Borden, Esq.
          BRAUNT HAGEY & BORDEN LLP
          351 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 599-0210
          Facsimile: (415) 276-1808
          E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com

HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Summ. Judgment Bid in Cupolo-Freeman Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANN CUPOLO-FREEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOSPITALITY
PROPERTIES TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00221-JST (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.

Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin are disabled
individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility.  They, along with the
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center ("CREEC"), filed the
putative class action against the Defendant, contending that HPT
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to
provide accessible transportation services at the hotels it owns.
CREEC subsequently dismissed all of its claims with prejudice.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the
action but denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
based on a lack of commonality and typicality and a failure to
comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2).  The Plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision, and the
Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed both the Court's
determination on standing and its finding that the plaintiffs
failed to meet Rule 23's commonality requirement, given the lack of
consistent policies or practices across the hotels owned by the
Defendant, but operated by others.  The court did not reach the
issues of typicality or the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).

HPT contends that the manner in which its hotels are managed --
through agreements that give management companies sole control over
the hotels' operation -- precludes any finding of liability in the
case.  Specifically, HPT argues that the Transportation Provisions
do not apply to it because it is not "a private entity which
operates" a fixed route or demand responsive system.  Although HPT
raised this argument on appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach it
for two reasons: First, the issue is not before the court, because
it goes to the merits, not the issue of class certification.
Second, even if the argument were to bear on class certification,
it need not reach it because it affirms the district court on other
grounds.

HPT now asks the Court to decide the question in its favor on
summary judgment.

Judge Tigar finds that tge use of the word "operates" in the
Transportation Provisions does not exclude HPT from liability.  The
parties have also identified no regulations implementing the ADA
that define what it means to operate a place of public
accommodation.  
In addition, the Judge finds that the ADA specifically tasked the
DOT with issuing regulations to carry out the Transportation
Provisions.  Although HPT argues that it is not liable under the
DOT regulation, it does not argue that the DOT's interpretation is
in any way impermissible.  To the contrary, the DOT's
interpretation is consistent with Title II's statutory definition
of "operates" in the context of fixed route and demand responsive
systems, thus ensuring that the phrases "operates a fixed route
system" and "operates a demand responsive system" are interpreted
consistently throughout the ADA.  Accordingly, the Judge defers to
the DOT regulation and concludes that the Transportation Provisions
apply to any private entity that provides transportation service
"itself or by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or
relationship with the entity."

HPT contends that it does not fit within this definition, but the
Judge disagrees.  He finds that the management companies provide
transportation services under a contractual or other arrangement or
relationship with HPT, and HPT therefore "operates" those services
under the DOT regulation's definition.

HPT argues that the contractual or other arrangement or
relationship with the entity must be specific to the transportation
services — i.e., that for HPT to be liable, it must have a
contract with an entity specifically to provide transportation
services.  But nothing in the statute or the regulations is so
limiting, and courts are to reject restrictive interpretations of
the ADA.

Because Judge Tigar finds no disputed fact as to HPT's liability as
an "operator" of the transportation systems as defined by the DOT
regulation, he does not reach HPT's arguments concerning whether an
owner of a public accommodation that does not also "operate" a
transportation system can be held liable for failing to comply with
the Transportation Provisions.  Nor does he reach the Plaintiffs'
argument that HPT is judicially estopped from taking that position
based on its previous concession that it "does not contest in the
action that an owner cannot contract away its ADA obligations to a
manager and remains jointly and severally liable to disabled the
Plaintiffs.  

Based on the foregoing, Judge Tigar denied HPT's motion for summary
judgment.  The parties will appear for a case management conference
on April 3, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., and file a joint case management
statement by March 27, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oguW24 from Leagle.com.

Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn & Julie Reiskin, on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated persons
defined below, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy P. Fox, Civil
Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Andrew Paul Lee --
alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Bill Lann
Lee, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Hillary Jo
Benham-Baker -- hillary@campinsbenhambaker.com -- Campins
Benham-Baker, LLP, Julia Campins -- julia@campinsbenhambaker.com --
Campins Benham-Baker, LLP & Linda Mary Dardarian --
ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho.

Hospitality Properties Trust, Defendant, represented by David
Howard Raizman -- david.raizman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Kathleen Jenny Choi --
kathleen.choi@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and
Stewart, P.C..


HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Shmakova Sues over Installment Loans
-------------------------------------------------------
OLGA SHMAKOVA and GEOFFREY HASBROOK, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated,the Plaintiffs, vs. HUMMINGBIRD
FUNDS, LLC D/B/A BLUE TRUST LOANS, and Does 1 through 100
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01284 (N.D. Cal., March
10, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated various sections of the
Financial Code, which constituted an unlawful business practice.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a private company that
offered installment loans over the Internet to California
residents. Although Defendant claims to be affiliated with an
Indian tribe that owns tribal land in Wisconsin, none of the class
members ever visited that tribal land to obtain the loans in
question.

On January 10, 2018, Shmakova obtained a $600 loan from Defendant,
which subsequently withdrew $712 from her bank account and deemed
the loan satisfied. The Plaintiff alleges the annual percentage
rate (APR) was over 400%. On January 22, 2018, Shmakova obtained a
second loan, this one for $1,000, from Defendant, which
subsequently withdrew $1,989.54 from her bank account. The
Defendant claims she owes additional money. The APR was 635%.

On April 17, 2018, Hasbrook obtained a $150 loan from Defendant,
which subsequently withdrew $454 from his bank account. The
Defendant claims he owes additional money. The APR was 736%.

The Defendant made similar loans to the class members, depositing
money in their bank accounts and then withdrawing money from their
bank accounts to repay itself principal and interest charges.

The Defendant qualified as a "finance lender" pursuant to Financial
Code section 22009. Financial Code section 22203 defines a
"consumer loan" as a loan "the proceeds of which are intended by
the borrower for use primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes."

Pursuant to Financial Code section 22303, the maximum that can be
legally imposed as finance charges depends on the amount of the
loan. This law does not apply to loans of more than $2,500. The
first $250 of principal has a maximum monthly finance charge of
2.5% or an APR of 36%. The next $675 of principal has maximum
monthly finance charges of 2%, the next $749 of principal has
maximum monthly finance charges of 1.5% and the remaining portion
up to $899 has a maximum monthly finance charge of 1%. Therefore,
under no conditions, can a loan of this nature in California impose
an APR greater than 36% and usually the cap will be lower.

The actual APR for the loans obtained by Plaintiffs and class
members was more than twice the maximum 36% allowed under the
foregoing law. Therefore, Defendant violated this requirement.

In addition, Financial Code section 22100 (a) provides "No person
shall engage in the business of a finance lender or broker without
obtaining a license from the commissioner."

Financial Code section 22155 provides: "No finance lender, broker,
or mortgage loan originator licensee shall transact the business
licensed or make any loan provided for by this division under any
other name or at any other place of business than that named in the
license except pursuant to a currently effective written order of
the commissioner authorizing the other name or other place of
business."

The name of the lender listed on Defendant's loan agreements was
"Hummingbird Funds, LLC d/b/a Blue Trust Loans." This entity never
had a finance lenders license or authorization from any California
government official. Therefore, Defendant violated this
requirement.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: 714 854-7205
          Facsimile: 714 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          2 Venture, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949-240-8595
          Facsimile: 949-377-3272
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

HUPP DRAFT: Faces Burton's Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Hupp
Draft Services Inc. The case is captioned as DESHUAN BURTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HUPP DRAFT SERVICES INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00250809-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Feb. 19, 2019)

Hupp Draft Services Inc. is engaged in draft beer distribution in
the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Court Dismisses S. Loh's Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Northern
Mariana Islands issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned SHIRLENE LOH, Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, Defendant. Case No.
1:1:18-CV-00025. (D.N. Mar. L.).

She was employed as a VIP Services Host to bring food and drink and
provide necessary gaming items to VIP guests, as well as to tidy up
the VIP gaming rooms. Loh's employment contract with IPI required
her to work more than 40 hours a week, without overtime pay.
Throughout her employment, Loh worked for IPI in excess of 14 hours
a day, seven days a week. Loh filed suit against IPI, alleging
violations of the federal Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) and
the CNMI's Minimum Wage and Hour Act (MWHA), for unpaid wages under
FLSA and MWHA's minimum-wage and overtime provisions, as well as a
common-law claim for fraud and conversion with respect to the
tips.

Commonwealth Minimum Wage and Hour Act Claims

The Defendant moves to dismiss the MWHA claims because the statute
of limitations has run.  
A claim under the MWHA must be commenced within six months after
the cause of action accrued except that a cause of action arising
out of a willful violation may be commenced within one year after
the cause of action accrued. Loh stopped working for IPI in August
2016 and did not file a complaint until more than two years later,
in September 2018. She is well outside the limitations period even
for willful violations. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would
support equitable tolling of the limitations period.

The Plaintiff conceded that her MWHA claims are untimely, and she
did not assert that the limitations period should be equitably
tolled.

The second and fourth causes of action under the MWHA will be
dismissed.

Fraud and Conversion Claim

The fifth cause of action is for conversion and fraud. Fraud and
conversion are separate legal theories of liability.  The Motion to
Dismiss concerns the fraud theory only.

The elements of a Commonwealth-law claim of fraudulent
misrepresentation are: (1) a material, false misrepresentation by
the defendant (2) the defendant's knowledge of its falsity (3) the
defendant's intent that the plaintiff act reasonably upon it and
(4) the plaintiff's justifiable and detrimental reliance upon the
misrepresentation.

In support of her fraud claim, the Plaintiff alleges these facts:
tips were given by IPI customers to IPI for the specific purpose of
rewarding VIP hosts for good service, with the direction that IPI
pay these tips to the VIP hosts; IPI refused to pay these tips to
the VIP hosts, specifically Plaintiff, and instead converted these
tips to its own use; Yuki Xia, an IPI employee who supervised and
managed the VIP hosts, converted these tips to the use of IPI,
failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff her legitimate and
rightful share of the tips.

The Defendant asserts that these factual allegations about not
passing along tips are not particular enough about the time, place,
and circumstances to support a claim of fraud. The Plaintiff, in
her Opposition, matches the who, what, when, where, and how to
statements in the Complaint: who is Yuki Xia, what is customers'
tips, when is the whole period of employment in which tips were
confiscated, etc.  This exercise misses the mark.  The what that
must be specifically identified is the misrepresentation.  A review
of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy those
requirements.

A mere expectation that the Plaintiff would get a share of the
tips, without some statement or action by the employer to support
that expectation, does not constitute a fraud on the employee. An
employer who keeps tips that a customer meant for the service staff
might be liable to the employees on a stand-alone claim for
conversion.  

Because the complaint fails to specify a false statement regarding
tips and fails to identify what action Plaintiff took in reliance
on that statement, the fraud component of the fifth cause of action
is inadequately pled under Rule 9(b).

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yylozcnufrom
Leagle.com.

Shirline Loh, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Fitzgerald --
fitzgerald.law@gmail.com -- Law Office of William M. Fitzgerald.

Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC, Defendant, represented
by Kelley Butcher, Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC.


INDIANA: Sued Over Lack of Legal Counsel During Dependency Hearings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mcgill, writing for Fox 59, reports that Indiana has an
increasing number of child welfare cases piling up in courtrooms.
However, a new lawsuit is hoping to get the children at the center
of those cases their own legal representation.

A class action lawsuit filed by Children's Advocacy Institute, San
Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster and Indianapolis law firm
DeLaney & DeLaney alleges that Indiana is violating the
constitutional rights of children involved in Child in Need of
Services cases by not providing them with legal counsel during
dependency hearings.

The lawsuit reads:

"Removing a child from his or her family is one of the most
traumatic experiences that can be imagined. When the government
takes a child from his or her home on the grounds of abuse or
neglect, it has an obligation to protect not only the child's
safety but also the child's legal rights. Those rights include the
right to be represented by an attorney when the child's fundamental
liberty interests are at stake."

"In our view the 14th amendment to the united states constitution
says if you're going to be taking someone's liberty away. They have
the right to a lawyer to represent their interests," Indianapolis
attorney Kathleen Delaney, Esq. -- kathleen@delaneylaw.net --
said.

The suit seeks to certify a class of more than 5,000 children, and
specifically targets Marion, Scott, and Lake counties and seeks
legal recognition that would require the appointment of legal
counsel to children in Child in Need of Services and Termination of
Parental Rights cases.

"It's very rare that any child is appointed a lawyer to represent
the child in a proceeding about where that child is going to live,
where they're going to school, whether they're going to be
separated from their siblings," DeLaney said.

Representatives from The Marion County Public Defenders Agency say
if the suit is successful, they would be on board for representing
children in future cases.

"The children do deserve to have a voice and they deserve to have
due process. Because this does impact their liberty," Chief Counsel
Ann Sutton said.

Sutton says the current process the state uses includes the
appointment "guardians ad litem" special advocates to represent for
children involved in CHINS and TPR proceedings but stops short of
legal representation.

"At the outset of these cases the goal is always reunification and
that is the one voice that is many times missing," she said.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson from the Attorney
General's Office said they are "conducting a review to determine if
the state plays any role in this litigation."[GN]


INTERJET: Failed to Offer Refund Options to Customers, Suber Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEIDRA SUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABC AEROLINEAS, S.A. DE C.V. INC.,
d/b/a INTERJET, a Mexican corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH03111 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 8, 2019), seeks damages
for Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals who
fulfilled their obligations under Interjet's Contract of Carriage
and were injured when Interjet breached its obligation under the
contract to offer refund options to customers whose flights are
cancelled; and to prevent Defendant from continuing to breach its
contract by refusing to issue refunds.

According to the complaint, Interjet prides itself on offering
low-cost airfare to customers. Jose Louis Garza, Interjet's Chief
Executive Officer, stated Interjet is "giving the flying public the
inspiration to fly again. We understand what travelers are looking
for in an airline partner - not just lower fares, but everything
they used to get for the price of a ticket, such as free checked
bags, seat selection, free beverages and snacks onboard."

Unfortunately, Interjet's claim that it "understands what travelers
are looking for in an airline partner" is belied by its systematic
practice of refusing to issue refunds to customers who are
contractually entitled to them.

Interjet has maintained significant business contacts with the
State of Illinois and Cook County for several years by operating
nonstop service between Mexico City and Chicago O'Hare
International. 3 Since 2016, Interjet's Mexico-City-Chicago route
is serviced by two daily flights, each with a capacity of 150
people. This totals 2,100 people per week on this route alone, and
218,000 people over two years.

The Chicago Department of Aviation in 2016 noted that "[t]hese
flights [to Mexico City] are estimated to generate $45 million in
annual economic impact for the Chicago region.?" In 2018, Interjet
opened an additional daily route between Chicago O'Hare
International Airport and Guadalajara International Airport.
Interjet sells and issues plane tickets in the State of Illinois
and Cook County, advertises its services directly to residents of
Illinois and Cook County, and conducts business directly with the
City of Chicago and O'Hare International Airport, the lawsuit
says.

Interjet provides passenger and freight air transportation services
across various destinations in Mexico and internationally. Interjet
is Mexico's third largest airline, measured by passengers carried,
and has serviced international flights to and from the United
States since 2012.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Sydney Janzen, 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
                  sjanzen@edelson.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Law Firms to Pursue Talc Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Onley, writing for The Grio, reports that attorney R. Allen
Smith of Smith Law Firm, PLLC and civil rights attorney Benjamin
Crump have joined forces to pursue litigation over the manufacture
and marketing of talc, including the way companies like Johnson and
Johnson market their products with a laser focus on Black and
Latino women.

Messrs. Crump and Smith hosted a press conference in Atlanta on
Feb. 25 at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church Amphitheater along
with Janice L. Mathis, Esq., the executive director of National
Council of Negro Women (NCNW), the oldest advocacy group for
minority women, not only to alert women of color, but to look for
women who may be suffering as a result of using this product.

Messrs. Crump and Smith are going on the road, traveling throughout
the country, to find and speak to women, educating them about this
issue.

Mr. Smith, who is from Ridgeland, Mississippi, has taken on similar
talc cases on behalf of several plaintiffs and was recently
retained to represent Mississippi in seeing civil fines against the
company.

In July 2018, a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to issue a
payment of up to $4.7 billion to 22 women that claimed their
ovarian cancer diagnoses were directly related to the company's
baby powder.

The group was also at Ebenezer Baptist Church Amphitheater to
discuss the evidence that shows a direct correlation between
ovarian cancer and the use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.

"We have to protect our women of color," said Mr. Crump said.
"There is evidence that Johnson & Johnson preyed on women of color
while possessing scientific reports that showed a linkage between
talcum powder and ovarian cancer."

During the press conference, Mr. Allen explained that his team is
in possession of multiple documents that prove that Johnson &
Johnson deliberately targeted Black, Hispanic, and obese women to
increase their sales, knowing full and well that Black women are
prone to ovarian cancer at higher levels when using baby powder in
their genital areas.

The documents are being used as part of several existing lawsuits
filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims. They contend that
Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that its talc products include
asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause
ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, according to Business Insider.

Mr. Crump believes Johnson & Johnson engaged in "cynical tactics to
market these products to women of color, while knowing their
potential harm."

"Johnson & Johnson devalued Black lives by expressly marketing a
product to black customers that they knew for decades to be
harmful," said Crump. "Given that many Black workers' retirement
funds depend on government pension funds that invest in this stock
for their retirement, Johnson & Johnson victimized them twice,
jeopardizing their physical and their financial health."

If you're a woman of color who believes your cancer diagnoses is
directly links to the use of Johnson & Johnson's baby power,
contact Attorney Crump, at 844-638-1822 or fill out the free case
evaluation form at bencrump.com/contact/.[GN]


KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Filed After Couple Says Car Started on Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Campbell, writing for WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando, reports that
a class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7 against Kia Motors after
a Polk County couple said their car started on fire.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Daniel and Christine Adams, alleges
in August, their 2013 Kia Sorrento started on fire while they were
driving. The family said their infant son was in the back seat of
the car at the time.

The lawsuit claims "frantic onlookers began to honk and attempt to
get Mr. and Mrs. Adam's attention" and the warning indicators on
the dashboard turned on "like a Christmas lights display."

The lawyer for the couple wrote, "Mrs. Adams rushed to the back
seat where their infant child was secured in his car seat, and
lucky Mr. and Mrs. Adams were able to free their child."

A picture showing the vehicle on fire was also submitted with the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit also alleges Kia was notified of mechanical issues as
early as June 2013 after people submitted complaints to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Court documents show the couple said their Kia had an engine
replacement just two months prior to the fire in response to a
voluntary recall.

Kia Motors told News 6 that it does not comment on pending
litigation.[GN]


KRAFT HEINZ: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of The Kraft
Heinz Company (NASDAQ:KHC) common stock during the period between
May 4, 2017 and February 21, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action
was filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned
Walling v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Kraft Heinz common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 24, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kraftheinz/.

The complaint charges Kraft Heinz, certain of its current and
former officers and 3G Capital, Inc., one of Kraft Heinz's largest
beneficial stockholders, with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Kraft Heinz manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe and internationally.
Kraft Heinz products include condiments and sauces, cheese and
dairy products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and
other grocery products.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Kraft Heinz's operations and
financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose,
among other things, that Kraft Heinz had been materially
overstating the value of certain of its important product lines;
that Kraft Heinz's intangible assets, including goodwill,
associated with, at least, its Kraft natural cheese, Oscar Mayer
cold cuts, and U.S. Refrigerated and Canadian retail businesses
were materially impaired; that Kraft Heinz had been employing
improper accounting policies and procedures associated with its
procurement function, including, but not limited to, agreements,
side agreements, and changes or modifications to its agreements
with its vendors; that Kraft Heinz had been improperly accounting
for the costs of products sold; and that Kraft Heinz had been
operating with material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting, including controls related to the accounting
and disclosure of new accounting standards, its cost of products
sold, its procurement function, the impairment of goodwill and the
impairment of intangible assets. As a result of this information
being withheld from the market, Kraft Heinz stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with its
stock price reaching a high of more than $93 per share.

Then on February 21, 2019, Kraft Heinz announced its financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2018, including an impairment
charge of $15.4 billion. The Company stated that, "[d]uring the
fourth quarter, . . . [it had] concluded that, based on several
factors that developed during the fourth quarter, the fair values
of certain goodwill and intangible assets were below their carrying
amounts. As a result, the Company recorded non-cash impairment
charges of $15.4 billion to lower the carrying amount of goodwill
in certain reporting units, primarily U.S. Refrigerated and Canada
Retail, and certain intangible assets, primarily the Kraft and
Oscar Mayer trademarks. These charges resulted in a net loss
attributable to common shareholders of $12.6 billion and diluted
loss per share of $10.34." The same day, Kraft Heinz disclosed that
it had received a subpoena in October 2018 from the SEC "associated
with an investigation into the Company's procurement area, more
specifically the Company's accounting policies, procedures, and
internal controls related to it procurement function, including,
but not limited to, agreements, side agreements, and changes or
modifications to its agreements with vendors." On these
disclosures, the price of Kraft Heinz stock fell $13.23 per share,
or more than 27%, to close at $34.95 per share on February 22,
2019.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive
years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in
its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both
the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class
action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate
governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for
investors worldwide. [GN]


LAS 3K USA: Fajardo Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANIBAL FAJARDO and other similarly-situated individuals v. LAS 3K
USA, L.L.C., d/b/a QUE CHULADA, d/b/a EL CAPO BRICKELL, and JAIRO
AVELLANEDA individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-20797-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
February 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages for alleged unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LAS 3K USA, L.L.C., doing business as QUE CHULADA, doing business
as EL CAPO BRICKELL, is a Florida corporation, having a place of
business in Dade County, Florida.  Jairo Avellaneda is now the
owner, partner and manager of the Defendant Corporation.

