CAR_Public/190328.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 63

                            Headlines

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kuznicki Seeks Plaintiffs for Class Action
AIR EVAC EMS: Riegelsberger Appeals Order & Judgment to 8th Cir.
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Remand Waithaka Suit to State Court Denied
AMERIGOLD LOGISTICS: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Contreras Says
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Abouzied Suit Underway

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas
ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Calderon Alleges Violation under FDCPA
AVALON HEALTH: Williamson Suit Moved to N.D. California
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Insurer Inks Deal in Apartment Fire Suit
BARLEY HOSPITALITY: Zabielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers

BEACON HEALTH: Overtime Pay Sought for Care Management Staff
BELLMORE GARDENS: Sandoval Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BIG TIME RECOVERY: Perreault Files Class Action in S.D. Calif.
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Dismissal Orders in Indiana Class Suits Appealed
BLUE APRON: Expects PAGA and Class Action Suits to be Consolidated

BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits in New York Ongoing
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Dismiss CheckMate-026 Suit Pending
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeal in Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit Pending
CANADA: Ottawa Sued Over Child Welfare Discrimination

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: O'Neills Sue over Debt Collection Practices
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Velez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CCB CREDIT: Nolasco Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CELGENE CORP: Woods Balks at Merger Deal with Bristol-Myers
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Can Compel Arbitration in Adell Suit

CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Underway
CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Singh Suit
CITIGROUP INC: $9-Mil. Accord in Frontpoint Suit Underway
CITIGROUP INC: Class Certification Cert. in Tel Aviv Suits Pending

CITIGROUP INC: Faces Allianz Global Investors' Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Adjourned
CITIGROUP INC: NYPL Class Action Still Ongoing
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Contant Suit Fails to Win Initial OK
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement of LIBOR Suit Wins Final Approval

CITIGROUP INC: Settlement with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval
CITIGROUP INC: Suits over Interest Rate Swaps Still Ongoing
CITIGROUP INC: Sullivan Case Settlement Wins Initial Approval
CLUB EROTICA: Former Dancer Files Class Action Over Wages
COLACEM CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Action Settlement

COLLECTO INC: Dominguez Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
COMCAST CORP: Sept. 10 Set-Top Box Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COMPETITIVE EDGE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Maldonado Says
CONAGRA BRANDS: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Backus and McFaddin
CORECIVIC INC: Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Bid in "Grae"

DAVITA INC: Bid to Dismiss Peace Officers' Fund Suit Still Pending
DAYTON SUPERIOR: Zeigler Seeks Meal & Rest Breaks for Handlers
DILLARD STORE: Haggar Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ELEMENT MATERIALS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Flores Says
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Plans to Mediate Retirement Plan Class Action

ENT CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Overdraft Fees
ESPOSITO'S RISTORANTE: Miro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ESSENDANT INC: Sold to Staples for Too Little, Sultan Suit Claims
FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Accord Reached in Suit over Vehicle Recall

FIAT CHRYSLER: Agreement Reached in Suit over US Sales Report
FORD MOTOR: Carlson Asserts FDCPA Breach in Wisconsin
FORD MOTOR: Removes Van Bebber Suit to E.D. California
FORSTER & GARBUS: Lugo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FORSTER & GARBUS: Moran Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.

FORTIS FUNDING: Naiman Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Under TCPA
FOWLER PACKING: Protective Order Bid in Aldapa Suit Partly Granted
FRC BALANCE: Bousson Seeks All Wages Earned for Employees
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Allred Suit
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Glock Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price

GARDA CL: Asks High Court to Flip Ruling in Suit over Meal Breaks
GENERAL MOTORS: Marchinsky et al. Sue over Defective Fuel Pump
GENERAL REVENUE: Fry Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
GOOGLE INC: Underpaying More Men Than Women, Review Reveals

GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Claims Admin. Process in Calif. Suit Completed
GROUPON INC: Judge Tosses Instagram Users' Class Action
HARBOR FREIGHT: Haggar Files ADA Suit in California
HEALTHY HALO: Ford Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
HERTZ GLOBAL: Asks Court to Reinstate Claims in Ramirez Class Suit

HILL'S PET: Stewart Seeks Damages Over Pet's Vitamin D Poisoning
HOTEL CASABLANCA: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
HUAZHU GROUP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Haag Suit
HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Severe Engine Defects