LAS 3K USA is a restaurant company, which operated under the name
of Que Chulada, a Mexican restaurant located at 1250 S. Miami
Avenue, #101, in Miami, Florida.  On April 17, 2017, the Defendant
began to operate in the same location El Capo Brickell, a
combination of restaurant/bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LEND-A-HAND: Walburn et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Lend-a-Hand Services, LLC seeks to
recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ approximately 15
hourly employees that provide home healthcare services to clients
at any given time. The Plaintiffs were hourly paid, non-exempt
employees of Defendants as that term is defined in the FLSA and
Chapter 4111.

The Plaintiffs consistently worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
during the three years prior to filing the cComplaint. The
Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

On numerous occasions, the Plaintiffs approached Defendant Nerswick
and told him that they believed that they and the other hourly
employees should be receiving overtime pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant responded that he had never
offered overtime pay and was not going to pay it, the lawsuit
says.

The case is captioned as MARY WALBURN, 5153 Norwich Street
Hilliard, OH 43026; JOHNATHAN BAILEY, 62173 Forestview Drive
Cambridge, OH 43725; MISTY HALL, 9849 Lancaster New Lexington Road
Bremen, OH 43107; JILL HOLLETT, 1866 Cedar Hill Rd. Apt. A
Lancaster, OH 43130; MEGAN HUGHES, 79 East Canal Street, Apt. C
Carroll, OH 43112; ALLISON MITCHELL, 11109 Frasure Helber Rd, Lot
10 Logan, OH 43138; JESSICA ROTH, 5045 Sugar Grove Road Sugar
Grove, OH 43155; and JOSHUA SLIKER, 62173 Forestview Drive
Cambridge, OH 43138 for themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs vs. LEND-A-HAND SERVICES, LLC 4925 Vanlear
Road Columbus, OH 43229 and PAUL NERSWICK 4925 Vanlear Road
Columbus, OH 43229, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00711-ALM-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, Feb. 28, 2019).[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: 614 610-4134
          Facsimile: 614 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Lexicon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LXRX) and certain of its officers and
directors.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-00301,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all behalf of persons and/or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lexicon securities
between March 11, 2016 and January 17, 2019, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lexicon securities between
March 11, 2016, and January 17, 2019, you have until April 1, 2019,
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Lexicon was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in The Woodlands,
Texas.  Lexicon is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for
the treatment of human diseases.

"Sotagliflozin" is the scientific name of one of Lexicon's
orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates under development.
Sotagliflozin is in Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of
type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In November 2015, Lexicon entered into a collaboration and license
agreement with Sanofi S.A. ("Sanofi"), a French multinational
pharmaceutical company.  Under the collaboration and license
agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an exclusive, worldwide,
royalty-bearing right and license to develop, manufacture and
commercialize Sotagliflozin.  Lexicon is responsible for all
clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes and
retains an exclusive option to co-promote and have a significant
role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of
Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United
States.  Sanofi is responsible for all clinical development and
commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 2
diabetes worldwide and is solely responsible for the
commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1
diabetes outside the United States.

On May 22, 2018, Sanofi filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") for
"Zynquista" (the trademarked, commercialized name of Sotagliflozin)
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  The NDA for
Zynquista was based on data from the inTandem clinical trial
program that included three Phase 3 clinical trials (called,
respectively, "inTandem1," "inTandem2," and "inTandem3") assessing
the safety and efficacy of Zynquista in approximately 3,000 adults
with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes.

According to Jorge Insuasty, Senior-Vice President, Global Head of
Development, Sanofi, "[i]f approved, Zynquista would be the first
oral antidiabetic drug approved in the U.S. for use by adults with
type 1 diabetes, in combination with insulin."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data from Lexicon's Phase 3
clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin
in treating type 1 diabetes were not as positive as Lexicon
represented; (ii) the health risks posed by Sotagliflozin were
severe enough to threaten its FDA approval prospects; and (iii) as
a result, Lexicon's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the Endocrinologic and
Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA (the "Advisory
Committee") had "voted eight to eight on the question of whether
the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product] Zynquista
(sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval."

On news of the Advisory Committee's stalemate, Lexicon's stock
price fell $1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to close at $5.96 per share
on January 18, 2019.

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


LIBERTY HEALTH: Brower Piven Notifies Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Liberty Health
Sciences, Inc. (Other OTC: LHSIF) ("Liberty" or the "Company")
securities during the period between June 28, 2018 through December
03, 2018 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until March 08,
2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Liberty securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Liberty, in
conjunction with Aphria Inc. ("Aphria"), was involved in a scheme
whereby numerous fraudulent acquisitions and transactions were made
to provide undue benefits to both companies' insiders.

According to the complaint, following a December 3, 2018 report
that Aphria was involved in the acquisition of shell companies at
artificially inflated prices, and December 6, 2018 news reports of
Liberty's connection to Aphria's illicit dealings, the value of
Liberty shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Liberty securities purchased on or after June 28, 2018 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the
end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


LIBERTY POWER: Massachusetts Ct. Bifurcates Discovery in Katz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL KATZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY POWER
Corp., LLC et al, Civil Action No. 18-cv-10506-ADB (D. Mass.),
Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (i) bifurcated individual and class
discovery, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective
Order regarding certain third-party subpoenas.

Katz, Alexander Braurman, and Lynne Rhodes allege violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TPCA") and fraudulent
transfers to the detriment of four putative nationwide classes of
persons who received telemarketing calls on behalf of Defendants
Liberty Power Corp, LLC and Liberty Power Holdings, LLC.

This action was filed on March 16, 2018.  The complaint has been
amended twice, most recently on Nov. 14, 2018.  On Jan. 9, 2019,
Liberty Power filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Although the Court has not yet ruled on that motion,
the parties have -- quite appropriately -- engaged in considerable
discovery.  As a result, Liberty Power has identified several
perceived weaknesses in the named Plaintiffs' claims and argues
that it may be able to show, after limited additional individual
discovery, that the named Plaintiffs lack viable claims. Liberty
Power requests that the Court bifurcate discovery and permit a
dispositive motion on the named Plaintiffs' claims before class
discovery.

As part of Liberty Power's efforts to secure discovery to support
its arguments that the named Plaintiffs do not have viable claims,
it issued third-party subpoenas to Verizon, Cellco Parnership,
Vonage, and Google, providers of telephone and email services used
by the Plaintiffs.  he Plaintiffs move for a protective order
prohibiting enforcement of those third-party subpoenas, or
alternatively narrowing their scope.

Judge Burroughs finds that the need for class discovery may be
eliminated if Liberty Power is able to demonstrate that all of the
named Plaintiffs lack viable individual claims.  Further, class
discovery is not necessary to address certain issues that may be
dispositive of the Plaintiffs' individual claims or ability to
bring the asserted class claims, including whether the phone
numbers at issue are within the TCPA, whether named Plaintiffs' are
within the classes they purport to represent, and whether any named
Plaintiffs with a viable claim can demonstrate the Court's
jurisdiction to resolve that claim.  The parties will complete
discovery relevant to the alleged TCPA violations committed against
the named Plaintiffs by May 22, 2019.  The Class discovery is
stayed until further order of the Court, and the parties will file
a joint letter setting forth their respective positions concerning
class discovery by May 31, 2019.  Liberty Power will file any
motion for summary judgment based on the named Plaintiffs'
individual claims by June 21, 2019.  The Plaintiffs will respond in
accordance with the local rules.

Next, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows third-party
subpoenas in connection with civil litigation but requires parties
to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense
on a person subject to the subpoena.  Although the subpoena at
issue requests the production of emails in the District of Columbia
and a motion to quash or modify the subpoena would be more properly
filed in the United States District Court where performance is
required, the Court retains jurisdiction to restrict the scope of
discovery and issue protective orders in accordance with Rule 26.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order with
respect to the subpoena of Mr. Katz's emails from Google is
granted.  Given the absolute clarity of the law in this area, the
Defendants are warned that similar subpoenas could result in
sanctions.

Finally, the Judge finds that given the uncertainty as to how some
of the Plaintiffs' phone numbers were being used, the subpoenaed
account records are potentially relevant and do not impose an undue
burden on the named Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Protective Order concerning subpoenas of telephone account records
is therefore denied.  The Defendants will treat the records
produced in response as "Confidential" under the Protective Order,
and will not inquire at any deposition as to the content of calls
that the Plaintiffs concede do not concern the Defendants, their
agents, or TCPA claims.  The Defendants may inquire whether calls
are of a business or personal nature but may not go beyond that for
calls that do not relate to TCPA violations alleged in the case or
elsewhere.

Accordingly, Judge Burroughs bifurcated discovery in the cas.  The
discovery relevant to the merits of the named Plaintiffs'
individual claims will conclude by May 22, 2019.  The class
discovery is stayed until further order by the Court, and the
parties will file a joint letter stating their positions on class
discovery by May 31, 2019.  The Defendants will file a status
report on or before May 31, 2019 to inform the Court as to whether
they intend to move for summary judgment for some or all of the
named Plaintiffs' claims.  The Defendant may then move for summary
judgment with respect to some or all of the named Plaintiffs'
claims by June 21, 2019.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order
with respect to Liberty Power's subpoena of emails, but denied with
respect to the subpoenas of telephone account records, including
call logs and other requested information.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/QfyeZ4 from Leagle.com.

Samuel Katz, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David
Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens
LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, pro hac
vice, Grace Parasmo -- gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- Parasmo
Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, Suzanne L. Havens Beckman --
shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens, LLP, pro hac
vice, Yitzchak H. Lieberman -- ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
-- Parasmo Lieberman Law, pro hac vice, John L. Fink --
jfink@westborolawyer.com -- Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R.
Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice.  

Alexander Braurman & Lynne Rhodes, Plaintiffs, represented by Ethan
Mark Preston, Preston Law Offices, David Christopher Parisi Parisi
& Havens LLP, Grace Parasmo, Parasmo Lieberman Law, John L. Fink,
Sims and Sims LLP & Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Mazie Slater Katz &
Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company &
LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Charles A. Zdebski --
czdebski@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey P. Brundage -- jbrundage@eckertseamans.com --
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R.
Waksler -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC & Rachel E. Moynihan -- rmoynihan@eckertseamans.com --
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Jefferson Sessions United States Attorney General, Interested
Party, represented by Susan M. Poswistilo, United States Attorney's
Office.

LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company &
Liberty Power Corp., LLC, Delaware limited liability company,
ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Charles A. Zdebski, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Craig R. Waksler,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Jeffrey P. Brundage, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.


LINCOLN LENDING: Court Flips Dismissal of Claim 21 in Tejera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Luis Tejera, et al., Appellants, v. Lincoln Lending
Services, LLC, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D16-2746 (Fla. Dist.
App.), Judge Kevin M. Emas of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Third District (i) affirmed in part and reversed in
part the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice counts 19
and 21 of Tejera's operative complaint against Omar Romay and
America-CV Network, LLC ("ACV"), as barred by the statute of
limitations; and (ii) remanded for further proceedings.

Accepting as true all allegations of the operative complaint,
Tejera and others were victims of an illegal mortgage rescue scheme
devised and perpetrated by Lincoln Lending, and several related
individuals and entities.  This scheme consisted of collecting
illegal up-front fees from individuals, such as Tejera, who were in
need of "mortgage rescue services," but after collecting payment,
those services were never provided because the scheme was "designed
to steal money from consumers."

In furtherance of this scheme, the Lincoln Defendants advertised
their services on Channel 41 in Miami, Florida, which was operated
by Okeechobee Television Corp., a company owned by Romay, and
alleged to be Romay's "alter ego."  This television advertising
provided the medium for the scheme, and enticed Tejera and the
purported class members to use the services offered by the Lincoln
Defendants.  The success of the scheme depended on this "heavy
rotation of advertising."

At some point, Romay was made aware that the Lincoln Defendants
were not performing any of the advertised services, but Romay
became a willing co-conspirator in the mortgage rescue fraud
scheme, and continued to air the heavy rotation of advertisements
for the fraudulent mortgage rescue conspiracy.  In March 2009, the
Florida Attorney General commenced a civil action against Lincoln
Lending and its managing member for the fraudulent scheme and
obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting Lincoln Lending from
operating a mortgage rescue business.

Tejera filed the instant lawsuit as a class action against the
Lincoln Defendants, alleging claims of unfair and deceptive trade
practices and civil theft.  After several amendments, a fifth
amended complaint was filed alleging claims against Romay and ACV
for civil conspiracy to commit civil theft (count 19) and civil
conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the inducement (count 21).
Tejera further alleged that he could not have discovered the facts
giving rise to an action against Romay and ACV until April 2012.

ACV and Romay filed motions to dismiss these counts, contending
that the claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations
for civil conspiracy.  As to count 21, alleging civil conspiracy to
perpetrate fraud in the inducement, Tejera acknowledged a four-year
statute of limitations applied, but contended that the delayed
discovery doctrine also applied, and that the four-year limitations
period did not begin to run until the date when the facts giving
rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been
discovered with the exercise of due diligence (which, as Tejera
alleged in the complaint, was not until April 2012).  Following a
hearing, the trial court dismissed, with prejudice, count 21
against Romay and ACV.  Tejera appeals.

Judge Emas affirmed without further discussion the trial court's
dismissal of count 19 (alleging a claim for civil conspiracy to
commit civil theft), as the trial court properly determined that
count was barred by the statute of limitations.  Because Tejera's
claim of conspiracy to perpetrate fraud in the inducement alleged
an action "founded upon fraud," the Judge holds that section
95.031(2)(a)'s delayed discovery doctrine may properly be invoked
in determining when the statute of limitations began to run on
claim 21.  The trial court erred in dismissing this count with
prejudice, as barred by the statute of limitations, where Tejera's
complaint alleged that he could not have discovered the facts
giving rise to this claim against Romay and ACV until April 2012.

For these reasons, the Judge affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded for further proceedings.  Not final until disposition
of timely filed motion for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RxMHal from Leagle.com.

Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo Corona and Ricardo M. Corona --
info@coronapa.com -- for appellants.

Dorta & Ortega, P.A., and Omar Ortega -- info@dortaandortega.com --
and Rosdaisy Rodriguez; David M. Rogero, P.A., and David M. Rogero
-- dmrogero@rogerolaw.com -- and Yvette H. Ayala --
yhayala@dmrpa.com -- for appellees.


LIVE POULTRY: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA VARGAS SANCHEZ (A.K.A. MARGARITA), individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIVE
POULTRY FARM CORP. (D/B/A LIVE POULTRY FARM), WEBSTER LIVE CHICKEN
MARKET INC. (D/B/A LIVE POULTRY FARM), MUFID SAWADALLAH, ALI
MUSTAFA, HAMADA DOE, and TONY MENDOZA, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02179 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a live poultry market,
located at 1167 Webster Ave., Bronx, NY 10456 under the name "Live
Poultry Farm."  Ms. Vargas is a former employee of Defendants. She
was employed as a poultry cutter at the a live poultry market. The
Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that she worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Defendants' conduct extended beyond
the Plaintiff Vargas to all other similarly situated employees.
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff Vargas and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a live poultry
market, located at 1167 Webster Ave., Bronx, NY 10456 under the
name "Live Poultry Farm."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------
LogMeIn, 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 a securities class action entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc.
et al.

On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Securities Class Action") was initiated by purported stockholders
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company and certain of its officers,
entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-07285).


On November 6, 2018 the case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330). The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning
renewal rates for the Company's subscription contracts.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. It enables people to connect with each other
worldwide to drive meaningful interactions, deepen relationships,
and create better outcomes for individuals and businesses. LogMeIn,
Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts with additional locations in North America, South
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LX 1204 JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Jimenez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. LX 1204 JEWELRY INC, KEVIN LEE and SAM [LNU], Case
No. 1:19-cv-01908 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

LX 1204 Jewelry Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of New York with a principal place of business
located at 1204 Broadway, in New York City.  The Individual
Defendants are officers or principals of the Corporate Defendants.

The Company sells jewelry items, including necklaces, earrings,
bangles, bracelets and rings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


LYON HOME: Vickers Seeks Back Pay
---------------------------------
BRANDI VICKERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. LYON HOME ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00039-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 8, 2019), seeks to
recover back pay, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney
fees, costs of litigation and other relief from Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract.

According to the complaint, in or around November 2018, the
Defendant hired the Plaintiff to work going door-to-door offering
the Defendant's repair services to individuals in and around Panama
City, Florida. The Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff 8% of the
billings it received on behalf of customers whom Plaintiff signed
up for the Defendant's services.

The Plaintiff stopped working for the Defendant in January 2019. At
the time, she was owed $5,602.69 in commissions. She received one
check from Defendant in the amount of $1,508.37, but Defendant has
refused to pay her any additional money.

The Plaintiff worked both regular hours for which she did not
receive minimum wage and overtime hours for which she received no
compensation.  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 proposed additional class consists of other service writers,
who like Plaintiff were not paid minimum wage for each week of
their employment and were not paid overtime when they worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1 st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244-2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com

MASSACHUSETTS: Court OKs I. Liviz's In Forma Pauperis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the case captioned ILYA LIVIZ,
Plaintiff, v. CHARLIE BAKER, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
19-10304-WGY. (D. Mass.).

Through this purported class action, Liviz seeks to challenge
alleged discriminatory conduct concerning the right to travel.
Liviz alleges that his Massachusetts drivers' license was (1)
deemed non-renewable based upon unpaid tickets and (2) suspended
based upon three surchargable events. Plaintiff explains that by
the paying applicable fees and completing a driver retraining
program, he could obtain a Massachusetts driver's license.  

Upon review of Liviz' motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court concludes that he is without income or assets
to pay the $400.00 filing fee. The motions are therefore granted.

When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of
the filing fee, summonses do not issue until the Court reviews the
complaint and determines that it satisfies the substantive
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Section 1915 authorizes
federal courts to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims
therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.  

In order to establish standing, Liviz must show that (1) he
personally has suffered some actual or imminent injury as a result
of the challenged conduct (2) the injury can fairly be traced to
that conduct and (3) the injury likely will be redressed by a
favorable decision from the court.  

Here, there are no adequate allegations that the non-Massachusetts
defendants caused the plaintiff any injury. Conclusory assertions
of harm in states other than Massachusetts do not remedy this
deficiency.

To the extent Liviz challenges the constitutionality of his license
suspension or non-renewal, federal district courts do not have
discretion to exercise jurisdiction over cases brought by
state-court losers' challenging state-court judgments rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced. The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes a federal action if the relief requested would
effectively reverse or void a state court decision, or if the
plaintiff's claims are inextricably intertwined with the state
court action. To the extent Liviz seeks to have this federal court
review the underlying motor vehicle infractions, find them
incorrect and reverse such decisions, there is no jurisdiction for
such federal court review.

Liviz contends that the defendants deprived him of his fundamental
right to travel because of the suspension and non-renewal of his
Massachusetts driver's license. However, enforcement of state motor
vehicle licensure requirements does not violate the United States
Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional
right to travel.   

However, the constitutional right to travel guarantees: (1)
citizens of one State the right to travel across borders into
another State (2) visiting citizens the right to be treated as a
welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien and (3)
newly-arrived residents the right to the same privileges and
immunities that longstanding citizens of the state enjoy but not
the right to drive a car without a license.

Liviz contends that his liberty interest in traveling has been
impeded by the loss of driver's license and that, but for his
inability to pay, he would have his driver's license. This
allegation is insufficient to state a claim that the government
violated his right to travel. The right to travel protects how a
citizen in a state is treated by the government compared to other
citizens in that same state or another state.

Because the requirements of procedural due process apply only to
the deprivation of interests encompassed by the [Constitution's]
protection of liberty and property and because the range of
interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite, the
first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the
plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in property' or
liberty.  

Liviz contends that but for his inability to pay, he would have his
Massachusetts driver's license restored. Given the multiple
procedures available to avoid suspension and/or non-renewal, the
allegations have not shown that the process for suspending
plaintiff's license is constitutionally inadequate. There are
opportunities to challenge the factual premise for non-renewal
and/or suspension as well as avenues through which to avoid the
loss of a license.

To the extent Liviz alleges that a violation of substantive due
process, plaintiffs must prove that they suffered the deprivation
of an established life, liberty or property interest, and that such
deprivation occurred through governmental action that shocks the
conscience. To shock the conscience, the challenged conduct must be
egregious and outrageous, such as conduct that is intended to
injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest. No
such offensive conduct is at issue here and the complaint fails to
allege inadequate process.

In light of this, this action will be dismissed in 21 days unless
Liviz files an Amended Complaint which cures the pleading
deficiencies noted herein. Any amended complaint must comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it
must clearly state the grounds for relief and include specific
factual allegations in support of those claims. The plaintiff must
clearly identify each named defendant and state the specific
allegations against each. The amended complaint must also
demonstrate how the plaintiff was harmed by each defendant's
actions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxkzzavx
from Leagle.com.

Chief Jurist Ilya Liviz Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Ilya Liviz,
Liviz Law Office.


MAXWELL: Investors File Class Action to Halt Tesla Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for electrek, reports that Tesla's move to
acquire battery and ultra-capacitor tech company Maxwell is being
challenged by investors in a class action lawsuit to stop the
acquisition.

Earlier in February, Tesla announced the acquisition of the San
Diego-based ultracapacitor and battery company Maxwell for over
$200 million.

Bloomberg Terminal is now reporting that some investors have filed
a class action in San Diego federal court to abort the all-stock
transaction, which they say was at an "unfair" price in an "unfair"
process.

Before the deal was announced, Maxwell's stock traded at just over
$3.00 per share for a valuation of $140 million.

The board approved Tesla's offer to acquire them for $4.75 per
share making the transaction worth over $200 million.

Electrek's Take
The seriousness of this class action is unclear at this point.

The board has approved Tesla's offer and it sounds like they did
approve the deal with the backing of most investors.

That said, there was a lot of back and forth between the two
companies and it sounds like Maxwell was pushing for a much higher
price.

Apparently, Tesla and Maxwell had discussions for years over
potential opportunities between the two companies, but Tesla
started being serious about acquiring them in December 2018.

At that point, they started negotiations and Tesla made several
offers that were refused. It wasn't until Tesla threaten to pull
their interest in the company that they finally decided to accept
the offer.

It's nothing exceptional when it comes to acquisition negotiation,
but it's something to think about as some investors are trying to
kill the deal.

Here's a timeline of the discussions between Tesla and Maxwell:

On December 12, 2018, Brian Scelfo of Tesla contacted Dr. Fink to
convey Tesla's interest in a potential acquisition of Maxwell
rather than pursuing a strategic commercial relationship. Prior to
December 12, 2018, none of the discussions between representatives
of Maxwell and Tesla involved the possibility of an acquisition of
Maxwell. Mr. Scelfo explained to Dr. Fink Tesla's strategic
rationale for a potential acquisition of Maxwell. Dr. Fink informed
Mr. Scelfo that while Maxwell was not actively looking to sell the
company, he would inform the Maxwell board of directors of Tesla's
current interest in a potential acquisition of Maxwell.

On December 13, 2018, Dr. Fink received a call from Mr. Scelfo, who
called Dr. Fink as a follow up to his December 12 call, to express
Tesla's interest in conducting due diligence for a potential
transaction. Following the call, Mr. Scelfo sent a mutual
nondisclosure agreement to Dr. Fink so the parties could begin
discussions and for preliminary diligence in connection with a
potential transaction. On December 14, 2018, Tesla and Maxwell
entered into the mutual nondisclosure agreement related to a
possible negotiated transaction between Tesla and Maxwell.

On December 14, 2018, Tesla delivered a non-binding letter of
intent to Dr. Fink proposing to acquire 100% of the outstanding
shares of capital stock of Maxwell for a per share purchase price
of $2.35, which represented a premium of 15.2% from the closing
price of Maxwell's stock on December 14, 2018. The purchase price
would be paid in shares of Tesla stock based on an exchange ratio
to be fixed at the time of signing definitive transaction
documents. In addition, Mr. Scelfo requested that Maxwell enter
into an exclusivity agreement as it related to a proposed
acquisition and delivered a draft to Dr. Fink. Dr. Fink then
promptly informed the Maxwell board of directors of the letter of
intent and interest from Tesla.

On December 16, 2018, Dr. Fink called Mr. Scelfo to inform him that
the Maxwell board of directors would be holding a telephonic
meeting on December 18, 2018, primarily for the purpose of
approving a transaction unrelated to the Tesla non-binding letter
of intent, and the Maxwell board of directors would also likely
consider the Tesla offer at this meeting, but that based on
Maxwell's standalone plan and the moderate proposed premium to the
Maxwell trading price represented by Tesla's initial offer, the
offer presented by Tesla would likely not be accepted by the
Maxwell board of directors. Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo agreed that an
in-person meeting between representatives of Tesla and Maxwell
would be helpful for Tesla to further understand Maxwell's
products, technology and operations and the benefits of a potential
acquisition transaction and allowing it to offer a higher
valuation.

Between December 17 and December 19, 2018, Dr. Fink had numerous
calls and email correspondence with Mr. Scelfo in order to prepare
for an inperson meeting on December 20, 2018. Dr. Fink also
informed Mr. Scelfo that the Maxwell board of directors declined
Tesla's offer, and that Tesla would need to increase its offer
price to interest the Maxwell Board in a sale transaction.

On December 20, 2018, senior business development and engineering
personnel and other members of Tesla management met with the CEO,
CFO, senior operations personnel and other members of Maxwell
management at Maxwell's headquarters. Maxwell provided Tesla with
further information regarding Maxwell's products, technology and
operations for the purpose of assisting Tesla with further
analyzing the benefits of a potential acquisition transaction.
Representatives of Tesla also provided information regarding
Tesla's programs and particular interest in Maxwell's business,
product lines and operations.

Following the meeting on December 20, 2018, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf
of Tesla, delivered a revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr.
Fink to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of capital stock of
Maxwell for a per share purchase price of $3.10, which represented
a premium of 56% from the closing price of Maxwell's stock on
December 20, 2018. Other terms of the offer remained the same as
the initial letter of intent. Mr. Scelfo also indicated that a
decision regarding a potential acquisition of Maxwell by Tesla
would have to be reached quickly in order to not delay other
important investment decisions at Tesla. Dr. Fink promptly provided
the revised letter of intent to the Maxwell board of directors
along with an update of his discussions with Mr. Scelfo.

After the December 22, 2018 Maxwell board of directors meeting, Dr.
Fink informed Mr. Scelfo that Tesla's revised offer was not
accepted by the Maxwell board of directors and that the Maxwell
board of directors would need a higher price in order to support a
sale transaction with Tesla. Dr. Fink informed Mr. Scelfo, however,
that he and his team were willing to work with Tesla through the
holidays to help Tesla better understand the value that Tesla could
realize through an acquisition of the company and further explain
why the Maxwell board of directors was seeking a higher valuation.

Between December 23 and December 28, 2018, Dr. Fink had numerous
email correspondences with Mr. Scelfo in order to conduct further
diligence and discuss the benefits of a potential transaction.
During this period, Mr. Scelfo also conveyed that Tesla was no
longer interested in a potential strategic commercial arrangement
with Maxwell and it would move in a different direction should
Maxwell and Tesla be unable to reach an agreement regarding a
potential acquisition of the entire capital stock of Maxwell.

After the December 28, 2018 Maxwell board of directors meeting, Dr.
Fink contacted Mr. Scelfo via e-mail to discuss why the Maxwell
board of directors felt a higher valuation was justified. Dr. Fink
also provided Mr. Scelfo with a high-level summary of management's
net present value analysis, as reviewed by the Maxwell board of
directors at the meeting earlier in the day. Dr. Fink also provided
Mr. Scelfo with buy-in analysis of Maxwell's larger institutional
investors as previously previewed by the Maxwell board of
directors. In addition, Dr. Fink reiterated that it was the view of
the Maxwell board of directors that a higher value would likely be
needed to gain the support of Maxwell's largest institutional
investors. At such time, Dr. Fink indicated to Mr. Scelfo that it
was the Maxwell board of directors' view that it would likely
require at least $5.75—$6.00 per share to gain the support of
Maxwell's largest institutional investors.

Between January 3 and January 7, 2019, Dr. Fink had additional
email and telephone correspondence with Mr. Scelfo.

On January 7, 2019, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf of Tesla, delivered a
revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink to acquire 100% of
the outstanding shares of capital stock of Maxwell for a per share
purchase price of $4.35, which represented a premium of 75% from
the closing price of Maxwell's stock on January 7, 2019. The other
terms of the offer remained the same as Tesla's initial letter of
intent. Dr. Fink shared the revised non-binding letter of intent
with Maxwell's Strategic Transaction Committee on the morning of
January 8, 2019.

In connection with the revised offer, Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo
agreed to arrange an additional in-person meeting pursuant to which
Tesla could meet additional members of the Maxwell team and learn
more about Maxwell's operations, technology and products.

Dr. Fink and Mr. Scelfo continued to communicate via email in
between January 7, 2019 and January 10, 2019, and Dr. Fink
indicated that Tesla's latest offer was unlikely to be accepted by
the Maxwell board of directors.

On January 11, 2019, senior business development and engineering
personnel and other members of Tesla management met with the CEO,
CFO, senior operations personnel and other members of Maxwell
management and personnel at Maxwell's headquarters in San Diego.
During the meetings, Tesla indicated that members of its management
team would be having a technical and business review on the
following Monday and an update on negotiations with Maxwell would
be provided to Tesla's Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee.
Tesla made it clear that their latest offer was at the high end of
the range in which approval from its Audit Committee had been
given. Moreover, Mr. Scelfo indicated that, while Tesla may
consider any counter-proposal from Maxwell, any higher proposal
from Maxwell may cause Tesla to discontinue discussions and explore
any and all alternative solutions available to Tesla, including
alternatives that were simultaneously being considered or in
development at Tesla.

On January 18, 2019, Mr. Scelfo, on behalf of Tesla, delivered a
revised non-binding letter of intent to Dr. Fink. The offer
continued to be an acquisition of 100% of the outstanding shares of
capital stock of Maxwell. In the non-binding letter of intent,
Tesla indicated a new per share purchase price of $4.75. While this
was still lower than Maxwell's initial request of $5.75-$6.00 per
share that was discussed with Mr. Scelfo in December, it
represented a premium of 66% from the closing price of Maxwell's
stock on January 17, 2019. Tesla indicated it would be amenable to
discussing a fixed value construct, subject to a potential mutually
agreed to price collar should Tesla share price move outside a
certain percentage between signing and closing.

On January 20, 2019, Maxwell received a priority due diligence list
from Tesla.

On January 23, 2019, Maxwell provided certain employees of Tesla
with access to a virtual data room that contained materials
regarding Maxwell's business that were responsive to Tesla's
priority due diligence request list. Throughout the negotiation
period, Maxwell continued to provide materials and Tesla continued
to conduct due diligence on Maxwell.

From January 19 through January 22, 2019, Tesla and Maxwell
continued to exchange revised drafts of the non-binding letter of
intent and exclusivity agreement.

On January 23, 2019, Maxwell and Tesla entered into the non-binding
letter of intent and an exclusivity and non-solicitation agreement
with Tesla providing for exclusive negotiations through February
21, 2019. Later on January 23, 2019, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and
Rosati, Tesla's outside legal advisors ("WSGR"), sent a draft of a
proposed definitive merger agreement to representatives of DLA
Piper LLP (US), Maxwell's outside legal advisor ("DLA").

Between January 23, 2019 and February 1, 2019, representatives of
Maxwell held a number of lengthy management meetings in person and
by conference call with various representatives of Tesla, during
which in-depth financial, technological, legal and other due
diligence was conducted, including meetings at Tesla's offices on
January 24 and 25, 2019, between members of Maxwell's management
and other employees of Tesla.

On January 24, 2019, representatives of DLA provided a revised
draft of the definitive merger agreement to representatives of
WSGR. Significant areas of negotiation included the scope and terms
of the interim operating covenants, the timing of the closing and
the outside date for the transaction, the structure of the
transaction, the calculation of the Tesla trading price and collar
terms, the terms upon which Maxwell could consider an alternative
acquisition proposal and the process for dealing with any such
proposal, and triggers for the possible payment of a termination
fee and/or possible expense reimbursement.

On January 26, 2019, WSGR sent an initial draft of a form tender
and support agreement in line with Tesla's request to have certain
Maxwell executive officers and all directors and their affiliated
funds sign such an agreement. On January 27, 2019, representatives
of DLA provided a revised draft of the form of tender and support
agreement to representatives of WSGR, which was finalized over the
course of the next several days.

On January 26, 2019, Tesla delivered a more extensive due diligence
request list to Maxwell that supplemented the initial high priority
due diligence request list. Maxwell continued to provide materials
to Tesla in response to the due diligence request lists.

Between January 25 and February 2, 2019, representatives of DLA and
representatives of WSGR exchanged drafts of the merger agreement
and ancillary transaction documents and held telephonic discussions
to progress negotiations between the parties on transaction terms.

On January 31, 2019, members of Maxwell management, along with
representatives of DLA, held a conference call with members of
Tesla management regarding reverse legal and financial due
diligence by Maxwell of Tesla and Tesla Common Stock. After the
close of market trading on February 1, 2019, representatives of
Tesla visited Maxwell's facility in Peoria, Arizona, to view the
commercial production facility. Members of Maxwell's senior
management and engineering personnel were also present.

On February 3, 2019, the Tesla board of directors held a special
meeting and approved the terms of the merger agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby. Following the meeting, on
February 3, 2019, Maxwell and Tesla signed the definitive merger
agreement and, before the open of markets on February 4, 2019,
Maxwell issued a press release announcing the transaction. [GN]


MDL 2492: Hoffman Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jeffrey Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00446 (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-01135 to the proceeding.

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

The Hoffman 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: Kimble Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Melvin Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00455 (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-01148 to the proceeding.

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

The Kimble 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: Lauback Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Tyler Lauback, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00503 (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-01169 to the proceeding.

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

The Lauback 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: MacLellan Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Darren MacLellan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and University of La Verne, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00480 (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-01143 to the proceeding.

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

The MacLellan 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: Moor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Sheldon Moor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00459 (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-01107 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 Student-Athletes.

The Moor 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: Purdie Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Robert Purdie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and William Penn University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00491 (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-01159 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 William Penn
University Student-Athletes.

The Purdie 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: Sepanski Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Joshua Sepanski, 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 and Southwest Baptist University, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00488 (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-01156 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 Southwest Baptist
University Student-Athletes.

The Sepanski 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: Swanson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Daniel Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00370 (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-01174 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 Swanson 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: Van Doren Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MATTHEW VAN DOREN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00355 (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-01049 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
Lafayette College student-athletes.

The Van Doren 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: Williams Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Lorenzo Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00454 (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-01146 to the proceeding.

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

The Williams 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, Charles Wilson, 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-00471 (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-01125 proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2741: Burchfield vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled STEVEN BURCHFIELD, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00205 (Filed
Feb. 11, 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 March 4,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-01187-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 Burchfield 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.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
          jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834

MDL 2741: Kirsch Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NEIL KIRSCH, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-159 (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-00959-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 Kirsch 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: Poroz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NATALA POROZ, as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM P. BECKWITH, deceased, the
Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00077 (Filed Feb. 15, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Mar. 8, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01243-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. Noonan, Esq.
          McTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN,
          WHITNEY & TOKER, PA
          Four Union Park
          PO Box 5000
          Topsham, ME 04086-500
          Telephone: 207-725-5581
          Facsimile: 207-725-1090

               - and -

          Paul M. Dominguez, Esq.
          DOMINGUEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          Albuquerque, NM 87184
          Telephone: 505 850-5854
          Facsimile: 505 796-5107
          E-mail: paul@dominguez.law

MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL: Settlement in Blanchard Has Prelim OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned JULIE BLANCHARD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Case No.
3:17-CV-01309-SMY-GCS. (S.D. Ill.).

The Court makes a preliminary finding that this action satisfies
the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). The Class as defined in the Settlement
Agreement is so numerous that joinder of all members is not
practicable, there are questions of law and fact common to the
Class, the claims of the Class Representative are typical of the
claims of the Class, and the Class Representative will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Class. Questions of law and
fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.

For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily finds that
settlement of the Litigation, on the terms and conditions set forth
in the Agreement, preliminarily appears in all respects fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the Class Members
and within the range of possible approval, especially in light of
the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further
litigation, the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals, and
the limited amount of any potential total recovery for the class.
This finding is subject to further consideration at the Final
Approval Hearing.

The Court approves the Parties' notice plan as set forth in the
Agreement including the form and substance of the written class
notice.  This Court finds the Parties' proposed notice plan as set
forth in the Agreement, including the Class Notice, fully satisfies
the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and any other applicable laws, and
constitutes: (i) the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and (ii) due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled thereto. Accordingly, this Court approves the form and
content of the notice plan and Class Notice.

Any Class Member who does not timely opt-out of the Settlement may
appear at the Final Approval Hearing to argue that the proposed
Settlement should not be approved. All written objection papers
must be mailed to the Clerk of the Court and served on Counsel for
the parties, postmarked no later than May 28, 2019. To the extent
necessary or desired, the Settling Parties may respond to any
properly submitted objections no later than seven (7) days before
the Final Approval Hearing. There shall be no replies from
objectors.

All papers in support of the Settlement Agreement shall be filed no
later than June 10, 2019. All proceedings in this Litigation are
stayed pending final approval of the Settlement, except as may be
necessary to implement the Settlement or comply with the terms of
the Stipulation.

This Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of
the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to the Settlement
Class and may approve or modify the Settlement without further
notice to the Settlement Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y3z27l3bfrom Leagle.com.

Julie Blanchard, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs --
ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, et al., Heather Kolbus,
Edelman, Combs, et al., Isabella M. Janusz, Edelman, Combs, et al,
James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, et al., & Daniel A. Edelman --
courtecl@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, et al.

Medical and Professional Collection Services Inc, Defendant,
represented by David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson & James M. Brodzik -- jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com
-- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


MICHIGAN: Transfer of M. Carter Suit to Circuit Court Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion affirming the
Court of Claims' judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Case
Transfer in the case captioned MARLON CARTER, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
POLICE, Defendants, and MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and STATE
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, Defendants-Appellants. MARLON CARTER,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE and DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Defendants-Appellants, and MICHIGAN
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, Defendants.
Nos. 341349, 341594. (Mich. App.).

Defendants, the Michigan Civil Service Commission, the Michigan
State Police, and their respective directors, appeal by right the
order of the Court of Claims granting the motion of plaintiff,
Marlon Carter, to transfer his case back to the circuit court and
denying as moot defendants' joint motion for summary disposition
brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law).

The Plaintiff, who is African American, applied to the Michigan
State Police after passing required preliminary tests, but his
application was denied because, as characterized by plaintiff, he
had previously accepted a deed in lieu of foreclosure, resulting in
a credit issue. The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action
complaint in Wayne Circuit Court against defendants. He alleged
violations of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), claiming
disparate impact, intentional racial discrimination, and
discrimination through failure to monitor the adverse impact of
hiring decisions.  

The Defendants filed notices to transfer the case to the Court of
Claims. The Court of Claims granted the plaintiff's motion to
transfer the case back to the circuit court and denied defendants'
motion for summary disposition as moot.  

The Defendants first argue that the state has sovereign immunity
from trial by jury under the ELCRA.

The Defendants present this argument in an effort to keep the case
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

In Doe v Dep't of Transp, 324 Mich.App. 226, 231; 919 N.W.2d 670
(2018), this Court held that the Legislature waived the state's
immunity from jury trial in actions brought under the ELCRA.  The
Court concluded that because plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial
against defendant in her action under the ELCRA, the Court of
Claims had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court by virtue
of MCL 600.6421(1); therefore, the Court of Claims did not err by
transferring the case back to the circuit court.

Next, the defendants contend that the Court of Claims erred when it
determined that the plaintiff did not waive his right to a jury
trial. According to the defendants, if the plaintiff waived his
right to trial by jury, he would not be entitled to a jury trial
and, therefore, would not be entitled to a transfer to the circuit
court.  

In the instant case, the plaintiff initially demanded a trial by
jury, and he engaged in litigation in the circuit court for nearly
two years before the case was transferred to the Court of Claims.
After the case was transferred, the plaintiff participated in the
proceedings for about three months: he filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add equitable and damage claims; he requested the
court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff, and he mentioned
looking forward to continuing the case in the Court of Claims. But
plaintiff's primary argument in requesting a transfer of the case
back to the circuit court was that he had a right to a jury trial
on the ELCRA claims. And plaintiff simultaneously withdrew his
request to amend the complaint.

The Court concludes that the plaintiff did not waive his right to a
jury trial, explicitly or implicitly, where it cannot be inferred
that the right was waived based on his conduct under a totality of
the circumstances. The relatively brief period the case was in the
Court of Claims, especially when viewed in context with the circuit
court proceedings, and plaintiff's innocuous acts do not suggest
that he intended to waive his right to a jury trial.  

Finally, the defendants argue that the Court of Claims should have
granted their motion for summary disposition on the basis that
plaintiff had not filed a notice of intent to file a claim as
required by MCL 600.6431(1).

The Court of Claims found that the argument was moot, and the
defendants fail to address the mootness ruling. When an appellant
fails to dispute the basis of a lower court's ruling, we need not
even consider granting the relief being sought by the appellant.
Indeed, defendants fail to provide any legal analysis or reasoning
with respect to the question of MCL 600.6431(1)'s continuing
relevance or application in light of the procedural posture of the
case. It is insufficient for an appellant to simply announce a
position or assert an error and then leave it up to us to discover
and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate
for him his arguments, and then search for authority to sustain his
position.  

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Mich. App.'s February 21, 2019 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y4635y4afrom Leagle.com.

LEONARD MUNGO, for MARLON CARTER/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee.

JEANMARIE MILLER, for STATE POLICE, Defendant.

CHRISTOPHER W. BRAVERMAN, for CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellant.


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

Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MU)
Class Period: October 15, 2018 - November 19, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mu

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Micron was engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with
Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, and that such unlawful behavior
could lead to severe sanctions against the Company.

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


MIDWEST WATER: Varble Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS VARBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST WATER & CONCRETE, INC. d/b/a
"MIDWEST BASEMENT TECH," WILLIAM S. JONES and KAREN JONES, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00247 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2019),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois’
Employee Classification Act.

According to the complaint, Midwest Water & Concrete operates a
basement waterproofing and concrete repair business servicing large
portions of Illinois, Missouri and Kentucky. MW&C employs laborers
to perform waterproofing and repair services for its customers. The
Laborers travel between MW&C's facility and the first job site of
the day, travel between job sites, and travel between the last job
site of the day and MW&C's facility. Although MW&C correctly
classifies the Laborers as "employees" while they are at job sites,
MW&C misclassifies the same Laborers as "independent contractors"
during such travel. By misclassifying the Laborer’s during travel
time, MW&C evades federal and state overtime pay requirements.