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Choi Class Action
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Ferguson Class Action Still Ongoing
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Has Yet to File Responsive Pleading in Odeh Suit
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Files Motion to Prevent Release of Funds
IN8LOVE CHIROPRACTIC: Underpays Office Managers, Pham Suit Says

INSULET CORP: Settlement in ATRS Suit Gets Final Approval
IPT NAME: Seo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
IRON MOUNTAIN: Modica Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
JACKSON MEMORIAL: Seeks Unpaid Back Wages for Nurses
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Ongoing

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: May Appeal Sexual Abuse Class Action Ruling
JPMORGANCHASE: Antitrust Class Action Proceedings Suspended
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Faces Tanious Class Action in California
LIFETOUCH INC: Davis Files Consumer Class Action in Kansas
LOGITECH: Challenges Judge's Policy of Barring Settlement Talks

MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Aigen Suit Moved to District of Maryland
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Benwitz Suit Moved to District of Maryland
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Durant Suit Moved to District of Maryland
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Skinner et al. Suit Moved to D. Maryland
MARRONE BIO: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Discovery Underway in Suit vs. Chicago Bridge
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Edwards & PERS Mississippi Suits Consolidated
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Unit Still Faces Cantrell Class Suit in Texas
MDL 2492: Chuinard Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Crowe Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Elliott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Fahy Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McMonigle Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Moravec Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Presley Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Randolph Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Reedy Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Watson Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana
MDL 2492: Young Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2591: GMO Class Members Can't File Suit Against Attorneys

MDL 2672: Court Denies Bids to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2672: Court Resolves Reconsideration Bids and Bid to Sched CMC
MDL 2743: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Flooring Durability Suit
MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Faces Scarantino Class Action
METLIFE INC: Faces Thew et al. Suit in C.D. California

METLIFE INC: Stipulated Briefing Schedule in Pitt Suit Filed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Hope Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Navarroli FDCPA Suit
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Parties in ESI Litigation Agree to Settle

MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Clyde & Co. Attorneys Discuss Class Action
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Sargent Class Action in New York
MONICA & ANDY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Harters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Schwartz Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTE CARLO INN: Sued over Hotel's "28-Day Shuffle" Practice
MOVADO RETAIL: Faces Haggar ADA Suit in C.D. California
MRS BPO LLC: Halloway Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION: Lynch Appeals Order & Judgment to 2nd Cir.

NEW YORK LIFE: Axelrod Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Nebraska Wind Farm
NIO INC: Tan Says Financial Report Misleading
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: 9th Cir. Arbitration Order in McGhee Upheld
NORTH AMERICANS INNS: Scott et al. Seek Regular & OT Compensation

OHIO NATIONAL: Cook Files Class Action Over Insurance Dispute
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Edwards Suit over Background Checks
OPERATING ENGINEERS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Furwa Suit
ORBITAL ATK: June 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL: Underpays Security Staff, Misquez Claims

POSTMATES INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Albert Suit
PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 3 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Faces Class Action Over Unconstitutional Fees
PROSHARES TRUST: Faces Mareno Securities Class Action in New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Chester County Files RICO Suit in Pennsylvania

QIHOO 360: Altimeo Files Securities Suit Over Tianjin Qixin Merger
REALOGY GROUP: Court Grants Final Approval of Dodge Settlement
REALOGY GROUP: Faces Whitlach Class Action in Alameda
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Time to Appeal Order in Carretta Suit Has Lapsed
ROYAL CATERERS: Facing Contreras Suit in N.Y. State Court

SAM'S WEST: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California
SANTA ROSA: Misclassifies Workers as Contractors, Mendoza Claims
SEI INVESTMENTS: Mediation in Stevens Suit Set for May 7
SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Still Ongoing
SEMPRA ENERGY: 393 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Feb. 21

SHK MANAGEMENT: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
SI FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Class Suit Over Berkshire Merger
STATE FARM: Florida Court Dismisses MSPA Suit With Prejudice
STATEWIDE FUMIGATION: Denial of Delgado Class Certification Flipped
STEPPING STONE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Thompson Suit Says

STERLING CATERERS: Gonzalez Suit Alleges Retaliation
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA Action in Georgia
SYCAMORE VILLAGE: Judge Kevin Hoerner to Decide on Class Action
SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Murakami Securities Class Suit in New Jersey
SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action