MW&C has violated the ECA by failing and refusing to designate
Plaintiff and the Class as "employees." MW&C thus  permitted
Plaintiff and the Class to work more than 40 hours in a workweek
without proper overtime compensation. MW&C's failure to comply with
the ECA caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer loss of overtime
wages and interest. The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
unpaid overtime wages and any employee benefits denied, an equal
amount thereto in liquidated damages, up to $500.00 for each
violation of the ECA or associated regulations, attorney's fees and
costs, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Jack R. Daugherty, Esq.
          SHORT AND DAUGHERTY P.C.
          325 Market St.
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: 618-462-9160
          Facsimile: 618-462-9167
          E-mail: jack@siltrial.com

MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Espinoza-Sanchez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ESPINOZA-SANCHEZ, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. MIKE'S PLACE AT OAKWOOD, INC., d/b/a
MIKE'S OAKWOOD DINER; and MICHAEL MOUDATSOS JR.; jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-01201 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and the
class for alleged unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mike's Place at Oakwood, Inc., doing business as Mike's Oakwood
Diner, is a New York business corporation with its office in
Richmond County.  Michael Moudatsos, Jr., is an owner, shareholder,
officer, or manager of the Defendants' business.

The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing
business as Mike's Oakwood Diner and located at 3161 Amboy Road, in
Staten Island, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MISSISSIPPI FARM: Court Certifies Class in Britt FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN BRITT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSISSIPPI FARM
BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No.
1:18-cv-00038-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Judge Glen H. Davidson of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi,
Aberdeen Division, (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
(ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
modify the proposed notice and notice plan.

The Plaintiffs are current and former insurance agents who sold
insurance policies for the Defendants.  They contend that despite
being nominally considered independent contractors, the Defendants
exerted a level of control over them to make them employees, that
they worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and that the Defendants
did not pay them overtime.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), and ask the Court to order the Defendants to
provide them with the contact information of the potential class
members.  Further, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize them
to provide the proposed notice and reminder notice attached to
their motion to potential class members.

The Plaintiffs initially defined the putative class as all
individuals who, through a contract or agreement with Mississippi
Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life
Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.,
perform or performed as insurance agents for and who were
classified on paper by Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. as independent contractors anywhere
in the State of Mississippi at any time from the date that is three
years preceding the commencement of the action through the close of
the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent to join
in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Through briefing, the Plaintiffs voluntarily refined the class
definition to be all individuals who, through a contract or
agreement with Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.,
Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. and/or Southern Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Co., perform or performed as insurance agents
for each of them or any of them anywhere in the State of
Mississippi and who were classified on paper by each of them or any
of them as independent contractors and who work or worked in excess
of 40 hours during any work-week at any time from the date that is
three years preceding the commencement of the action through the
close of the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent
to join in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Defendants object to certification of the putative class on the
grounds that members of the putative class would not be similarly
situated.  Additionally, they object to the proposed notice and
notice plan submitted by the Plaintiffs.  

Judge Davidson finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of
showing that conditional certification is proper at this time.
Accordingly, their motion to certify class is granted in part.  He
approved the modified class definition:  All individuals who,
through a contract or agreement with Mississippi Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Co., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co.
and/or Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., perform or
performed as insurance agents for each of them or any of them
anywhere in the State of Mississippi and who were classified on
paper by each of them or any of them as independent contractors and
who work or worked in excess of 40 hours during any work-week at
any time from the date that is three years preceding [he Court's
final order approving the Plaintiff's notice through the close of
the Court-determined opt-in period and who file a consent to join
in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Judge further finds some of the Defendants objections to the
proposed notice are well-taken.  Accordingly, he granted in part
and denied in part Defendants' motion.  The Plaintiffs agree to
withdraw their requests for social security numbers.  The Judge
admonishes the Plaintiffs to utilize telephone numbers only to
facilitate delivery of the Court approved notice and for no other
purpose.

The Plaintiffs have not yet shown that such reminder notices are
necessary to facilitate notice.  This is especially so since the
Plaintiffs intend to send both mail and email initial notices and
to utilize telephone numbers to verify the opt-in Plaintiffs
addresses.  Accordingly, the Defendants objection is sustained and
the Plaintiffs reminder notice is disapproved without prejudice to
their ability to later request reminder notices be sent, should a
compelling reason to do so arise.

The Judge notes that one necessary change is readily apparent.
First, the notice contains language stating "FLSA AND FICA OPT-IN
CLASS ACTION". The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' FICA
claims.  Any reference to FICA are stricken.

The proposed notice should contain a statement of the Defendant's
basis for disputing liability.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
objection to the one-line description of their defenses is
sustained.  The Judge ordered that said description is replaced
with the Defendant's proposed language.  He further ordered that
the following language be inserted in the notice: "You may be
required to pay your proportional share of taxable court costs if
the plaintiffs receive an unfavorable decision."

The Judge also ordered that the first sentence of the language
concerning attorneys' fees be modified to state that: "In the event
that Farm Bureau prevails in this action, there will be no
recovery, and you will not be required to pay any attorneys'
fees."

The Judge set the opt-in period at 60 days from the date that
notice is mailed.

Finally, having already resolved the Defendants' objections to the
proposed notice, he finds the Defendants' request that the Court
orders the parties to meet and confer on a proposed notice
agreement and notice plan unwarranted.

The Plaintiffs will file a revised notice and consent form
incorporating the rulings contained in the Opinion for the Court's
final approval.  An order in accordance with the Opinion will
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/y5Vkjm from Leagle.com.

Megan Britt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Brett Hawkins, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Steve Harbour, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Jason Norman, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Brian Miley, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Clint Buckley,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jason
Baker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
& Chris Carney, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Arch W. Bullard --
abullard@claytonodonnell.com -- CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC, Sidney Ray
Hill, III -- rhill@claytonodonnell.com -- CLAYTON O'DONNELL, PLLC &
Dana Gail Dearman -- ddearman@claytonodonnell.com -- Clayton
O'Donnell, PLLC.

Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company & Southern Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by James
R. Moore, Jr. -- jmoore@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH,
Rebecca Jordan Blunden -- rblunden@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK,
TAYLOR & BUSH, P.A. & Robert C. Richardson -- brichardson@cctb.com
-- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH.

Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Cathleen Bell Bremmer, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro hac
vice, Irma Reboso Solares, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA, pro hac
vice, Markham R. Leventhal, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. &
Stephanie A. Fichera, CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro hac
vice.


MISSOURI: Court Denies Certification of Dalton's Class of Indigents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Randall Lee DALTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael
BARRETT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04057-NKL (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Central Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The lawsuit challenges the adequacy of the Missouri State Public
Defender ("MSPD"), which provides legal representation to all
indigent citizens accused or convicted of crimes in Missouri state
court.  The Named Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
alleging that Missouri has failed to meet its constitutional
obligation to provide indigent defendants with meaningful
representation. The crux of their allegations is that the MSPD is
underfunded and overworked, and they seek only injunctive and
declaratory relief aimed at correcting the issues.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of similarly situated
individuals who currently are or will be represented by MSPD
defined as all indigent persons who are now or who will be during
the pendency of the litigation under formal charge before a state
court in Missouri of having committed any offense the penalty for
which includes the possibility of confinement, incarceration,
imprisonment, or detention (regardless of whether actually
imposed), and who are eligible to be represented by MSPD.

The Plaintiffs' Class Action Petition for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief, includes five claims for relief: (I) Violation
of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
(II) Violation of Article 1, Section 18(a) of the Missouri
Constitution; (III) Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution; (IV) Violation of
Article 1, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution; and (V)
Violation of Missouri Criminal and Juvenile Codes.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to (i) declare that the Defendants are
obligated to provide constitutionally adequate representation to
indigent criminal defendants and juvenile respondents, including at
their initial appearances; (ii) declare that the constitutional and
statutory rights of Missouri's indigent criminal defendants and
juvenile respondents are currently being violated by the Defendants
on an ongoing basis; (iii) enjoin the Defendants from continuing to
violate the rights of indigent Defendants by providing
constitutionally deficient representation; and (iv) enter an
injunction that requires Defendants to propose and implement,
subject to thw Court's approval and monitoring, a plan to ensure
that all indigent criminal Defendants and juvenile respondents in
the State of Missouri are provided with constitutionally adequate
legal representation.

Judge Laughrey finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish Rule
23(a)'s commonality requirement.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a
statewide, 10,000+ member class, with no common policy other than
alleged system-wide underfunding.  

The Plaintiffs also fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(1)(B).  The Judge
finds that there is no limited fund of public defenders, and the
resolution of one indigent Defendant's inadequate assistance claim
would not preclude others from seeking similar relief.  The supply
of public defenders can be expanded by the legislature, as can its
funding.  Indeed, regardless of whether the funding and staffing of
MSPD is adequate, both appropriations and the amount of public
defenders have increased over the past 25 years.  Accordingly, she
says, it follows that if a plaintiff were to succeed on an
individual suit for inadequate representation, it would not
necessarily impede any other potential plaintiff from raising a
similar claim.

Finally, the Judge finds that as the proposed class is not
sufficiently cohesive, the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule
23(b)(2).  The proposed class would require evidence and inquiries
into far too many individual circumstances.  Furthermore, although
the Plaintiffs maintain that a single injunction would provide
relief to each member of the class, their proposal requires the
Defendants to propose and implement a plan to ensure that all
indigent criminal Defendants and juvenile respondents in the State
of Missouri are provided with constitutionally adequate legal
representation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Laughrey denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify a Class.

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

Randall Lee Dalton, Dorian Samuels, Viola Bowman & Brian Richman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice
Center at St. Louis, Anjali Prasad, pro hac vice, Anthony E.
Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation,
Anthony Tartaglio , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac
vice, Camille Joanne Rosca, pro hac vice, Easha Anand --
eanand@orrick.com -- Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose --
erose@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R.
Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation,
Jason D. Williamson, pro hac vice, Jessie Steffan, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Matthew R. Shahabian --
mshahabian@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac
vice, Robert L. Sills, pro hac vice & Will Melehani, pro hac vice.

Michael Barrett, H. Riley Bock, Charles R Jackson, Craig Chval & A.
Crista Hogan, Defendants, represented by John Gregory Mermelstein,
Missouri State Public Defender Admin and Appellate & Patrick J.
Berrigan, Missouri State Public Defender System Capital Litigation
Division, Western District.


MISSOURI: Summary Judgment Bid in Gasca Prisoners Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE GASCA, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ANNE PRECYTHE,
Director of the Missouri, Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB (W.D. Missouri), Judge Stephen
R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment.

The lawsuit challenges the parole revocation policies and
procedures of the Missouri Department of Corrections and its
Division of Probation and Parole.  The Plaintiffs argue there is no
genuine dispute as to the material facts underlying the Plaintiffs'
claim that the Defendants' revocation policies and procedures
violate their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as articulated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and Morissey v.
Brewer.

The Plaintiffs seek prospective relief on behalf of a class of all
adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who
in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings.

The Defendants concede that the policies that existed at the time
the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action complaint did not
satisfy Due Process requirements, and that the Defendants have
taken substantial corrective measures to remedy these
shortcomings.

Judge Bough finds no genuine dispute of material fact and the
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MDTySS from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Gasca, Mildred Curren, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely,
Amber Wyse, Timothy Gallagher & Solomon Warren, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan --
amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org -- MacArthur Justice Center at St.
Louis, Locke E. Bowman -- l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu -- Roderick
and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, pro hac vice, Megan G. Crane,
pro hac vice & Sheila A. Bedi -- sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu
-- Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, pro hac vice.

Anne L. Precythe, in her official capacity, Director of the
Missouri Department of Corrections, Kenneth Jones, in his official
capacity, Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation and
Parole, Jennifer Zamkus, in her official capacity, Vice Chair of
the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Jim Wells, in his
official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and
Parole, Martin Rucker, in his official capacity, Member of the
Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Ellis McSwain, Jr, in his
official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and
Parole, Gary Dusenberg, in his official capacity, Member of the
Missouri Board of Probation and Parole & Paul Fitzwater, in his
official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and
Parole, Defendants, represented by Doug Shull, Missouri Attorney
General's Office & Justin Moore, Missouri Attorney General's
Office.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA L. BARNES and EDWARD BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01235-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
18, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE BATES III, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01236-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Baucoms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA BAUCOM and EARNEST BAUCOM, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00380 (E.D. Mo., March 1,
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: Bonzos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
GARY L. BONZO and MELISSA BONZO,, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01238-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brewsters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN H. BREWSTER and JUDITH M. BREWSTER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00376 (E.D. Mo.,
March 1, 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's 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: Collinses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN COLLINS and EDWARD COLLINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00352-JAR (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: Davises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY DAVIS and VIRGINIA DAVIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00355 (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: Fellows Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONI FELLOWS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00365 (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 Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: McCoy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL D. MCCOY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No 4:19-cv-00357 (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: Morrises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY W. MORRIS AND ROSEMARIE MORRIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00341 (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: Ridner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK RIDNER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00351-JAR (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: Seeger Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SEEGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00385 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 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: Supinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SUPINSKI, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00347 (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: Woodersons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE M. WOODERSON and LORETTA WOODERSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00377 (E.D. Mo.,
March 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONTGOMERY & MCCRACKEN: Removes Waleski Suit to M.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery & McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP removed the case
STANLEY WALESKI, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similary situated, the Plaintiff, v.  Montgomery & McCracken Walker
& Rhoads, LLP, Natalie D. Ramsey and Leonard A. Busby, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-1144, from Court of Common Pleas,
Luzerne County, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on March 8, 2019. The Middle District of
Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 19-01087-mew to the
proceeding.

The complaint seeks to recover damages for breach of contract
arising from the firm's actions and inactions committed while
representing the interest of the Plaintiffs in connection with the
Tronox Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Specifically, Waleski alleges that
the firm breached professional obligations set forth in the
Contingent Fee Agreement date January 27, 2009 between the
Defendant Powell Law Group, PC, the Plaintiffs' tort law firm.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Robert P. Johnson, Esq.
          Emily G. Montion, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513 352 6769
          E-mail: Rob.Johnson@ThompsonHine.com
                  Emily.Montion@ThompsonHine.com

MOVIE GRILL: Tate Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DASHAWNA TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS XXVI LLC, a Texas
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02682
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's
capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct.

The case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiff's and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. The Defendant does this in the form of finger scans,
which capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant use that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale
or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest
bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations
addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric
information by private entities, such as Defendant.

The Illinois Legislature has found that "biometrics are unlike
other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other
sensitive information." 740 ILCS 14/S(c). "For example, social
security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics,
however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once
compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk
for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from
biometric-facilitated transactions."

The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on
the capture, collection, storage and use of their workers'
fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute
and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's employees in
Illinois have been required to clock "in" and "out" of their work
shifts by scanning their fingerprints. When clocking in and out
using the fingerprint scans, Defendant's biometric computer systems
then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out."

Unlike traditional time clock punch cards which can be changed or
replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers 1 associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

MR. KABOB: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Usmanova Says
-----------------------------------------------------
RANOKHON USMANOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MR. KABOB RESTAURANT INC.,
dba RAVAGH PERSIAN GRILL, and MONIRETH TEHRANI and MASOUD TEHRANI,
as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02212(S.D.N.Y.,
March 11, 2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations
of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's
employment at the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
waitress, and performing other miscellaneous duties from in or
around August 2009 until the present.

TThe Plaintiff has worked 72 hours or more per week during her
employment. The Defendants failed pay Plaintiff the legally
prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked from im or around
March 2013 until the present, a blatant violation of the minimum
wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 99 Lakeville Seeks Return of Remaining Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
99 Lakeville Road Corp. and all other Petitioners similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Beaumont Jefferson, in his official
capacity as the Treasurer of Nassau County and the County of
Nassau, Defendants, Case No. 19-000145 (N.Y. Sup., February 6,
2019), seeks the return of remaining funds attributable to an
Assessment Fund for the tax years 2016/17 and/or 2017/18 and such
other and further relief pursuant to the Disputed Assessment Fund
Law and New York real property tax laws.

Plaintiff owns real property located within the County of Nassau.
They were obligated, and did pay their taxes without the Disputed
Assessment Fund (DAF). They challenge the assessments and DAF tax
that was charged to them on the 2017 General tax bill. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacqueline L. Mascetti, Esq.
     HERMAN KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP
     538 Broadhollow Road, Suite 307
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: (631) 501-5011

Defendant is represented by:

     Jared A. Kasschau. Esq.
     NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY
     1 West Street
     Mineola, NY 11501
     Tel: (516) 571-3056


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Brain Injury Class Action in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association
and a northeastern Pennsylvania university failed to protect
athletes from head injuries sustained while playing football,
according to a proposed class action filed in Indiana federal
court. [GN]


NAVIHEALTH INC: Nurses Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Mae Barbee and Donna Trone, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Navihealth, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00119 (M.D. Tenn., February 6, 2019), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, damages, equitable relief and other
relief available under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

NaviHealth, Inc. manages post-acute care and care transitions on
behalf of health plans, hospitals, health systems, and post-acute
providers, offering clinical service support, proprietary
technology, and advisory solutions for payers and providers. Barbee
and Trone were employed by NaviHealth as a licensed practical
nurses. Both claim to have rendered in excess of 50 hours per week
without being paid overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
      N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 250-2000
      Fax: (615) 250-2020
      Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
             teeples@yezbaklaw.com

             - and -

      Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
      Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 833-8855
      Fax: (202) 452-1090
      Email: mae@wmlaborlaw.com
             hl@wmlaborlaw.com


NEVRO CORP: Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevro Corp. 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 a securities class action initiated by the
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System.

On August 23, 2018, the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action complaint against
us and certain individual officers alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act.  

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeks unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees based on alleged misleading statements or omissions
by the company and the individual officers regarding the company's
rights in technology underlying the Senza SCS systems and the
termination of the company's former Vice President of Worldwide
Sales. On November 3, 2018, a related shareholder derivative
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking unspecified damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees based on alleged violations
of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach
of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate
assets.

Nevro Corp., a medical device company, provides products for the
patients suffering from chronic pain in the United States and
internationally. The company develops and commercializes the Senza
spinal cord stimulation system, an evidence-based neuromodulation
platform for the treatment of chronic pain. Nevro Corp. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


NEWCOMB OIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Southard FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SOUTHARD, Plaintiff, v. NEWCOMB OIL CO., LLC
d/b/a NEWCOMB OIL CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-803-CRS (W.D.
Ky.), Judge Charles R. Simpson, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

On Nov. 9, 2018, Southard commenced the putative class action
against Newcomb Oil in the Jefferson Circuit Court.  The
Plaintiff's original complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, in addition to Kentucky statutory and common law
claims.  

Specifically, the Plaintiff brought state law claims for failure to
pay overtime under KRS Section 337.285 (Count II), failure to
provide meal and rest periods under KRS Sections 337.355, 337.365,
and 446.070 (Count III), untimely payment of wages and unlawful
withholding of wages under KRS Sections 337.055 and 337.060 (Count
IV), failure to furnish statement of wage deductions under KRS
Section 337.070 (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI).

On Dec. 6, 2018, Newcomb Oil removed the action to this Court based
on federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction.

On Dec. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter
of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),
removing the sole federal claim.  That same day, Newcomb Oil moved
to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims, compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, stay pending individual arbitration.  On Dec. 20,
2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

The next day brought a flurry of competing motions starting with
the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, which asserted that the Court must resolve the Motion for
Remand before the Motion to Compel Arbitration.  The Plaintiff also
filed a motion asking the Court to expedite briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion to stay.  In response, Newcomb Oil filed its own
motion to stay asking the Court to stay briefing on the Plaintiff's
motion to remand pending the Court's resolution of Newcomb Oil's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On Jan. 2, 2019, having received no ruling on the Plaintiff's
motion to stay briefing on the motion to compel, the Plaintiff
filed its response to Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration,
to which Newcomb Oil replied.  On Jan. 10, 2019, having received no
ruling on its motion to stay briefing, Newcomb Oil filed its
response opposing the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, to which the
Plaintiff replied.

February 2019 brought even more motion practice.  On Feb. 5, 2019,
the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply regarding Newcomb
Oil's exhibits attached to Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  Newcomb Oil filed a response in opposition, and filed
a contingent motion for leave to file a response to the sur-reply.


Both parties urge the Court to decide their respective motion
first.  Newcomb Oil's position is that the Court should decide its
Motion to Compel Arbitration because "arbitrability is a mandatory
threshold issue that should be decided at the earliest possible
stage in the proceeding, before discretionary matters such as
supplemental jurisdiction.  In contrast, the Plaintiff asks the
Court to address its Motion to Remand first on the grounds that a
federal court must resolve issues of subject matter jurisdiction
before it decides the merits of a claim.

Although Judge Simpson acknowledges the Plaintiff's use of forum
manipulation, none of the other factors relied upon by the Harper
v. AutoAlliance Int'l. Inc. court are present.  The instant action
has only been on the Court's docket for approximately three months.
The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint six days after Newcomb
Oil removed the case.  In addition, no dispositive rulings have
been issued and the Court has not overseen discovery.

Further, Newcomb Oil's Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to an
alleged arbitration agreement is a contract that must be construed
in accordance with the state law of Kentucky where it was
finalized.  The Kentucky courts are well situated to rule on that
motion.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that comity and the interest
in judicial economy favor remand.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Simpson granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand by a separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/U58hqX from Leagle.com.

Michael Southard, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Abate --
mabate@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com -- Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP.

Newcomb Oil Co., LLC, doing business as Newcomb Oil Co., Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Calabrese -- jeff.calabrese@skofirm.com --
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, John O. Sheller --
john.sheller@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC & Steven T.
Clark -- steven.clark@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC.


OUTERSCAPE INC: Cruz Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Ovidio Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Outerscape, Inc. and Andris S. Morton,
individually and as officer, director and or principal of
Outerscape, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00738, (E.D. N.Y.,
February 6, 2019) seeks damages and other legal and equitable
relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor laws.

Cruz worked as a landscaper for Outerscape's lawn and garden care
business. He regularly worked well in excess of forty hours per
workweek without overtime premium and was denied "spread of hours"
pay for each workday that the he worked in excess of ten hours.
Cruz also claims that he did not receive any wage statements during
his employment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Barravecchio Esq.
      Alexander M. White, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, New York 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7180
      Fax: (516) 706-0248
      Email: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
             rrb@vkvlawyers.com
             awhite@vkvlawyers.com


PACIFIC, MO: Police Dispatchers Hit Missed Breaks, Seeks Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Donoho and Cassidy Hodge, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Pacific, Missouri,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00186, (E.D. Mo., February 6, 2019),
seeks compensatory damages, including for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided by law, incentive award and such
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant is a political subdivision of Missouri where Donoho
worked with the Pacific Police Department communication division
from February 2017 to November 2018, while Hodge worked as a
dispatcher from August 22, 2016 until June 21, 2018, answering 911
and other phone calls, working the police dispatch radio,
communicating with police officers and providing reports to other
dispatchers at shift change.

Both claim to work beyond the scheduled shifts to make reports, did
not take scheduled meal breaks and were never completely relieved
from duty during their shifts because of the nature of their job.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
      2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Tel: (314) 645-4100
      Fax: (314) 736-6216
      Email: kevin@dolleylaw.com


PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 case, Michelle Kendig
and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., was
removed to the Federal Court, California Central District.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
accrued prior to July 1, 2016, ExxonMobil has retained
responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the
lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of
the Torrance refinery and logistics assets. On October 26, 2018,
the matter was removed to the Federal Court, California Central
District.

PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF ENERGY: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 from a class action suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein,
et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On
July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs were added
an additional plaintiff.

PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

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

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, 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 a putative securities class action suit entitled, Trevor
Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J.
Morales, and Mark C. Kelly.

On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and certain of its current or former
officers.

On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the action. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the
Company during various time periods between January 19, 2017 and
May 10, 2018.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. On December 21,
2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, and on January 4, 2019 the defendants filed answers to the
Amended Complaint. This action remains pending.

PPG Industrie said, "The Company believes this action is without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously."

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PRIME CONSULTING: Mims Sues over Cellular Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
CORINTHIA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRIME CONSULTING LLC d/b/a FINANCIAL
PREPARATION SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00435 (E.D. Cal., March 8,
2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around October of 2018,
the Defednant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -8202, in an attempt to 21 solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as
defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted
or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (800)
425-0008.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes. The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs
a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1).

The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent”
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.

Defendant is a document preparation company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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


PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Carrie Collins an individual; on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Prinston
Pharmaceutical Inc. doing business as: Solco Healthcare LLC; and
Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00063224-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on March 1, 2019. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00415-LAB-AGS to the proceeding. The suit alleges
pharmaceutical Personal Injury and product liability related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan
Burns.

Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and
registers generic prescription pharmaceutical products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Duane Morris, Eswq.
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 744-2285
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3315
          E-mail: clbaird@duanemorris.com

PROCOLLECT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Young FDCPA Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned RONNIE YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. PROCOLLECT, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants. No. 4:18-CV-475-A. (N.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a debt collector as
defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Defendant was retained to collect a debt on behalf of the Center of
Assisted Reproduction.  The Plaintiff received a collection letter
from defendant offering to settle the debt for half the balance
owed.  The letter showed that plaintiff's balance on the account
was $0.00, but then attempted to collect $7.50.

The Defendant urges two grounds in support of its motion. First,
the FDCPA does not apply to the conduct at issue in this case,
which occurred after the debt was paid. And, second, the defendant
is entitled to the bona fide error defense under 15 U.S.C. Second
1692k(c).

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense if
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the
initial burden of pointing out to the court that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact.  

Facts Established by Summary Judgment Evidence

The following facts are established by the record: the Defendant
was hired by creditor to collect a past due amount of $75.00 owed
by plaintiff for services rendered by creditor. The Defendant
received a letter from the plaintiff disputing the debt. In
response, the defendant sent a verification letter to plaintiff
including a copy of the patient statement reflecting the $75.00
owed by the plaintiff to creditor. The Defendant changed its
reporting of the debt to in dispute. The Defendant received and
processed a payment in the amount of $75.00 from plaintiff. The
Defendant moved the account into the paid in full category.  

The Plaintiff's spouse contacted defendant by phone to seek proof
of payment. The employee who took the call obtained the spouse's
email address and emailed a paid in full letter addressed to the
plaintiff to the email address provided. During the process of
taking the call and generating the letter, the employee moved the
account from the paid in full category to the information request
return category, and neglected to return the account to the paid in
full category, which had the effect of causing defendant's records
to show that the account was active again.

The law is clear that once a consumer has paid a debt in full,
there is no debt as defined in the FDCPA and the FDCPA does not
apply to post-collection activities. Here, as in those cases, the
plaintiff paid his debt in full and defendant properly noted that
the debt was paid and so reported it. The July 7 letter was an
obvious mistake and not an attempt to collect the debt, which had
been paid in full. And, indeed, the plaintiff was notified on
multiple occasions that such was the case.

Even if the FDCPA applied, and it does not, the defendant is
entitled to the bona fide error defense. That is, a debt collector
may not be held liable if the debt collector shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not
intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the
maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid such error.

In response, the plaintiff simply argues that whether the defendant
is entitled to the bona fide error defense is a fact question. He
has not, however, come forward with any summary judgment evidence
to rebut the declaration supporting the defendant's motion. The
Defendant has met its burden of establishing the defense and is
entitled to judgment.  

The court orders that the defendant's motion for summary judgment
be, and is granted, and the plaintiff take nothing on his claims
against the defendant.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 21, 2019
Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5x4wkx4from
Leagle.com.

Ronnie Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Kandelshein, The
Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein & Yaakov Saks, Stein Saks PLLC,
pro hac vice.

ProCollect Inc, Defendant, represented by John W. Bowdich, II,
Bowdich & Associates, PLLC.


PROSHARES SHORT VIX: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures (NYSEArca: SVXY)
Investors Affected: Investors in ProShares Short VIX Short-Term
Futures ETF pursuant to the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement
and/or between May 15, 2017 and February 5, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain investors in
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: According to the complaint in the
Registration Statement and during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding the risks of investing in the Fund.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that
the Fund was threatened with catastrophic losses as a result of the
Fund's flawed design and the low-volatility environment and acute
liquidity risks that existed during the Class Period. In addition,
during the Class Period defendants made similar false and
misleading statements in numerous financial reports and draft
prospectuses and registration statements filed with the SEC.

         Contact:
         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com  [GN]


RJT MOTORIST: Taylor Suit Hits Illegal Deductions, Seeks OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Taylor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RJT Motorist Service, Inc. and Raymond Tartaglione,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01155 (S.D. N.Y., February 6, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

RJT provides automotive servicing, auto body repairs, towing and
road services. Taylor was hired by RJT primarily as a tow-truck
driver. He claims that RJT deducted the penalties from unpaid
towing charges from his pay, failed to pay him overtime and did not
pay him on time. He also complained about the lack of insurance on
their vehicles for safety purposes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Greben, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
      316 Great Neck Road
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 304‐5357


SMC STONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL, Cumbe Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL VINANZACA CUMBE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMC STONE INTERNATIONAL INC. and SING MING
CHAO, as an individual, Case No. CV 19-1186 (E.D.N.Y., February 28,
2019), alleges that although the Plaintiff worked approximately 72
or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants,
they did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

SMC Stone International Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with a principal executive office in Brooklyn, New
York.  Sing Ming Chao owns and/or operates SMC.

SMC's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
stone, cement, lime, construction sand, gravel and other
construction materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


SOCAL GAS: Removes Victorian's Labor Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Gas removed the case, KATHERINE VICTORIAN, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV01843, from Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California – Western Division on Mar. 8, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01731 to the proceeding.

The complaint purports to assert claims for relief arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant on behalf of a
proposed class of all current and former non-exempt employees of
the Defendant who worked in California at any time since January
24, 2015, in the position of Energy Technician or a position with
11 similar duties and/or job titles.

Specifically, the Plaintiff brings claims for: failure to pay
regular wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish
timely and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business
expenses; and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code section 17200, the lawsuit says.

The Southern California Gas Company is the primary provider of
natural gas to the region of Southern California. Its headquarters
are located in the Gas Company Tower in Downtown Los Angeles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Daniel J. Mcqueen, Esq.
          Limore Torbati, Esq.
          Brett D. Young, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: 213 620 1780
          Facsimile: 213 620 1398

SOGOU INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Sogou Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the
dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate
of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

Sogou Inc. (NYSE: SOGO)
Investors Affected: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on November 9, 2017

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Sogou Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for
regulatory action because of an increase in Sogou merchants' sales
of counterfeit goods; (ii) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou
for regulatory action because Sogou's existing software,
advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were
insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with
governing Chinese regulations, and would need to be updated,
enhanced, and strengthened, thus resulting in increased expenses;
(iii) Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because
of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a
primary driver of Sogou's cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing
with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iv)
Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and
push the Company's AI capabilities to increase product
competitiveness; (v) as a result of altering its smart hardware
strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and
transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou
hoped would reduce its hardware revenue in the second half of 2018;
and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kseclaw.com/securities/sogou-inc/?wire=3

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com  [GN]


SOGOU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sogou Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's
November 9, 2017 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Sogou investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Sogou class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1472.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with Sogou's IPO was materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose that: (1) Chinese regulators were
analyzing Sogou for regulatory action for various reasons,
including, among others, an increase in counterfeit goods sold by
Sogou merchants, and Sogou's existing software and procedures were
insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations; (2)
Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily due to
significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, a primary driver
of Sogou's cost of revenues; (3) Sogou was going to alter its
strategy concerning smart hardware and push its artificial
intelligence ("AI") capabilities to increase product
competitiveness; (4) as a result of altering its smart hardware
strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and
transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou
hoped would reduce its hardware revenues in the second half of
2018; and (5) as a result, Sogou's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1472.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Airline Personnel Hit Biometrics Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Crooms, John Lopez, Latrice Saxon and Stephanie Hill, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Southwest Airlines Co. and Kronos, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2019CH01610 (Ill. Cir., February 6, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory
damages together with costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major United States airline
headquartered and incorporated under the laws of Texas. Kronos
provides biometric timekeeping devices to Southwest. Southwest
improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to Kronos without
informed consent, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


STATE FARM: Fails to Provide 401(k) Plan Benefits, Sheldon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON R. SHELDON, and STEVEN HUNSBERGER, the Plaintiffs, vs. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM LIFE AND
ACCIDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY;
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01080-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Mar. 8, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and equitable relief against Defendants on account of their
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The Plaintiffs worked for State Farm as Term Independent Contractor
Agents ("TICA"), and file this action on behalf of a class for
ERISA violations as all TICAs were misclassified as independent
contractors and not provided 401(k), retirement, and pension
benefits. Plaintiffs also filed this case, individually, for
willful fraud and deceit by State Farm.

Sheldon and Hunsberger were both hired as TICAs by State Farm.
State Farm intentionally misclassifies all TICAs as independent
contractors. By not providing TIC As the same employment benefits
as full time employees, the Defendant State Farm has violated
ERISA, the lawsuit says.

Particularly, State Farm, through its representatives and agents,
induced Plaintiffs to create business proposals that set them up
for failure. State Farm, through oral statements, emails, and
written documentation, also induced Plaintiffs to continually
invest more and more of their own money, into a business that was
destined to fail. Ultimately, State Farm caused Plaintiffs
significant economic harm by creating a fraudulent employment
system.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE MILEKE CHAVEZ ONEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232 7450
          Facsimile: (630) 232 7452
          E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com
                  ecc@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
          FISHER, & GOLDBAR, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 314 0557
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

STATE STREET: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in April
------------------------------------------------------------
State Street 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 final
settlement fairness hearing is scheduled to take place in April
2019.

A State Street shareholder has filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company alleging that the Company's financial
statements in its annual reports for the 2011-2014 period were
misleading due to the inclusion of revenues associated with the
invoicing matter and the facts surrounding our 2017 settlements
with the U.S. government relating to the company's transition
management business.

The Court has preliminarily approved a class settlement in this
matter for $4.9 million. The final fairness hearing is scheduled to
take place in April 2019.

In addition, a shareholder of the company has filed a derivative
complaint against the Company's past and present officers and
directors to recover alleged losses incurred by the Company
relating to the invoicing matter and to our Ohio public retirement
plans matter.

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


STEIN MART: Failed to Maintain Data Security Measures, Kyles Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDE KYLES and DIANE TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STEIN MART, INC.,
a Florida corporation, and SOCIAL ANNEX, INC. (d/b/a, ANNEX CLOUD),
a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-UNA
(D. Del., March 8, 2019), alleges that personal information was
accessed and captured from Defendants' systems by unauthorized
users during at least four of the following different periods of
time between December 28, 2017 and July 9, 2018: May 19, June 1,
June 5, and July 8-9 2018.

The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated whose sensitive financial and personal
non-public information, including but not limited to their (a)
names; (b) addresses; (c) email addresses; and (d) payment card
information (including, inter alia, card numbers, expiration dates,
and security codes ("CVV numbers")).

Annex is a company that provides a service used by websites that
enable consumers to use their user name and password from other
websites -- such as Facebook and Amazon -- to log in to internet
merchants' websites, such as Stein Mart's, to make online
purchases.

On or around November 13, 2018, Stein Mart sent letters to
customers/consumers informing them that Annex's system was accessed
by unauthorized users who were able to capture
customers'/consumers' Personal Information, including payment card
information, entered while making online purchases on Stein Mart's
website.

According to the complaint, Defendants' failure to implement or
maintain adequate data security measures for customers'
information, including Personal Information, directly and
proximately caused injuries to Plaintiffs and the Class. The
Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to employ adequate
security measures or to properly protect sensitive payment Personal
Information despite well-publicized data breaches at large national
retail and restaurant chains in recent years, including Arby's,
Wendy's, Target, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, Harbor Freight Tools,
P.F. Chang's, Dairy Queen, Kmart, and many others.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Defendants' inadequate
data security measures and cavalier approach to data security.
Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of security
breaches involving payment card networks and systems, and despite
the fact that these types of data breaches were and are occurring
throughout the restaurant and retail industries, Defendants failed
to ensure that they maintained adequate data security measures,
causing customers' Personal Information to be stolen and/or
accessed by unauthorized users.

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' negligence
and/or failure to implement and maintain adequate security
measures, a massive amount of information was stolen from
Defendants. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Data Breach
compromised the Personal Information of thousands (if not more) of
Defendants' customers/clients. Victims of the Data Breach have had
their Personal Information compromised, had their privacy rights
violated, been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identify
theft, lost control over their personal and financial information,
and otherwise been injured.

Moreover, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been forced to spend
significant time associated with, among other things, detecting and
expending effort to recuperate fraudulent charges on their debit
and credit cards, cancelling/closing and opening new credit or
debit card accounts, ordering replacement cards, obtaining fraud
monitoring services, losing access to cash flow and credit lines,
monitoring credit reports and accounts, and/or other losses
resulting from the unauthorized use of their cards or accounts.

Rather than providing meaningful assistance to consumers to help
deal with the fraud that has and will continue to result from the
Data Breach, Defendants simply told them to carefully monitor their
accounts. In contrast to what is and has been frequently made
available to consumers in recent data breaches, Defendants have not
offered or provided any monitoring service or fraud insurance to
date.

Had the Plaintiff known that Defendants would not adequately
protect the Personal Information and other sensitive information
entrusted to them, she would not have made purchases on Stein
Mart's online website using her debit card. Had the Plaintiff known
that Defendants would not adequately protect the Personal
Information and other sensitive information entrusted to them, she
would not have transmitted her Personal Information to Defendants
and/or allowed Defendants to store her Personal Information, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
          Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
          Vera G. Belger, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          2711 Centerville Rd, Ste. 201
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500
          E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
                  smt@chimicles.com
                  tjc@chimicles.com
                  vgb@chimicles.com
                  bfj@chimicles.com
                  mbd@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone & Facsimile: 918 588 3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
          www.abingtonlaw.com

SUPERIOR HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Stop Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA LOPEZ-MCNEAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SUPERIOR HEALTH LINENS, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, Defendant, and, AUTOMATIC DATA
PROCESSING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent In Discovery,
Case No. 2019CH02668 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 28, 2019),
wants to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection,
use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.

Super Health Linens, LLC, is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin with its
principal place of business located in Batavia, Illinois.  SHL
provides linens and other textiles to the health care industry in
the Midwest, including in Illinois.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc., provides SHL with human resource
management software and services, including employee time tracking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


SYMANTEC CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses M. Beyer's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Symantec's motion to dismiss the
case, MONTGOMERY BEYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYMANTEC
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02006-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Beyer and Linda Cheslow bring the putative class action alleging
that certain network security software products sold by Symantec
contained critical defects.  Symantec produces and sells network
security software to consumers under the Norton brand and to
businesses under the Symantec brand.

On April 28, 2016, a Google cybersecurity team notified Symantec of
alleged vulnerabilities in the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine, a key
component in the Affected Products.  In particular, the Google team
discovered that the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine was defectively
designed to have unrestricted access to and writing permissions for
the computer's files, opening the operating system up to
corruption.  The High Privilege Defect allegedly violates the
cybersecurity best practice of "the principle of least privilege,"
which dictates that software should operate using the least amount
of privilege necessary to complete its task.  Additionally, the
AntiVirus Decomposer Engine contains third party open source code
that Symantec failed to update for at least seven years, resulting
in critical vulnerabilities.

Beyer was the only named Plaintiff in the original complaint.  The
original complaint asserted five causes of action: (i) a California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim, (ii) a California
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA") claim, (iii) a
California False Advertising Law ("FAL") claim, (iv) a California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim, and (v) a claim for
"Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment."  In May 2018, Symantec moved to
dismiss the original complaint.  The Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion.  The Plaintiffs then filed the operative
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Nov. 26, 2018.

The FAC adds Linda Cheslow as a second named Plaintiff.  Beyer
alleges he purchased five Norton Products containing the defects.
He seeks recovery for the second and third purchases only.  Beyer
made his second purchase in March 2009, when he bought Norton 360
Premier from Symantec's website.  The same year, he purchased
another Norton 360 Premier, v. 2.0 subscription from Best Buy.

Cheslow alleges she purchased two Norton Products containing the
defects, and seeks recovery for both.  She made her first purchase
in June 2009, when she bought Norton Internet Security from
Symantec's website.  he made her second purchase, of Norton 350
Premier, v. 4.0, in December 2010, also from Symantec's website.

Symantec and the Google team reported the Affected Products'
vulnerabilities to the public on June 28, 2016, and simultaneously
issued a security advisory describing software patches Symantec was
deploying to resolve the vulnerabilities.

Symantec's first motion to dismiss contended that Beyer's original
complaint failed to establish Article III standing as to the
Enterprise Products under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
failed to plead the facts and circumstances of Symantec's alleged
fraud regarding its software defects with the particularity
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and failed to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The
Court held that Beyer had "alleged sufficient similarity between
the enterprise and consumer products" to establish standing for
claims based on defects in the Enterprise Products, even though he
had never purchased an Enterprise Product himself.  The Court
dismissed claims regarding Beyer's Third Software purchase without
prejudice because they were based on alleged misrepresentations on
Best Buy's website, rather than statements attributable to
Symantec.

The claims regarding the Beyer Second Software, on the other hand,
were allowed to proceed because Symantec's statement that the
software is "industry leading" may have been actionable
non-puffery, and omitted mention of defects that Symantec had a
duty to disclose.  The Court further held that Beyer had adequately
alleged reliance on Symantec's misrepresentations and Symantec's
knowledge of the defects at the time of sale under Rule 9(b).
Finally, the Court dismissed Beyer's SBA claim without prejudice
because he failed to allege that the Beyer Second Software was sold
at retail in California.

Symantec has again moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The instant motion seeks dismissal of the FAC on six grounds,
different from those raised in the first motion to dismiss.  In
particular:

     (1) the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring any of
their claims because they have not suffered a concrete and actual
injury as a result of the alleged software vulnerabilities;

     (2) the Plaintiffs' CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims fail to plead
with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) any actionable,
non-puffing Symantec misrepresentation upon which Plaintiffs
relied;

     (3) the alleged vulnerabilities were not physical defects that
were central to the functioning of the Affected Products, and
therefore did not give rise to a duty to disclose the
vulnerabilities;

     (4) the Plaintiffs have not alleged in their SBA claim that
the Affected Products were unmerchantable, or that they purchased
the software in California;

     (5) the Plaintiffs' UCL claims fail because they cannot
establish any fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair conduct on the part
of Symantec; and

     (6) the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of
and falls with their other claims.

As to injury in fact based on overpayment, Judge Chen finds that
the Plaintiffs have not established standing based on an
overpayment theory of injury.  The Plaintiffs' economic loss theory
is not credible, as the allegations that the Affected Products are
worth less are conclusory and unsupported by any facts.  In the
absence of a product malfunction, all that the Plaintiffs can offer
is what was found inadequate in Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp. -- a
bare assertion that they overpaid for the Affected Products.  But
they do not allege that disclosure of the alleged defects had "a
demonstrable effect on the market" for the Affected Products, or
that the vulnerabilities were such that "they were forced to
replace or discontinue using their software.  If anything, the
Plaintiffs' case is even more tenuous.