TENET HEALTHCARE: Denial of Maderazo Class Cert. Bid Under Appeal
TENNESSEE: Faces Harris et al. Suit in M.D. Tennessee
TEREX CORP: Settlement Reached in Sheet Metal Workers Suit
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Daskal Alleges Violation under FDCPA
TEXAS: Class Certification Bid in Burley Prisoners Suit Denied

TICKETECH INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NYLL, Mak Says
TINLEY PARK: Sued by Metro for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
TOMMY'S REDHOTS: Garcia-Beltran Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Class Action Plaintiff Files Defamation Claim
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: PEEL CCI Reps Attends Class Action Meeting

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Defends Prosthesis Coverage Class Action
UNITED STATES: Canadians Sue SSA Over Retirement Benefits
UNITED STATES: Electrical Welfare Fund Files Class Suit in COFC
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Arukala Files Suit Over Danfoss Merger
VBI VACCINES: Class Certification Sought in Case vs. Unit

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Consolidated Class Suit
VENATOR MATERIALS: Faces IPO-Related Securities Class Suit in Tex.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colo. Ongoing
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
WELLS FARGO: Court Consolidates Kang, Moses Labor Suits

WESTERN DIGITAL: Accused by Traynor Class Suit of Violating ADA
WESTERN UNION: Removes Minasyan Labor Suit to C.D. California
XEROX CORP: Appeal in Firefighters Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid to Amend Court's Order Remains Pending
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Gregory Class Action

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action

                            *********

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kuznicki Seeks Plaintiffs for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Futter, writing for GameDaily.biz, reports that another law
firm has entered the race to bring a class action suit against
Activision Blizzard over its divorce with Bungie. The sale of
Destiny publishing rights led to layoffs of approximately 800
people across Activision Blizzard's companies, including King,
Blizzard, and Activision Publishing.

Kuznicki Law in Cedarhurst, NY is the latest to seek a lead
plaintiff in a class action suit (as reported by
GamesIndustry.biz). Kuznicki Law joins Pomerantz, LLP; Federman &
Sherwood; Levi & Korsinski, LLP; Faruqi and Faruqi LLP; Rosen Law
Firm; The Schall Law Firm; and potentially others in a sprint to
find a plaintiff to lead a class action suit. Kuznicki Law has
confirmed to GameDaily.biz that it has not filed its own suit,
contrary to GamesIndustry.biz's report. Rather, the firm's press
release likely refers to the complaint filed by Pomerantz, LLP in
January.

Activision share price has been on the decline since early October,
right before the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII, when it
hit a 52-week high of $84.68. The share price bottomed out on
February 11 at $39.85, the day before Activision reported its
full-year earnings and confirmed reports of mass layoffs. The stock
price has rebounded slightly, closing at $41.79.

Activision Blizzard didn't give away its Destiny publishing rights,
and on a recent SEC 10-K filing, the company disclosed it
recognized $164 million directly related to the sale of its stake
in the game. While stocks did dip when Activision announced it was
parting ways with Bungie, sticking it out might not have been
better for the publisher in the long run.

In November, when Activision Blizzard reported its third quarter
earnings, management noted that Destiny 2 was underperforming. The
challenge for Activision Blizzard is that it leaves the portfolio
largely empty. Call of Duty will return in 2019 and Sekiro: Shadows
Die Twice is almost here, but other than the Crash Team Racing
remake and a recently released Skylanders mobile game, the table is
looking bare for Activision Publishing. Blizzard is also looking at
a rebuilding year, with no major new releases (though, WarCraft 3:
Reforged is still due in 2019).

Law firms are stepping up their efforts to find someone to put
their name to a class action suit, because time is running out. The
period closes on March 19, just two weeks from now. At that point,
the courts will look at those who have stepped forward and
determine which of them (if any) have the most substantial claim,
which could be determined by largest monetary loss, percentage of
net worth lost, or another factor that helps order the pool.

While business deals that brought Activision and Bungie together
and, eventually, broke them apart happen all the time, attorneys
are likely to home in on Activision Blizzard's statements about the
relationship. Specifically, during the November 8 10-Q filing,
Activision Blizzard stated, it had "established a long-term
alliance with Bungie to publish its game universe, Destiny."

The law firms seeking a class action suit are banking on the
November 8 comment being untrue and fraudulent (and therefore
intentionally misleading for investors). However, every earnings
call begins with a disclaimer, including the November 8 call,
during which Activision Blizzard senior vice president of investor
relations said the following:

I would like to remind everyone that during this call, we will be
making statements that are not historical facts. The
forward-looking statements in this presentation are based on
information available to the company as of the date of this
presentation. And while we believe them to be true, they ultimately
may prove to be incorrect.

A number of factors could cause the company's actual future results
and other future circumstances to differ materially from those
expressed in any forward-looking statements.

Attorneys will likely argue that Activision Blizzard knew that it
was going to split with Bungie when it made statements in the 10-Q
affirming the "long-term alliance." Whether the publisher knew that
it wasn't being truthful and purposely misled investors won't even
be a factor though until and unless the class is certified and the
suit moves forward to litigation. According to attorney Brandon
Huffman, founder of Odin Law & Media and general counsel for the
IGDA, a number of pieces need to be in place before a suit will be
certified as a class action.

"The requirements are basically designed to ensure that a class
makes sense as compared to individual claims," he explains. "The
proponent of the class argues to the court why a class makes sense,
as well as why the lead plaintiff is a good representative and why
the attorney is suited to represent the class. Once the class is
certified, the actual litigation starts."

A complaint can't be filed without a plaintiff, which is why firms
like Kuznicki Law put out a press release hoping to hook a
disgruntled investor. This doesn't mean that this firm (or any
other) will find a willing participant and, even if they do,
succeed in the certification process.

In our previous coverage, Richard Hoeg of The Hoeg Law Firm, PLLC
explained that there are a number of firms that use event-driven
securities claims to make their money. Representing a lead
plaintiff in a class action suit often results in significant fees
for the firm.

It's unclear how many investors have stepped forward so far. It's
unlikely that the firms competing to represent the lead plaintiff
will tip their hands until the March 19 deadline.

One plaintiff, Mohamad Al Labade, named in the Pomerantz filing,
has stepped forward, but he may not end up being the lead
plaintiff. If someone steps forward with a bigger loss, Al Labade
may very well be named.

Activision is a ripe target. In 2014, the company settled a suit
over its $8.2 billion buyout that saw it split from ailing former
parent Vivendi. As we near the March 19 class period close, firms
are going to step up their efforts to find the best candidate to
bring in the next big payday. [GN]


AIR EVAC EMS: Riegelsberger Appeals Order & Judgment to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacob Riegelsberger filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order, and Judgment, both entered on
February 26, 2019, in his lawsuit entitled Jacob Riegelsberger v.
Air Evac EMS, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00747-AGF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacob Riegelsberger v. Air Evac
EMS, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1414, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on April 10, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Jacob Riegelsberger is due on April 10,
      2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jacob Riegelsberger, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 Saint Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brooke, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com

Defendants-Appellees Air Evac EMS, Inc., and Global Medical
Response, Inc., formerly known as Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Julia B. Drafahl, Esq.
          Rodney A. Harrison, Esq.
          Mallory Stumpf Zoia, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 802-3935
          E-mail: julia.drafahl@ogletree.com
                  rodney.harrison@ogletree.com
                  mallory.zoia@ogletree.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Remand Waithaka Suit to State Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BERNARD WAITHAKA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-40150-TSH (D.
Mass.), Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand
the action back to the state court.

On Aug. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Worcester
Superior Court against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants
misclassified class members as independent contractors in violation
of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, (Count I), that
the Defendants required class members to bear business expenses
necessary to perform their work in violation of the Wage Act (Count
II), and that the Defendants failed to ensure that class members
were paid at least minimum wage in violation of the Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Law (Count III).

On Oct. 29, 2017, the Defendants removed to the Court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") alleging that the
proposed class members exceeded 100 individuals, and the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million in the aggregate.  Alternatively,
they argued that 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 provided another basis for
removal since the Plaintiff and the Defendants are diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

On Nov. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to remand to the state court.
On Aug. 28, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion
concluding that the Defendants had not met the amount in
controversy requirements of either CAFA or Section 1332.

Thereafter, the Defendants conducted an internal investigation of
their updated records finding that the putative class damages now
exceed CAFA's $5 million threshold.  Consequently, on Sept. 7,
2018, the Defendants once again removed to the Court.