The Plaintiffs do not expressly invoke a theory of standing based
on actual or future harm, but the Judge addresses this issue
briefly for the sake of completeness.  As he discussed, the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged actual harm from the defects
in their software; the performance issues arising from the Beyer
Fifth Software and the vague complaints on Symantec's online forums
have not been shown to be caused by the High Privilege and Outdated
Source Code Defects in the software versions for which the Named
Plaintiffs seek recovery.  But the absence of actual harm is not
dispositive, because an injury supporting Article III standing can
be "actual or imminent."

The Judge finds that the alleged defects in the Affected Products
were revealed in 2016, but despite the fact that the defect existed
since 2005, the Plaintiffs have not cited a single example of
computer malfunction causally connected to the defect.  The Named
Plaintiffs also stopped using the Affected Products years ago.
Accordingly, they have not alleged a credible threat of real and
immediate harm stemming from the alleged defects.  

As the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the jurisdictional
requirement of Article III standing, their claims must be
dismissed, and the Court need not reach Symantec's remaining
arguments for dismissal.  The Judge, however, will allow them one
more opportunity to amend their complaint.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
stated at the Feb. 14, 2019 hearing that with further
investigation, they may be able to allege that the computer
malfunctions Beyer experienced after installing the Beyer Fifth
Software, as well as the performance issues reported on Symantec's
online forums, are attributable to the High Privilege and Outdated
Source Code Defects. W hile the Court cannot say at this point
whether such allegations will be enough to establish standing as to
the Named Plaintiffs, leave to amend will be freely given when
justice so requires, and amendment would not clearly be futile.

To that end, the parties represented at the hearing that they could
engage in limited and focused discovery: the Plaintiffs will be
given: (1) documents in Symantec's possession pertaining to known
or suspected incidents of third-party hacking or exploitation
arising from the alleged defects, and (2) relevant source code that
would allow Plaintiffs to determine whether there is a causal link
between the alleged defects and reported malfunctions. Such
discovery will be produced within 30 days of the Order.  The
Plaintiffs will have 60 days from the order to file a Second
Amended Complaint, provided it can do so consistent with Rule 11.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen granted Symantec's motion to
dismiss with respect to all claims.  The Plaintiffs will have leave
to amend their complaint within 60 days.  The order disposes of
Docket No. 61.

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

Montgomery Beyer, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cassidy Kim --
ckim@sjk.law -- SchubertJonckheerKolbeLLP, Noah M. Schubert --
nschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Robert C.
Schubert -- rschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP,
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP & John Robert Edgar Archibald, Investigation Counsel
P.C., pro hac vice.

Linda Cheslow, Plaintiff, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer,
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Symantec Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurence F. Pulgram
-- lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Ciara Nicole McHale
-- mchale@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Molly Roberta
Melcher -- mmelcher@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: Removes Thomas Case to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Target corporation removed 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, Defendants, Case No. 19CIV00584 (Jan. 29, 2019), from
the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01131
to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts five claims for relief: (1) failure to pay
hourly wages; (2) failure to indemnify; (3) failure to provide
accurate written wage statements; (4) failure to timely pay all
final wages; and (5) unfair business practices under California
unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et
seq. All five of the Plaintiff's claims are premised on Target's
alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff for necessary business
expenses, including the purchase and maintenance of uniforms and
cell phone expenses.[BN]

Target is the eighth-largest retailer in the United States, and is
a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
          Anna M. Skaggs, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  ryanderry@paulhastings.com
                  annaskaggs@paulhastings.com

TETRA TECH: Northern California Residents File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Northern California residents filed a federal class action on Feb.
26 against beleaguered environmental engineering firm Tetra Tech,
alleging the company falsely reported to the government that the
properties affected by last year's wildfires had been properly
cleaned and that no contaminated soil remained.

The 22-page complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco,
claims Tetra Tech and AshBritt Environmental removed "excessive
amounts of soil" and structures unaffected by the fires; destroyed
property such as sidewalks, driveways and septic tanks; and lied to
government agencies and property owners that "land had been
cleaned" and tests that showed soils were uncontaminated when
contaminated soil and debris remained untouched.

The homeowners claim that the two firms took those actions as part
of a conspiracy to increase the amount they would be paid for their
clean-up efforts. The plaintiffs say the companies excavated more
soil than what was needed due to receiving payments of between $200
and $300 per ton of debris.

"Defendants routinely removed excessive amounts of soil, up to six
feet in depth at a time, far more than was necessary to dispose of
contaminants, without performing sampling to determine whether the
soil was contaminated," the complaint states.

The lawsuit also cites a letter sent to the Army Corps of Engineers
from the director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services,
describing "unacceptable" work as part of the clean-up process,
including damage to the homeowners' properties.

"After extensive on-site inspections, the issues we have discovered
thus far include, but are not limited to, obvious over-scraping of
properties, severe damage to driveway and sidewalks, and damage to
wells and septic tanks," the plaintiffs said the letter says.
"Additionally, more than a dozen sites that were deemed cleared by
[the Army Corps of Engineers] have recently been discovered to
contain contaminated ash and fire debris."

The complaint also claims that the companies falsely told
government agencies that soil samples tested as being
uncontaminated when "either no testing for contamination had
occurred on the properties or results of testing for contamination
were falsified."

Plaintiffs allege that the two firms have worked together to
defraud the government since at least 2015 over numerous clean-up
projects they've worked together on across the country.

"The fundamental goal of the enterprise was to maximize the profits
of AshBritt and Tetra Tech by over-excavating on subject properties
and unnecessarily removing non-debris material without testing for
contamination," the complaint states. "Defendants communicated with
each other via daily mail and e-mail correspondence in furtherance
of their scheme to increase profits by over-excavating soil,
needlessly removing debris, overseeing the destruction of
Plaintiffs' property, and falsely claiming test results from
contaminated properties showed the properties were clean."  

The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department sued Tetra
Tech's subsidiary for the work it did in cleaning up former naval
base Hunters Point in San Francisco, claiming it submitted at least
$58 million in false invoices and fabricated radiation data about
the site. Two company managers pleaded guilty last year to
falsifying data.

Despite the DOJ lawsuit, California officials awarded Tetra Tech
with a $250 million dollar contract to test potentially
contaminated soils from the wildfires, despite public concerns
about the firm. Officials with CalRecycle said the contract was
given to Tetra Tech due to its success in seven other debris
clean-up contracts.

The plaintiffs are suing the companies for racketeering and fraud,
among other charges. They are represented by Robert Arns of San
Francisco. [GN]


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, 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 Isolde
consolidated class action is still stayed.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as
co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs").

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing
to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case
styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court
granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close
proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Company anticipates
that the parties will be in communication with the Court in the
near term regarding the stay and further potential proceedings in
this action.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries said, "Based on the information available to the
Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with
respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has
been included in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as
the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to
estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these
matters."

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

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TRIVAGO NV: Holbrook Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY HOLBROOK, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIVAGO N.V., ROLF
SCHROMGENS, AXEL HEFER, NATIONAL CORPORATE RESEARCH, LTD., J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH
INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 8348 (NRB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (i) denied National Corporate Research, Ltd.
("NCR")'s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), and (ii) granted the Defendants' motions
to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) in
their entirety and with prejudice.

Trivago operates a global hotel search platform that allows users
of the Company's website or mobile application to search for and
compare deals from a variety of hoteliers and online travel
agencies.  It offered access to approximately 1.3 million hotels in
over 190 countries as of Dec. 31, 2016.  At all times relevant to
this action, Defendant Schrömgens has served as Trivago's CEO and
Defendant Hefer has served as the CFO.  Both Schrömgens and Hefer
were also managing directors of Trivago.

The initial complaint in the action was filed with olbrook as a
named Plaintiff on Oct. 30, 2017.  On Nov. 7, 2017, a separate case
captioned Oliva v. Trivago N.V., No. 17 Civ. 8634 was also filed in
the district.  After reviewing the three timely filed Lead
Plaintiff applications as required by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, the Court appointed Dharmanand Shetty as the
Lead Plaintiff, approved his counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as
the Lead Counsel, and consolidated the actions under the caption.
The Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated amended complaint on March
30, 2018, which remains operative.

Lead Plaintiff Shetty brings the federal securities class action on
behalf of all individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired american depositary shares of Trivago (1) between Dec. 16,
2016 and Oct. 25, 2017, inclusive, or (2) pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on Dec. 16, 2016.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against Trivago, its CEO Schrömgens, and its CFO
Hefer, the Company's underwriters J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Allen & Company
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Cowen and Company,
LLC, and Guggenheim Securities, LLC, and the Company's U.S.
representative NCR.  The Plaintiffs further allege violations of
Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the Trivago Defendants and bring
"control person" claims against Schrömgens and Hefer under both
Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Presently before the Court are: (1) Trivago's motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") in its entirety
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the Underwriter Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims as against the
Underwriter Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) NCR's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims as against NCR
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and for insufficient service of process
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).  An oral argument was held on Feb. 4,
2019.

Judge Buchwald denied NCR's motion to dismiss for insufficient
service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), and granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim
pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) in their entirety and with prejudice.  She
also dismissed the CAC as to the unserved and non-moving Individual
Defendants because the issues concerning the non-moving Defendants
are substantially the same as those concerning the other
Defendants, and the Plaintiffs had notice and a full opportunity to
make out their claim.

Although the Plaintiffs make a perfunctory request for leave to
amend in their opposition brief, they do so in conclusory fashion
without providing an adequate explanation of what they would allege
in a second consolidated amended complaint to cure the CAC's
deficiencies, and the Judge therefore denied their request.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for
the Defendants and terminate the case and any motions pending
therein.

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

Dharmanand Shetty, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Casey Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Charles H. Linehan -- CLINEHAN@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Kevin F. Ruf -- KRUF@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Anthony Holbrook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Jorge Oliva, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Nirav Shah, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

AW Bangayan Inc., Alexander Rizk & Veronika Prudnikova, Movants,
represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Trivago N.V., Defendant, represented by Lewis J. Liman, Cleary
Gottlieb & Jared Mitchell Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb.

National Corporate Research, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joanna
Andrea Diakos -- joanna.diakoskordalis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP
& Anthony Peter Badaracco -- badaracco.anthony@dorsey.com -- Dorsey
& Whitney LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC & Guggenheim Securities,
LLC, Consolidated Defendants, represented by Peter Eric Kazanoff --
pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Sara Ann
Ricciardi, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Peter Eric Kazanoff, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.


TUT'S HUB: Gonzales Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOSSELIN GONZALES, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. TUT'S HUB CORP. d/b/a EGYPT ROYAL CUISINE, BEIRUT
FLAME INC. d/b/a LAYALI BEIRUT, KHALED ABDELHALEEM and NABIL ZEBIB,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01197 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2019), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Tut's Hub Corp., doing business as Egypt Royal Cuisine, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York
with a principal place of business located in in Astoria, New York.
Beirut Flame Inc., doing business as Layali Beirut, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a
principal place of business located in in Astoria, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are principals, officers or employees of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants own or operate "Egypt Royal Cuisine" restaurant
located at 30-91 Steinway Street, in Astoria, New York, and "Layali
Beirut" restaurant located at 25-60 Steinway Street, also in
Astoria.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


TWITTER INC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, 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 a consolidated class action lawsuit in the
Northern District of California.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain
officers alleging false and misleading statements in violation of
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the consolidated securities action.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter, a platform that allows users to
consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a
mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video
live with others. The company operates in the United States and
internationally. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


U.S. XPRESS: Smith Says Financial Report Misleading
---------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., ERIC
FULLER, ERIC PETERSON, JASON GREAR, MAX FULLER, LISA QUINN PATE,
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
STEPHENS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED and WR
SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00078-HSM-SKL
(E.D. Tenn., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of U.S. Xpress pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering completed
in June 2018.

The action asserts strict liability claims under sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act against U.S. Xpress, certain current and/or
former U.S. Xpress officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the IPO. These claims specifically exclude any allegations of
fraud, knowledge, recklessness or scienter, do not "sound in fraud"
and are based solely on strict liability and negligence.

The claims in this action arise from the materially misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus, defined infra, issued in
connection with the IPO. In the IPO, Defendants offered and sold
16,668,000 shares of U.S. Xpress common stock to the public at a
price of $16.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds from
the IPO of approximately $245.2 million after deducting
underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.

To the detriment of the Plaintiff and all those that bought shares
in or traceable to the IPO, the negligently prepared Offering
Documents omitted material information regarding the Company's
business prospects and financial health. As such, the Offering
Documents contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted
to state the facts necessary to make the statements made therein
not misleading, thus violating the rules and regulations governing
its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that a shortage of trucks was negatively impacting U.S.
Xpress's dedicated division; that (a) certain account shipping
patterns had been performing differently than expected; and that,
as a result (b) utilization and driver retention and hiring were
being negatively affected; and that, as a result (c) U.S. Xpress's
dedicated accounts, including one large account, were being
negatively impacted; and that, as a result (d) U.S. Xpress's OTR
division was providing continued support to the dedicated division;
(3) that: (a) U.S. Xpress failed to stay informed regarding two
large liability events; and that, as a result (b) U.S. Xpress's
insurance claim expense was understated; (4) and that U.S. Xpress's
cost per mile for driver wages and independent contractors was
exceeding the Company's internal expectations.

As a result of the foregoing, the statements contained in the
Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein. On
November 1, 2018, U.S. Xpress issued a press release, announcing
the Company's financial and operating results for the third fiscal
quarter and nine months ending September 30, 2018. Therein, as well
as during a conference call to discuss the results, U.S. Xpress
disclosed how unusual shipping patterns were impacting its segments
and how market challenges for drivers resulted in a year-to-year
tractor count decrease. The Company and its executives also
disclosed higher driver wages and independent contractor costs,
lower than expected recruitment levels, and a higher insurance
expense.

On this news, the price of U.S. Xpress's common stock declined from
a close of $10.14 per share on November 1, 2018 to a close of $7.10
per share on November 2, 2018, a drop of approximately 29.98%. At
the date of the filing of this action, less than a year after the
IPO, U.S. Xpress's common stock trades around $7.87 per share, a
decline of $8.13 per share or 50.81% from the $16 IPO public price,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Sarah R. Johnson, Esq.
          Al Holifield, Esq.
          Sarah R. Johnson, Esq.
          HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL FERRERA, PLLC
          11907 Kingston Pike Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 566-0115
          Facsimile: (865) 566-0119
          E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com
                  sjohnson@holifieldlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

ULTA BEAUTY: Court Narrows Claims in Smith-Brown
------------------------------------------------
Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, KIMBERLY LAURA
SMITH-BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC. and ULTA
SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs, 22 customers of the Defendants' retail cosmetics
stores in 18 states, bring the putative class action lawsuit,
asserting state-law claims of breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud.  Ulta Salon is a mass retailer of
beauty products, operating retail stores coast to coast.  It is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Ulta Beauty.

The Plaintiffs, consumers hailing from 18 states, purchased
cosmetics or beauty products at the Defendants' stores, only to
learn that the Defendants had a practice of reshelving products
that had been used and returned by dissatisfied customers.  In some
cases, the Plaintiffs noticed shortly after purchase that the
products appeared to have been previously used.  In other cases,
they infer that the products may have been previously used based on
the following information about Ulta's business practices.

On Jan. 9, 2018, a former Ulta employee revealed that, when
customers returned products after using them, the products were
"made to 'look new' -- but not sanitized -- and put back on the
shelf to sell to unsuspecting customers.  The employee posted her
revelations on the microblogging website Twitter, identifying
herself by the Twitter handle, "@fatinamxo."  She posted pictures
of used foundation and lipsticks, which Ulta resold as if new.  She
claimed that Ulta even trained its staff members to "restore"
products, and managers were careful to keep an eye on products in
the "damage bin" to assess whether they could be resold.  Managers
taught employees how to clean eyeshadow palettes and let it dry
overnight so it can be repackaged and sold the next day.

Other Twitter users responded to @fatinamxo's posts by claiming
that they too worked at Ulta, and what @fatinamxo reported was
consistent with their own experience in various places, including
California, Washington, Texas, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina,
Wisconsin, and Ohio.  One of these Twitter users even claimed to
have worked at Ulta store number 1221 in Sherman Oaks, California,
the same store where Smith-Brown routinely shopped.

In the wake of these and other, similar revelations about Ulta on
the internet and social media, the Plaintiffs obtained sworn
affidavits from five former Ulta employees -- Tammy Geier, Kami
Turner, Ella Soto, Laura Hornick, and Michael Fisher -- who worked
in Ulta stores in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, and
California.  Fisher, Geier, and Turner, while working as general
managers of individual Ulta stores, were trained by regional
management, apparently based on pressure from senior management, on
how to restore and repackage used makeup and beauty products in
order to reduce "shrink," or inventory going to waste.  All five
former employees were instructed to use returned products as
"testers" in their stores, despite the potential to spread disease
and germs to those who use them.

The Plaintiffs allege that Ulta's policy of reselling or reusing
returned products is "unsanitary and hazardous to the public."
Many of the Plaintiffs allege that they suffered sties, rashes, and
irritation due to skin and eye infections after purchasing and
using Ulta products.  They believe the Ulta products they purchased
were, unbeknownst to them, previously used and their use of these
unsanitary products caused the infections they suffered.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent in the action not only themselves
but also (a) a nationwide class consisting of all persons in the
United States who purchased, other than for resale, beauty products
from Ulta Beauty retail locations, or alternatively, (b) 18 state
subclasses made up of all persons who purchased Ulta beauty
products, other than for resale, in each of the 18 states the
Plaintiffs represent, namely, Alabama, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The Second Amended Complaint consists of 23 claims for relief:
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, on behalf of the
nationwide class or, alternatively, each state subclass; unjust
enrichment, on behalf of the nationwide class or, alternatively,
each state subclass; and 21 claims under 21 separate consumer fraud
and deceptive business practices statutes in the various states the
Plaintiffs represent, each claim on behalf of the subclass of
persons who purchased Ulta products in the state supplying the
governing law.

The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' standing in three
respects, arguing as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs lack standing to
sue over the purchase of products that were new, not used; (b) the
Plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of the class members who
did not purchase the same beauty products as the Plaintiffs did;
and (c) the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of the class
members in other states whose claims will be governed by other
states' laws.

Judge Alonso granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He granted the motion to (1) any claims based
on the purchase of new products, (2) any claims on behalf of the
prospective class members residing outside the states represented
by the named Plaintiffs, (3) Plaintiff Sot's breach of warranty
claim under New Jersey law, (4) any claim under the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"), (4) any claim under the
Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("WDTPA"), and (6) any
claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA").  

Among other things, the Judge finds that to the extent the
Plaintiffs or the class members purchased new products, it was not
the "product itself" (i.e., the one with which they walked out of
the store) that was "defective or dangerous," and therefore such
purchasers have not suffered an injury-in-fact that confers Article
III standing.  The Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims
arising out of the purchase of new Ulta products.

Because Sot's claim is against the immediate seller of the
defective beauty products she complains of purchasing, the pre-suit
notice requirement applies in full force.  Plaintiff Sot's breach
of warranty claim is dismissed.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs cite no authority to
support giving the ADTPA's 15-day requirement a liberal
construction or implying a substantial compliance or actual notice
exception, nor is the Judge aware of any.  With only the plain
language of the statute for guidance, he must apply the statute as
written.  The Plaintiffs' claim under the ADTPA is dismissed.

The Plaintiffs have not pointed to any specific misrepresentations
the Defendants made about whether their products were new or used.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the WDTPA
claim.

Finally, applying the plain language of the statute, the Judge
concludes that the Plaintiffs must plead an affirmative
misrepresentation in order to state a claim under the NDTPA.  The
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the NDTPA claim.

The Judge otherwise denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Ca4qYu from Leagle.com.

Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similary Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl V.
Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLC, Janine L. Pollack -- pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com --
The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice, Lee Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac
vice, Carlos Mario Jaramillo -- info@accesslg.com -- Access Lawyers
Group, pro hac vice, Jason Giaimo -- jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com --
McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac vice & Wade Wilkinson --
wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin & Stern LLP, pro hac
vice.

Colleen Thornton, Allison Sot, Alice Vitiello, Karen Eonta,
Jennifer Sacks, Brittany Caffrey, Valarie Hutchison, Robin Okman,
Paula M Ogurkiewicz, Quinn Allen, Veronica Sanders, Ilene Anchell,
Kristen Jackson & Shasta Swaney, Plaintiffs, represented by Janine
L. Pollack, The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice.

Tammy Walker, Deanna Shaw, Kris Dane, Michelle Musk, Jessica Tift,
Donna Williams & Cristina Kovacs, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas
A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Matthew C. De Re,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.c., Sharon Harris, Zimmerman Law Offices,
P.C. & Janine L. Pollack, The Sultzer Law Group, PC, pro hac vice.

Ulta Beauty, Inc. & Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Craig Christopher Martin --
cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Amanda S. Amert, Jenner &
Block LLP, Matt D. Basil -- mbasil@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP
& Paul Benjamin Rietema -- prietema@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block
Llp.


UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces Thew Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USAA Federal Savings
Bank. MARY THEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00314-DMG-SHK
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Dolly M.
Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani.

USAA Federal Savings Bank provides banking products and services
for military members and their families. The company was founded in
1983 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. USAA Federal Savings Bank
operates as a subsidiary of USAA Capital Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A Hart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


UNITED SERVICES: Faces Spielman Suit over Vehicle Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, LESTER I SPIELMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (d/b/a USAA), the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant systematically underpaid not just
Plaintiff but tens of thousands of other putative class members for
total loss vehicles insured with physical damage coverage,
including collision or physical damage other than collision
coverage, by failing to pay the full Actual Cash Value of the
insured total loss vehicles.