On Oct. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff once again moved to remand to the
state court.  

There are two questions presented in the case.  The first is
whether the two 30-day periods described in Section 1446(b)(1) and
(b)(3) are the only periods when the Defendants can remove or
whether they are merely periods during which they must remove if
one of the triggering events occur.  If they are not the only
periods when the Defendants may remove, the second issue is whether
this is a situation where successive removal attempts are
permissible.

Judge Hillman finds that after the first attempted removal, the
Defendants undertook a second investigation of their records which
revealed between October 2017 and September 2018, the number of
independent contractors providing services through the Amazon Flex
program had tripled.  Combined, these independent contractors had
driven nearly six times the number of miles that had been driven as
of October 2017 when the First Notice of Removal was filed.

Consequently, the Judge finds that the increase in mileage resulted
in a higher amount in controversy, which the Plaintiff does not
dispute is now above the $5 million threshold.  Just like the
defendant in Amoche, the Defendants' first removal attempt was
reasonable since the 30-day clock potentially began to run.  As a
result of the Defendants' subsequent investigations, they
demonstrated that the requirements for CAFA jurisdiction are
clearly met and this only became apparent after the first removal
attempt since the Flex program grew in the interim.  Consequently,
the Defendants have satisfied the requirements for successive
removal.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman denied the Plaintiff's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order and Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/nJA6iR from Leagle.com.

Bernard Waithaka, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan
-- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Adelaide H.
Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Amazon.com, Inc. & Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Douglas T. Schwarz -- douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Elizabeth M. Bresnahan --
elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
& Noah J. Kaufman, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


AMERIGOLD LOGISTICS: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Contreras Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIGOLD LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 1905720 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino
Cty., Feb. 22, 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 Contreras was employed by the Defendants as warehouse
worker.

AmeriCold Logistics, LLC provides temperature-controlled
warehousing and logistics services in the United States and
internationally. AmeriCold Logistics, LLC was formerly known as
Americold Corporation and changed its name to AmeriCold Logistics,
LLC in August 1998. The company was founded in 1903 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with locations worldwide.
AmeriCold Logistics, LLC is a former subsidiary of Beatrice
Companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kristine De La Rosa, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  kdelarosa@ckslaw.com

                - and –

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


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Abouzied Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion
to dismiss in the case, Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics,
Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al.,
remains pending.  

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
the company's announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see
softer than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its
large customers that will offset the sequential growth and
increased demand the company expect in 100G."

The complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief.

Applied Optoelectronics said, "We dispute the allegations set forth
in the complaint and are vigorously contesting the matter. The
briefing on our motion to dismiss the complaint was completed on
May 21, 2018, and the motion is still pending."

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

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center
operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment
manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct
and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit Texas.

On October 1, 2018, a securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
styled Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Thompson
Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3544.  

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
our shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the company, its chief executive
officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of the
company's announcement on September 28, 2018 that the company had
"identified an issue with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a
specific customer environment."

The original complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.  The company dispute the allegations set forth in the
original complaint and intend to vigorously contest the matter.

The case has been consolidated with two identical complaints that
were subsequently filed on October 10, 2018 and October 18, 2018,
styled Davin Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang
Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath
v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry, respectively.  

The three cases were consolidated on January 4, 2019, and Mark
Naglich was appointed Lead Plaintiff on that same date.  The
original complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief.


Applied Optoelectronics said, "We dispute the allegations in the
complaint and intend to vigorously contest the matter. The deadline
for Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint is
March 5, 2019, and the deadline for our motion to dismiss is sixty
days after the consolidated amended complaint is filed."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center
operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment
manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct
and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Calderon Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Maximization
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Kathy Calderon, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Maximization Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01411 (E.D.
N.Y., March 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Asset Maximization Group, Inc. is a Debt collection agency in New
York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com




AVALON HEALTH: Williamson Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lawrence J. Williamson, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Avalon Health Care, Inc., a
Utah corporation; Berryman Health, Inc., a California corporation;
and Avalon Health Care Management of California, L.L.C., a
California limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
RG19004678, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the California
Northern District (Oakland) on March 4, 2019. The California
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01177-KAW
to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act
violation. The suit is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kandis A.
Westmore.