The case is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff Spielman, the named
insured under a USAA automobile policy issued for private passenger
auto physical damage coverage, including collision or physical
damage other than collision, which requires payment of ACV in the
case of a total loss of the insured vehicle.  The Plaintiff brings
claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief.

The Defendant is among the leading providers of insurance to
members of the United States military, veterans, and their
families. The mutual insurance company serves some 12
million-member customers, primarily military personnel, military
retirees, and their families. Its products and services include
property/casualty and life insurance, banking, discount brokerage,
investment management, and real estate development.

This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated insureds who suffered damages due to
Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV payments or full
total loss payment ("FTLP") to first-party 25 total loss insureds
on physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage
other than collision coverage. Specifically, as a matter of policy,
Defendant fails to include sales tax and/or vehicle title transfer
and vehicle registration fees ("Vehicle Title and Registration
Fees") in its calculation of ACV when paying FTLP to its insureds.

Defendant's failure to pay FTLP to first-party total losses owed to
its insureds and to condition payments on actions not required by
the policy itself, such as purchase of a new vehicle, is a breach
of the policy agreement and a clear breach of contract.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Tanya Koshy, Esq.
          YCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Ste 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  tkoshy@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, Esq.
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  stresifeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

UNITED STATES: Medicare Patients File Class Action Lawsuit vs HHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is your Medicare coverage "sticking it" to you? According to some
recipients, the answer is a clear "yes".

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is the subject of a
new class action lawsuit filed by two plaintiffs, Douglas B.
Sargent and Carol A. Lewis. They allege that Medicare's repeated
refusal to cover continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) results in
serious negative health outcomes to patients. CGMs have been
approved by Medicare as a replacement to a "finger prick" method of
testing blood glucose.

CGMs are effective because they continuously monitor a patient's
blood glucose level and easily send the data to patients and
caregivers alike. This makes it easier to catch any potential
issues before they become serious. Denying diabetes patients access
to them, then, might put their health in jeopardy.

The plaintiffs are hoping to receive retroactive payments for
patients who have shouldered this cost alone. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Percy Seeks to Enforce S.D.N.Y Court Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Albert E. Percy, individually
and as the Class Representative of the Class certified in US
Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
No. 73-cv-04279, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of
Labor, the United States Department of Labor, Ondray T. Harris,
Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Andrew Mark Cuomo,
Governor of the State of New York, Roberta Reardon, Commissioner,
New York State Department of Labor, New York State Department of
Labor, Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New
York, New York Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban
Affairs Fund, New York Plan For Training, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 501764/2019, (N.Y. Sup., January 25, 2019), seeks to enforce
the Southern District of New York order in Case No. 73-cv-04279
brought on behalf of minority persons seeking affirmative action in
training and employment in the New York construction industry.

Original complainants in aforementioned case, John Mercado, Manuel
Mejia, Fight Back and National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People sought redress over failure to implement the equal
employment opportunity mandate under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and as amended in 1991, within the protections of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. They were construction
workers who claim to be discriminated and denied equal employment
opportunities because of their Hispanic heritage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Kernan, Esq.
     KERNAN PROFESSIONAL GROUP, LLP
     26 Broadway, 19th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 986-3196
     Fax: (212) 656-1213
     Email: jkernan@hernanllp.com


VALE SA: Hach Rose Commences Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and or entities who
purchased Vale S.A. common stock between April 13, 2018 and January
28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Class"). The action is
styled Epstein v. Vale S.A., et al., Civil Action No. 19-cv-00793
(E.D.N.Y.). Investors who suffered a financial loss are encouraged
to speak directly with the attorneys litigating this action by
contacting Frank R. Schirripa, Esq., or Gregory Nespole, Esq., at
(212) 213-8311, toll free (866) LAWS-USA, or via email at
FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com or GNespole@hrsclaw.com. You may move the
Court, no later than March 29, 2019, to appoint you as lead
plaintiff, a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members.  

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued to the investing public false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's safety protocols and compliance with
applicable mining regulations. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Vale had failed to adequately assess the risk and damage potential
of a dam breach at its Feijao iron ore mine especially in light of
its tragic experience in 2015 in connection with the another mine
catastrophe; (2) Vale's programs to mitigate health, safety and
environmental incidents were inadequate; (3) defendants' mine
safety auditor was not independent as required under Brazilian
mining law; (4) defendants were in possession of an internal
report commissioned by Vale itself to study the stability of the
tailings dam and the report raised concerns over the mine's
drainage and monitoring systems; and (5) defendants failed to
disclose the existence of information that the dam was at risk of
"liquefaction," the same issue that led to the 2015 collapse of the
Samarco dam.

On January 25, 2019, catastrophe struck when Vale's tailings dam at
the Feijao mine in the rural state of Minas Gerais failed, killing
scores of people. On this terrible news, Vale (the world's biggest
producer of iron ore) suspended dividends and its shares plunged
the most on record, wiping out about $18 billion in market value.
Specifically, the tragic events drove the price of Vale shares down
$3.66, or over 24%, between January 24, 2019 and January 28, 2019.

If you purchased Vale common stock during the Class Period, you
may, no later than March 29, 2019 request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP
         112 Madison Avenue
         New York, New York 10016
         Telephone: (212) 213-8311
         Fax: (212) 779-0028
         Toll Free: (866) LAWS-USA
         E-Mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com [GN]


VALE SA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP disclosed
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Vale S.A.
("Vale" or the "Company") (NYSE: VALE) between April 13, 2018 and
January 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vale securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 29, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

Vale investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Vale Securities Class Litigation

Vale, incorporated in Brazil and headquartered in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, is one of the world's largest mining companies, and the top
global producer of iron ore and nickel in the world. In 2015, the
Fundao tailings dam, joint-owned by Vale and BHP Billiton Brasil
Ltda., burst, flooding downstream communities and resulting in 19
fatalities and the worst environmental disaster in Brazilian
history.

On January 25, 2019, Vale's tailings dam at its Feijao iron ore
mine in Brumadinho, Brazil collapsed, flooding Brumadinho and
killing hundreds, with many still missing. Brazilian authorities
have frozen $1.3 billion worth of Vale assets to pay for the
damages.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Vale and
certain of its senior executives made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and its
assessment of the risk and potential damage potential of a dam
breach at its Feijao iron ore mine, as well as the adequacy of
Vale's programs to mitigate health and safety incidents. The scope
of Vale's misstatements are magnified by public commitments to keep
its workplace safe and to minimize environmental damage following
the 2015 Fundao dam collapse. On news of the dam collapse, the
price of Vale's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") declined by
$2.46 per share, or 18%, over the next 3 trading days to close at
$11.20 on January 28, 2019, eliminating more than $2.5 billion in
shareholder value.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.[GN]


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Vanderbilt
University is the third prominent college to settle class claims
challenging the fees and investment funds in its retirement plan.

The deal, announced in a Feb. 25 status report filed in federal
court, follows a $10.65 million settlement by Duke University and a
$6.5 million deal agreed to by the University of Chicago.

Details about Vanderbilt's settlement will be made public by April
22, the parties said. [GN]


VEREIT INC: Briefing in ARCP Litigation to be Completed April 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, 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 briefing on the motions
for summary judgment in the case entitled, In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, to be completed by April 5,
2019.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action").

The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 8, 2016, the court
issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint to reflect certain prior rulings by the court in
connection with various motions to dismiss. The third amended
complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were
not required to file new answers.

On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Defendants' petitions seeking leave
to appeal the court's order granting class certification were
denied on January 24, 2018.

Fact depositions were concluded at the end of 2018 and at a status
conference in November 2018, the court ordered all summary judgment
motions to be filed by February 8, 2019, with briefing on all
motions to be completed by April 5, 2019. The next status
conference with the court is scheduled for April 17, 2019 and trial
is scheduled for September 9, 2019.

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. Vereit's business model provides
equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return for long-term
leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly traded Maryland
corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, 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 a putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partners v.
American Realty Capital Partners, et al.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned
Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.
654468/2013.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation)
and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abetted
those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf
of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders.

The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the
defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for
attorneys' fees.

Vereit said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding."

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

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. Vereit's business model provides
equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return for long-term
leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly traded Maryland
corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Poison Pill Violates Voting Rights, Fund Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 60 PENSION TRUST, on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated holders of VERSUM MATERIALS,
INC., the Plaintiff, vs. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC., SEIFI GHASEMI,
GUILLERMO NOVO, JACQUES CROISETIERE, YI HYON PAIK, THOMAS J.
RIORDAN, SUSAN C. SCHNABEL, ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, and BROADRIDGE
CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2019-0190 (Del. Ch., March 8, 2019), alleges that Versum's Board is
making a mockery of voting rights of its stockholders.

According to the complaint, on January 27, 2019, Versum and
Entegris, Inc. agreed to combine in a merger of equals transaction.
A month later, before the stockholder vote on the Proposed Entegris
Merger was scheduled, Merck KGaA submitted an unsolicited all-cash
offer to acquire Versum.

The Merck Offer on its face offers superior value to Versum
stockholders. However, a majority of the Board is interested in the
Proposed Entegris Merger as a majority will be able to retain their
Board seats in a merger of equals transactions. Therefore, it is
unsurprising that within two days of receiving the Merck Offer, the
Board implemented an overly restrictive Poison Pill and rejected
the Merck Offer.

If the Poison Pill simply prevented the accumulation of shares,
either individually or with an actual group, and mirrored the
poison pills the Court has declared valid in the past, the
Plaintiff would have no cause to petition the Court for relief.
However, the Poison Pill adopted by the Board prohibits far more
extensive conduct than two or more stockholder acting together to
influence the Company.

Rather, the Poison Pill here gives the Board the discretion to
trigger the Pill if two or more stockholders knowingly, but
separately, act towards a common goal in parallel of one another.

As a result, the Poison Pill chills stockholders from basic
participation in corporate democracy, including discussing their
views with one another about the matter to be voted on privately
and then advocating publicly for other shareholders to vote in a
certain manner.

No election, stockholder or otherwise, is free and fair if voters
are unable to share information with one another, discuss their
opinions on the matter to be voted on, or encourage other voters to
vote in a certain manner. As such, the Poison Pill violates Versum
stockholders' franchise rights and the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties by adopting it, the lawsuit says.

Versum Materials is a 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 is incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware. Versum is named as a Defendant herein solely in
its capacity as a party to the rights agreement that governs the
Poison Pill.[BN]

Attorneys for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Mark Richardson, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          David MacIsaac, Esq.
          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2540

WADDELL & REED: Fairness Hearing in 401(k) Plan Suit Set April 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a
settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2019, in the
401(k) Plan Class Action Litigation.

In an action filed on June 23, 2017 and amended on June 26, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Schapker v.
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., et al, (Case No. 17-2365 D. Kan.),
Stacy Schapker, a participant in the Company's 401(k) and Thrift
Plan, as amended and restated (the "401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit
against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and unnamed Jane and
John Doe Defendants 1-25.

On August 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of the 401(k) Plan and a proposed class of 401(k) Plan
participants, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, based on the 401(k) Plan's
offering of investments managed by the Company or its affiliates
during a proposed class period of June 23, 2011 to present.  

The second amended complaint dismissed the Company's Board of
Directors as a defendant and named as defendants the Company, the
Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and the individuals
who served on those committees during the proposed class period.  

While the Company and all other defendants deny any and all
liability with respect to the claims, the parties to the litigation
reached a settlement. The November 19, 2018 settlement agreement
contemplates a full release for the benefit of the Company and all
other defendants and the payment of $4.875 million (less attorney's
fees and costs, class representative compensation, and
administrative expenses) to eligible settlement class members,
their beneficiaries or alternate payees.  

On November 28, 2018, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, including preliminary
certification of a class for settlement purposes only, to include
401(k) Plan participants at any time during the approved class
period of June 23, 2011 to November 28, 2018.  

A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2019, at which the
court will consider granting final approval to the settlement. The
settlement is subject to final court approval. The payments
contemplated by the proposed settlement are recoverable to the
Company through insurance.  

Waddell & Reed said, "The Company has recorded a liability and
offsetting receivable from insurance, as reflected in the Company's
consolidated balance sheets."

Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
investment management and advisory, investment product underwriting
and distribution, and shareholder services administration to mutual
funds, and institutional and separately managed accounts in the
United States. Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. was founded in 1937
and is based in Overland Park, Kansas.



WELLS FARGO: Responds to California Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Radhika Ojha, writing for The MReport, reports that Wells Fargo is
addressing the claims of a class-action suit alleging that the bank
has violated California's wage and vacation laws. "Wells Fargo's
compensation structure for its Home Mortgage Consultants (HMCs)
complies with California's wage and hour laws, including paying for
all time worked, and allows our HMCs to earn competitive
performance-based compensation," the bank said in a statement
shared with MReport.

At the crux of the matter is a lawsuit filed against Wells Fargo by
James C. Kang a loan officer who worked at Wells Fargo October 2000
through May 2015 with a short break in employment in 2011.  Kang
alleged that while the bank paid advances on commissions at a rate
of approximately $12 per hour, those advances were "clawed back"
from commissions earned. He also alleged that Wells Fargo did not
compensate HMCs for non-sales work, clawed back vacation pay from
commissions with the result that HMCs did not actually receive
their accrued vacation and that they did not pay HMCs overtime
wages as required by law.

According to Bloomberg Law, the suit was admitted in California
courts as a class action suit since "these allegations were based
on a common compensation plan applicable to all class members,
making class certification appropriate," Judge Beth Labson Freeman
wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]


WESTERN UNION: Bid to Dismiss Smallen Trust Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company 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 court has not
yet ruled on the motion to dismiss in the case, Lawrence Henry
Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The
Western Union Company et al.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b‑5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17‑cv‑00474‑KLM (D. Colo.).

On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things,
added two other former executive officers as defendants, one of
whom subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b‑5
and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on January 16, 2018.

The consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and the Company
is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter.

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company 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 Western Union
Financial Services Argentina S.R.L., a company subsidiary,
continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in
Argentina.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an
order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid
and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers
sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not
specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the
motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying
potential class members has been completed and the case is
currently in the evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver,
Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Frazier Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company 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 and
its subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc., continues to
defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Frazier et al. v. The
Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No.
1:18‑cv‑00998‑KLM (D. Colo.).

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. ("WUFSI") subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") and the Colorado Organized Crime Act,
civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under
the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:18‑cv‑00998‑KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent Order, and the
NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud
customers through Western Union's money transfer system. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The amended
complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it adds
additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including claims
on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and
New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.
That motion has been fully briefed and remains pending, and the
case is otherwise stayed pending a determination of that issue.

Western Union said, "The action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The
Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. The Western Union
Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver,
Colorado.


WIRECARD AG: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 9, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Wirecard AG (OTC:
WCAGY, WRCDF), if they purchased the Company's securities between
April 7, 2016 and February 1, 2019 (the "Class Period").  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Wirecard and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-wcagy/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by April 9, 2019.

                         About the Lawsuit

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

On February 1, 2019, news media sources reported that an external
law firm retained by the Company to investigate activities in its
Singapore office had discovered evidence of "serious offences of
forgery and/or of falsification of accounts."  Further, "there are
reasons to suspect that they may have been carried out to conceal
other misdeeds, such as cheating, criminal breach of trust,
corruption and/or money laundering."

The case is Dalpoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al, 19-cv-986.

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


WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) from April 7, 2016
through February 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wirecard investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Wirecard class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1499.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for the period
spanning from 2015 to 2018, a senior Wirecard executive in
Singapore had been accused of forging and backdating contracts,
including falsifying accounts and money laundering; (2) an external
law firm commissioned to investigate Wirecard's Singapore office
had reportedly found evidence of "serious offences of forgery
and/or of falsification of accounts"; (3) Wirecard had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (4) as
a result, defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1499.html

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

WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Felix Files Suit in Calif. Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. Bolthouse Farms,
Inc. The case is styled as Eric Felix, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM. Bolthouse
Farms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00312-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2019).

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

Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. produces fresh produce and beverages. It
provides beverages that includes juices, smoothies, protein plus,
breakfast smoothies, and cafe drinks; dressings, such as Greek
yogurt, yogurt, and vinaigrette; and carrots. Additionally, it
offers smoothies, fruit tubes, and veggie snackers. Its products
are sold through a network of stores. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. was
founded in 1915 and is headquartered in Bakersfield, California.
Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Campbell Soup
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Emil Davtyan, Esq.
   Davtyan Professional Law Corporation
   5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (818) 875-2008
   Fax: (818) 722-3974
   Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com

      - and -

   Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
   Kingsley & Kingsley APC
   16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
   Encino, CA 91436
   Tel: (818) 990-3800
   Fax: (818) 990-2903
   Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com

      - and -

   Kelsey Szamet, Esq.
   Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
   16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
   Encino, CA 91436
   Tel: (818) 990-8300
   Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com



WM. MULHERIN'S SONS: Faces Class Action Over Servers' Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Vigoda, writing for Eater Philadelphia, reports that Italian
restaurant Wm. Mulherin's Sons in Fishtown is facing controversy
again. A former server filed a lawsuit against the restaurant's
owners and management on Feb. 25, reports Philadelphia magazine.

The federal class action suit alleges that Wm. Mulherin's Sons
violated labor laws by skimming tips -- pooling tips given to
servers and using some of the money to pay bussers, bartenders,
cooks, and other non-tipped employees. That practice can open up
the possibility of management keeping a portion of the money for
themselves, which the lawsuit claims is what happened at Wm.
Mulherin's.

The defendants named in the suit include owners David Grasso and
Randall Cook of Method Hospitality, along with Michael Jreidini,
who is no longer at the restaurant but was the general manager.

The server, Michael Cona, also filed a second lawsuit on Feb. 25 in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas alleging he was fired and
defamed when sexual harassment allegations against
Mr. Jreidini, the restaurant's then chef-partner Chris Painter, and
two staffers not identified were made public via a Philly Mag
article, Philly.com is reporting. [GN]


WOUND CARE SOLUTIONS: Zepeda Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Retention
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Zepeda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wound Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH01612 (Ill. Cir., February 6, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory
damages together with costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Wound Care provides medical supply delivery services. It captures,
collects, stores, uses and disseminates its employees' biometrics,
specifically, hand prints, for its timekeeping system. Zepeda
alleges that Wound care improperly disclosed its employees'
fingerprint data to its service provider without their informed
consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WPX ENERGY: Accord Reached in Kansas & Missouri Purchasers Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, 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 a settlement in principle
has been reached in a class action involving Kansas and Missouri
purchasers of natural gas.

The company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and
other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases
were transferred to the federal court in Nevada.

In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in
favor of the company and most of the other defendants based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado
dismissal and entered judgment in our favor. On August 6, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying class certification and
remanded to the MDL Court.

On September 7, 2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
remand to the originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas
and Wisconsin. On October 23, 2018, a settlement in principle with
the Kansas and Missouri class claimants was reached. Final
documents have not been finalized and approved by the Court.

In the Wisconsin class action, defendants' motion for entry of
their proposed order denying class certification remains pending,
along with the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
originally filed district court.

WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company, engages in the exploitation and development
of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was
founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WPX ENERGY: Class Action in Nevada Underway
-------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, 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 a class action in the the Nevada District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the company's
joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs'
state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction to
resolve those issues.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as
moot. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the In re:
Western States Wholesale Antitrust Litigation, holding that the
Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust
claims and reversing the summary judgment previously entered in
favor of the defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants' writ of certiorari. On
April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state
antitrust claims are not preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act.
On March 7, 2016, the putative class plaintiffs in several of the
cases filed their motions for class certification. On March 30,
2017, the court denied the motions for class certification, which
decision was appealed on June 20, 2017.

On May 24, 2016, in Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies,
Inc., the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in
its entirety, and an agreed amended judgment was entered by the
court on January 4, 2017. Reorganized FLI, Inc. appealed this
decision and on March 27, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded the case to the MDL Court. The parties have
filed numerous motions for summary judgment, reconsideration and
remand.

WPX Energy said, "Because of the uncertainty around pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposure at this time."

WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company, engages in the exploitation and development
of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was
founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


XOLO TACOS 2: Underpays Servers, Gaffney Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
MIKAYLA GAFFNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XOLO TACOS 2, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00711-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 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 Gaffney was employed by the Defendant as server.

Xolo Tacos 2, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, 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


YOGAWORKS INC: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

YogaWorks, Inc. (NasdaqGM: YOGA)
Investors Affected: Pursuant to the IPO commenced around August 10,
2017 and closed on August 16, 2017

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
YogaWorks, Inc. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated
their disclosure obligations because the Offering Materials
materially misrepresented and failed to adequately disclose the
truth concerning several known trends negatively impacting
YogaWorks' business at the time of the IPO, including, inter alia:
(i) declining studio profitability; (ii) the impact of increased
corporate overhead; (iii) declining financial metrics that would
ultimately lead to a substantial impairment charge and (iv) the
conditions that led the Defendants to postpone the initial
offering.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kseclaw.com/securities/yogaworks-inc/?wire=3

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com  [GN]


ZILLOW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, 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 is awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint in the consolidated cases, Shotwell v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al. and Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things,
alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a
result of the alleged misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group class action lawsuit
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group
class action lawsuit, and the court appointed lead plaintiffs in
the consolidated lawsuit.

In February 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was fully briefed in
June 2018. On October 2, 2018, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss, although the court gave lead plaintiffs 45 days,
or until November 16, 2018, to file a second consolidated amended
complaint and attempt to cure the defects in their consolidated
amended complaint.

On November 16, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which we moved to dismiss on December 17, 2018.


Zillow Group said, "We anticipate that briefing on our motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint will be complete
by February 6, 2019. We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We have
not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of December 31,
2018 and December 31, 2017, as we do not believe a loss is
probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. The company offers a
portfolio of brands and products to empowering consumers with
unparalleled data, inspiration, and knowledge around homes and
connecting them with real estate professionals. Zillow Group, Inc.
was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


[*] Litigation Funders Invest in UK to Launch Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Murray, Esq. -- Darren.Roiser@eu.kwm.com -- Darren Roiser,
Esq. -- Dorothy.Murray@eu.kwm.com -- Natalie Quinlivan, Esq., of
King & Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, review six key
commercial litigation and investigation developments of the last
year and predict their future impact.  

Speed-read:

Wealth

Good news for recovering stolen assets -- when you have been
defrauded, you don't have to identify the fraudster to preserve
stolen assets.  In January 2018, the English Courts granted a
worldwide freezing order (WFO) against "persons unknown" allowing
Chinese multinational CMOC to trace funds stolen by anonymous
hackers in a sophisticated cyber fraud through over 50
international bank accounts.  We predict: the powers of the Court
and the nuclear weapon of the WFO will continue to adapt to the
internet age.  Expect valid service by WeChat and judges willing to
be persuaded to take innovative steps to keep the UK central to
global asset recovery actions.

Bad news for illegitimate wealth -- the British National Crime
Agency secured an "unexplained wealth order" against the wife of
the former chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan,
successfully arguing that her GBP22m properties and over GBP16.3m
shopping at Harrods must, in the absence of any explanation from
her, be laundered proceeds of crime.  We predict: more UWOs, as the
UK promotes itself as friendly to good business but no haven for
wrongdoers.

Stability

Courts uphold certainty of contracts -- in the landmark judgment of
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd in May
2018, the Supreme Court upheld a contractual provision requiring
amendments to be in writing.  We predict: more court decisions
cementing the reputation of English contract law as clear and
certain.

Courts confirm scope of privilege in litigation -- the Court of
Appeal confirmed that investigating whistle-blower allegations,
dealing with compliance and governance and seeking to avoid or
settle a dispute is all captured within "litigation" for the
purpose of attracting privilege from disclosure: SFO v ENRC [2018].
Commercial discussions within a board about a settlement are not
covered however: WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] We
predict: sadly, this area will continue a minefield.  As ever, our
advice to clients is to get legal advice early to ensure privilege
exists and retained over appropriate documents.

SFO promises businesses DPA certainty -- the first deferred
prosecution agreement with the Serious Fraud Office came to an end
in 2018, after Standard Bank completed the 3-year term following
allegations that it had failed to prevent bribery by its
subsidiaries in Tanzania.  The new director of the SFO has
announced her commitment to ensure a predictable process for other
corporates who seek a DPA, so encouraging engagement with
regulators and enforcement agencies in cases of suspected
wrongdoing.  We predict: active engagement between the SFO and
companies to combat corporate crime but preserve businesses and
their reputations.

Bad news for parents -- the UK is increasingly seeing "class action
tourism", where claimants seek to sue parent companies for damage
caused in another jurisdiction by a subsidiary or other group
company.  Traditionally these kinds of claims had focused on
competition law, personal injury or banking regulation breaches but
2018 saw attempts to bring claims for largescale environmental
damage against natural resources groups.  While some claims have
been dismissed because the English courts lack jurisdiction over
them, the English Supreme Court is considering whether to allow
claimants to sue Vedanta, a UK incorporated company, and its
Zambian subsidiary, for damage and loss caused by alleged water
pollution from mining waste.  Judgment is expected in March 2019
and could open the door to other claims in the future.  We predict:
whatever the outcome, claimants will continue to explore new
options and parent companies will face continued attack and new
risks.

Long-read:
Wealth

Good news for recovering stolen assets
Recent innovative action in the Commercial Court in England
demonstrated that it is possible to trace, freeze and recover money
stolen in a sophisticated computer email hack. The funds, taken
from the bank account of CMOC, a Chinese multinational, was
remitted to banks in many foreign countries by the
cyber-fraudsters.

Armed only with details of the destination banks and account
numbers, the claimant made repeated applications to court to freeze
the destination bank accounts using the effective English Worldwide
Freezing Injunction and associated procedures. The innovation here
was that the Court did not require the claimant to identify the
cyber-fraudsters, who tried to hide behind the anonymity of the
Internet. Instead, they were sued as a class of ‘Persons
Unknown'.

The freezing injunctions were made effective by ancillary orders,
requiring 50+ international banks to disclose the identity of
persons and companies who held the bank accounts where the stolen
money was received, as well as to give details of all relevant
account transactions.  That allowed CMOC to trace its money as it
moved from bank to bank across the world.

Other ground-breaking developments in the action included obtaining
permission to serve court documents, orders and injunctions by
Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and by access to a secure online data
room. It is envisaged that future orders may permit service in
China using WeChat.

2019 prediction: With the rise of online and cyber fraud, these
developments are of great relevance to all corporations and
high-net-worth individuals in China and elsewhere. The principles
in the case may also have direct application where Bitcoin or other
cyber currency is stolen. The powers of the English Court and the
nuclear weapon of the WFO will continue to adapt to the internet
age.  Expect valid service by WeChat and judges willing to be
persuaded to take innovative steps to keep the UK central to global
asset recovery actions.

Bad news for illegitimate wealth
Pursuant to the Criminal Finances Act 2017, unexplained wealth
orders (UWO) came into force on 31 January 2018. Already used to
good effect in Australia and Ireland, a UBO effectively reverses
the burden of proof, forcing those suspected of gaining assets
illegally to prove they were obtained within the confines of the
law.

In February 2018, the UK's National Crime Agency ("NCA") secured
its first two UWOs against Zamira Hajiyeva, the wife of Jahangir
Hajiyeva, the former chairman of the International Bank of
Azerbaijan currently serving a prison sentence in his home country
for various frauds. The properties subject to the UWOs were two
residential properties valued at approximately GBP22m held by a BVI
registered company beneficially owned by Mr Hajiyeva. The
allegation against Mrs Hajiyeva was that these assets, as well as
extravagant spending which included a GBP16.3m shopping spree in
Harrods, were funded by the laundered proceeds of the bank fraud,
rather than her or her husband's legitimate funds. Interim freezing
orders were granted in support of the UWOs to prevent the sale,
transfer or dissipation of the properties.

Mrs Hajiyeva challenged the UWOs on the basis that her husband was
not a politically exposed person ("PEP") (by virtue of being a
state employee) but rather was a "fat cat banker" and the funds
used to purchase the property were his own.  This argument failed
and Mrs Hajiyeva is now facing extradition to Azerbaijan over
allegations of embezzlement.

2019 prediction:  The Hajiyeva case demonstrates the UK's
commitment to anti-money laundering enforcement efforts. The NCA
has publicly stated that its Economic Crime team have over 100 live
cases where UWOs are being considered. We expect UK prosecutors to
increase the use of UWOs over the coming year to target corrupt
PEPs and other individuals suspected of investing illicit funds in
British assets as the UK promotes itself as friendly to good
business but no haven for wrongdoers.

Stability

Courts uphold certainty of contracts
In May 2018, the Supreme Court overturned a decision that
contractual clauses requiring amendments to be in writing would not
preclude amendments subsequently being effected orally.

In Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018]
the Supreme Court held that if the parties to a commercial contract
wish to restrict the manner in which they can amend their contract,
there is no policy reason for the law to prevent their doing so.
The previous trend had been to allow parties to vary a contract
orally, giving precedent to the subsequent (albeit oral)
agreement.

This is an important judgment which means that "no oral
modification" ("NOM") clauses will generally be given effect so as
to prevent contracting parties being bound by a subsequent
variation unless the specified formalities are complied with.  The
majority of the Court identified three commercial reasons for
including NOM clauses:

   -- to prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by
informal means;
   -- to avoid disputes about whether a variation was intended and
also its exact terms; and
   -- to make it easier for corporations to police their own
internal rules and policies restricting the authority to agree
variations.

2019 prediction: This decision will be welcomed by the business
community as the enforcement of NOM clauses provides much needed
certainty when included in written agreements. The requirement that
any variation needs to be in writing will also reduce the scope for
misunderstandings which are so common in oral agreements.  We
predict more decisions like this in 2019 cementing the reputation
of English contract law as clear and certain.

Courts confirm the scope of privilege in litigation
September 2018 saw the long awaited Court of Appeal decision in
ENRC.

The decision in SFO v ENRC [2018] restored the generally held view
of the ‘dominant purpose' test, finding that the purpose of
investigating whistleblower allegations and dealing with compliance
and governance was all part and parcel of the litigation purpose,
and so the test for litigation privilege was met. It also helpfully
confirmed that avoiding or settling a dispute, even pre-action, is
as much a litigation purpose as defending proceedings.

However, rather unhelpfully, in December 2018 the same court
restricted the use of litigation privilege to the purpose of
obtaining advice or information and not the conduct of litigation
more broadly, such as correspondence with experts. In WH Holding
Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] the Court of Appeal held that emails
between a company's board members which had been prepared to
discuss a commercial proposal for the settlement of a dispute were
not covered by litigation privilege.  It is not sufficient that it
is for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation, in a broader
sense.

2019 prediction: Privilege remains a thorny issue for the coming
year. After successive judgments in 2018 where the English Courts
have adopted a conservative view on where litigation privilege
applies, extra care must be taken to ensure privilege is
maintained.  Also, the long-standing issue of the definition of a
client for the purposes of legal advice privilege, as delineated by
the Three Rivers No 5 decision, will remain a headache for GCs and
external counsel for 2019. As ever, our advice to clients is to get
legal advice early to ensure privilege exists and retained over
appropriate documents.

SFO promises businesses DPA certainty
In November 2018, the UK's Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") announced
the end of the UK's first DPA with Standard Bank. A DPA is an
agreement reached between a prosecutor and an organisation which
could be prosecuted, under the supervision of a judge. The
agreement allows a prosecution to be suspended for a defined period
provided the organisation meets certain specified conditions. They
are typically used for fraud, bribery and other economic crime.
They apply to organisations, never individuals.

Since their introduction in 2014, four DPAs have been entered into
with the SFO. Standard Bank holds the dubious honour of being the
first recipient of one after it was alleged that the Bank had
failed to prevent associated persons of its African subsidiary from
committing bribery offences.

The successful conclusion of the UK's first DPA, following
confirmation that Standard Bank fully complied with its terms, is
an important milestone for the SFO. Lisa Osofsky, the SFO's new
director, has stated her commitment to create a predictable
landscape for corporates who are seeking a DPA. To achieve this,
she is focused on collaborating with international prosecutors,
regulators and law enforcement around the world.

2019 prediction: The SFO currently has a US Department of Justice
("DOJ") prosecutor on secondment in London, as well as two
prosecutors from the AG's office in Singapore. Going forward, we
can expect joint investigation teams combining resources with the
aim of tackling global corruption issues. This level of
coordination is likely to result in significantly higher fines for
offending corporates. That said, with a commitment to DPAs, we also
predict active engagement between the SFO and companies to combat
corporate crime but preserve businesses and their reputations.

Bad news for parent companies
2018 has been a busy year in the UK for so-called "class action
tourism".  Already common place in the US and Australia, claimant
firms and litigation funders are investing heavily in the UK to
launch class actions in this jurisdiction.  The cases under the
spotlight during 2018 relate largely to incidents in a foreign
country, directly effecting a proportion of the local population
who seek damages in the UK on the basis that an anchor defendant
has a connection to the UK.

The case of Lungonwe and others v Vedanta Resources plc and &
Konkola Copper Mines plc may be the first case where jurisdiction
for these types of claims is granted in the UK. Residents of a
Zambian city brought civil proceedings against Vedanta, a UK
incorporated parent company, and its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola
Copper Mines Plc ("KCM"), claiming that waste discharged from a
copper mine -- owned and operated by KCM -- had polluted the local
waterways, causing personal injury to the local residents, as well
as damage to property and loss of income.

The High Court found that it did have jurisdiction to hear claims
against Vedanta, even though the alleged tort and harm occurred in
Zambia. The defendants have appealed this decision all the way to
the Supreme Court and the two-day hearing took place in January
2019, the judgment of which will be published in March 2019.

2019 prediction: While we await the outcome of the Supreme Court's
judgment in the Vedanta case, multinational corporate clients with
a presence in the UK should be aware that this is an increasing
area of risk for them.  For 2019, the key areas that we are likely
to see targeted are shareholder claims and environmental or human
rights-based claims. For this reason, corporates who may be exposed
to this risk should take proactive steps by implementing measures
which ensure human rights are given priority throughout their
operations. Whatever the outcome in the Vedanta case, claimants
will continue to explore new options and parent companies will face
continued attack and new risks. [GN]


[*] Right to Counsel Cases Pending Against Various States
---------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a California man pled
guilty to a crime he says he didn't commit. A Nevada woman was
represented by four different attorneys in as many years. A
Louisiana man received a warrant for failure to appear in court
when he was, in fact, in jail.

The cases range from animal cruelty to firearm charges in locales
as diverse as coastal cities and the rural South. But they are
united by a common factor, advocates say: underfunded public
defenders offering poor advocacy to their indigent clients.

Now, in lawsuits across the country, these low-income defendants
have become the plaintiffs, suing over a dearth in resources for
constitutionally mandated services.

"In almost every state, public defenders are laboring under
excessive caseloads without the people power or investigative
resources they need," said Jason Williamson, deputy director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's Criminal Law Reform Project.

Cases are pending in Nevada, Idaho, Missouri, California,
Pennsylvania and Washington, inspired by an ACLU-led lawsuit in New
York that boosted state public defense funding there. The ACLU has
won reforms with similar lawsuits in Montana and Michigan.

The suits have met resistance from governors and attorneys general.
Sometimes, public defenders are the litigation's fiercest
opponents. And not all of the ACLU's cases have been successful.

A year ago, a federal judge nixed litigation in Utah, saying the
arguments were "generalized" and that allegations public defenders
didn't meet with clients, missed hearings and pressed for plea
deals weren't enough to show irreparable harm unless the plaintiffs
had been convicted.

But Mr. Williamson remains optimistic.

"We've done a fair amount over the last several years," he said. "I
really hope to turn the tide on this issue and get people to see
how important public defense is."

A Road Map
Kimberly Hurrell-Harring knew she should have put her foot down
when her husband begged her to smuggle drugs into Great Meadow
Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, where he was doing
time.

But one day in 2007, she made her regular 240-mile drive from
Rochester to the prison with less than an ounce of marijuana and
was arrested for the first time in her life, according to court
records.

"I should have . . . said no," she'd later admit to the Cleveland
Plain Dealer. "But let's be honest, we all did things for men that
we shouldn't have."

Ms. Hurrell-Harring had been working two jobs as a nurse to support
her sick mother and two young daughters. She couldn't afford an
attorney, and was entitled to court-appointed counsel.

But no lawyer came to her arraignment, so she was held on $10,000
bail. Her public defender didn't answer her calls or plead down her
charge from a felony that could have kept her in prison for up to
seven years to a misdemeanor that carried a maximum one-year
sentence.

Ms. Hurrell-Harring pled guilty to the felony and got a six-month
sentence with five years probation, but her days in court weren't
over. She joined defendants from five New York counties in a class
action alleging the state had flouted the Sixth Amendment by
failing to provide adequate counsel for indigent defendants. They
were represented pro bono by the law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel and
the ACLU. After seven years of litigation, the case won significant
reforms, quadrupling New York's annual public defense spending.

"The Hurrell-Harring case set the standard and gave us some hope
these kinds of cases can move forward," Williamson said.

The ACLU has filed several suits that follow the Hurrell-Harring
road map in other states: It identifies a few low-income defendants
who've received little legal advice from their court-appointed
attorneys in criminal court and then files class claims on their
behalf.

That wave of litigation includes claims from Colleen Davison, who
sued over the public defense system in Grays Harbor County,
Washington. She said the handling of her 11-year-old
granddaughter's assault charges was "deplorable" and "a circus."
Her attorney did not challenge the decision to set bail at $5,000,
didn't use the girl's past mental health issues as a defense and
didn't challenge the prosecutor's failure to seek a capacity
hearing. The public defender was "in the back pocket of the
prosecuting attorney," Ms. Davison contended, and both attorneys
dug in their heels on a plea deal she didn't want.

"There was no defense. The justice system really let us down, but I
feel like we're going to get some good outcomes out of this," she
said of the pending litigation.

The Washington State Office of Public Defense declined to comment
on pending litigation.

She decided to sue after sitting through hearings for other
children while waiting for her granddaughter's case to be called.

"I thought, 'Oh my gosh, this is systemic. They're all getting
railroaded,'" Ms. Davison said.

Differing Payment Models

The ACLU's lawsuits contend states are flouting the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision by providing
ineffective public defense.

That unanimous 1963 ruling held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees
court-appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants. But the
high court didn't offer any guidance on how states should bankroll
that due process right.

Funding sources vary from state to state, and according to a 2017
report from the Sixth Amendment Center, 27 state governments foot
the whole bill for indigent defense, as the American Bar
Association recommends. Two states, Pennsylvania and South Dakota,
leave the responsibility entirely to counties. In 12 states, local
governments pay most of the share of indigent defense in trial
court.

Neighboring counties can have wildly different resources based on
their tax revenues, according to David Carroll, executive director
of the Sixth Amendment Center, which advocates for better public
defense funding.

"The ones who need indigent defense services the most are the ones
least able to pay for it," Carroll said.

In California, for example, the state contributes about 10 percent
to public defense funds. Significant local inequities lead to
varying opinions on the best funding method, according to Norman
Lefstein, an Indiana University law professor.

"Public defenders in California who are better funded feel they'd
be worse off if the state got involved, and those who are worse off
feel they'd be better off," he said.

Carroll said well-heeled communities like San Francisco and Silicon
Valley have "some of the most innovative public defender's offices
in the country," but rural areas tend to contract out indigent
defense, paying private attorneys flat fees. And even in cities
like Fresno, which has a public defender's office, inadequate
funding means caseloads exceed maximums recommended by the ABA,
Carroll said.

Faced with those disparities, the ACLU has sued the state in
Superior Court, saying it had "delegated its constitutional duty to
run indigent defense systems to individual counties."

State spending is hardly a panacea, either, says Marea Beeman of
the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. In Missouri, for
example, all public defender funding comes from the state, but per
capita funding is among the lowest in the nation.

"There's no perfect delivery model and no perfect funding model,"
Ms. Beeman said. "It all depends on how it's resourced."

The funding burden is sometimes shouldered by defendants, even
those too poor to afford an attorney. In 43 states, there are fees
associated with getting a public defender, according to the Brennan
Center for Justice.

Derwyn Bunton, chief district defender for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, says his office relies on traffic tickets for funding.
And because indigent defendants who've been found guilty are also
charged a fee, "on paper, public defenders are paid to lose."

Mr. Bunton welcomes a state suit filed in 2017 by a class of
indigent defendants, set to go to trial in July. While the suit
wasn't filed by the ACLU, Lisa Graybill, a Southern Poverty Law
Center attorney representing the class, said the Hurrell-Harring
case "absolutely inspired" the litigation.

"It's part of this generation of lawsuits asking, 'What does Gideon
mean?'" she said. "Is it something as de minimis as a lawyer
in-name-only, or does it mean more than that?'"

The Power Of Litigation
The state of New York settled the Hurrell-Harring case on the eve
of trial, agreeing to hire more attorneys, translators and
investigators in the five counties that filed suit.

The New York legislature has since voted to implement those reforms
statewide. By 2023, the state will give counties more than $350
million annually for public defense; about $274 million of that is
new Hurrell-Harring funding.

"It's a very big deal," said Bill Leahy, director of the New York
State Office of Indigent Legal Services, the agency tasked with
implementing the reforms. "It takes a lot to get the political will
to get it done. The lawsuit was the catalyst."

It wasn't an open-and-shut case. The litigation lasted seven years
and faced serious challenges to the plaintiffs' standing from Gov.
Andrew Cuomo, who was the state's attorney general at the time.

Ongoing cases in other states have met opposition, too, and some of
their fiercest opponents are public defenders themselves.

In Idaho, they've argued the demand simply isn't there, pointing to
the fact that their offices are well-staffed with interpreters and
investigators. David Martinez and Anne Taylor, the chief public
defenders for Bannock County and Kootenai County, respectively,
opposed the ACLU lawsuit using identical language.

"My expectation is that if my attorneys believed that their
representation was adversely affected by their caseload or
workload, that they would inform me so that I could redistribute
work," they both wrote in November depositions.

But that opposition isn't universal. Missouri's public defenders
welcome the ACLU's suit against them. In affidavits, they said
their "lack of resources and burdensome workload" were "too much to
bear" and required "triage."

The litigation against the state of Louisiana has drawn varied
reactions.

Mark Plaisance, who heads Lafourche Parish's Indigent Defender's
Office, would like to see public defenders' funding on par with
prosecutors'. But of the suit, he said, "While the goal is
laudable, the methodology is not."

"To file a class action alleging everyone's incompetent so we can
get more money for the system -- it's throwing everybody under the
bus to try to make a point," he said.

Though he supports the lawsuit, Mr. Bunton, of the Orleans Public
Defenders, said he understands why others are leery of it.

"We suffer from a social justice PTSD. There's a lot of cynicism
that this won't amount to much," he said. "I support it because I
believe power really does concede nothing without a demand. The big
sort of hammer you have is litigation, going to court and holding
up what is wrong to the light of day." [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 ***