Avalon Health Care, Inc., doing business as Avalon Health Care
Group, provides senior care services for communities in Arizona,
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah, and Washington. It offers care
coordination, home health, hospice, managed care, senior living,
skilled nursing, therapy, pharmacy, and rehabilitation services.
The company serves patients, residents, and families. Avalon Health
Care, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Salt Lake City,
Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Warren F Hodgesm Esq.
          KENNADAY LEAVITT OWENSBY PC
          621 Capitol Mall, 25th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 732-3067
          Facsimile: (916) 732-3061
          E-mail: whodges@kennadayleavitt.com

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Insurer Inks Deal in Apartment Fire Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AvalonBay Communities, 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 of the 229
occupied apartments destroyed in the fire, the residents of
approximately 95 units have settled claims with the Company's
insurer.

On January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company
believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used
during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a
licensed plumber. The Company has since revised its maintenance
policies to require that non-flame tools be used for plumbing
repairs where possible or, where not possible inside the building
envelope, that a qualified third party vendor perform the work in
accordance with the Company's policies.

The Company has established protocols for processing claims from
third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and many
third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier and
settled their claims. Of the 229 occupied apartments destroyed in
the fire, the residents of approximately 95 units have settled
claims with the Company's insurer through this claims process.

With regard to the building that was destroyed, three class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company on behalf of occupants
and consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
settlement which provides a claims process (with agreed upon
protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate
claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage
amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class
settlement.

In July 2017, the District Court granted final approval of the
class action settlement and all claims have been submitted to the
independent claims adjuster. A total of 66 units (consisting of
residents who did not previously settle their claims and who did
not opt out of the class settlement) are included in the class
action settlement and bound by its terms. However, only
approximately 45 units submitted claims.

The independent claims adjuster is currently reviewing the claims
submitted; the submitted claims total approximately $6,900,000 but,
based on the Company's review of initial determinations made by the
adjuster on a number of claims, the Company believes that the total
amount actually awarded will be significantly less.

To date, the claims adjuster completed its evaluation of 37 of
these claims and it is expected that the evaluation of the
remaining claims should be completed within the next month.

In addition to the class action lawsuits described above, the
Company has resolved litigated claims with tenants of approximately
60 units. There is currently one remaining resident lawsuit with
respect to the destroyed building filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Bergen County - Law Division; the Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in that
suit.

A number of subrogation lawsuits had been filed against the Company
by insurers of Edgewater residents who obtained renters insurance;
these lawsuits have been resolved or are expected to be resolved
during the first quarter of 2019.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of a purported class of
residents of the second Edgewater building that suffered minimal
damage; in October 2018, the court certified the class and the case
will continue as a class action.

AvalonBay said, "Having settled many third party claims as
described above, while the Company can give no assurances, the
Company currently believes that any potential remaining liability
to third parties (including any potential liability to third
parties determined in accordance with the class settlement
described above) will not be material to the Company and will in
any event be substantially covered by the Company's insurance
policies."

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a real estate investment trust. The
Company develops, redevelops, acquires, owns, and operates
multifamily communities in the United States.


BARLEY HOSPITALITY: Zabielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA ZABIELINSKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BARLEY HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, JORGE RAMOS, JR., an individual,
and JORGE RAMOS, SR., an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20954-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee
who worked as a server and hostess for the Defendants at their
restaurant, Barley, during the period from approximately February
to May 2017. Throughout her employment as a server, the Plaintiff
was not paid for all hours worked. The Plaintiff, and other
servers, did not clock in when they actually began work, but only
clocked in when they were first sat a table of customers.

The Defendants own and operate the restaurant named Barley in South
Miami.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305 358 6800
          Facsimile: 305 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com

BEACON HEALTH: Overtime Pay Sought for Care Management Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
JOCELYN PETTENATO, JILL LAW, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. BEACON HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01646 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019), targets the Defendant's
misclassification scheme and failure to pay all earned overtime pay
for time the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours in individual
work weeks, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Wage Payment Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs and other individuals to
perform similar job duties under various job titles, including but
not limited to "Care Manager," "Case Manager," "Utilization
Manager," "Care Coordinator," "Clinical Care Manager," "Clinical
Care Liaison," "Harp Care Manager," "UM Care Manager," "UR Care
Manager".

According to the complaint, the Defendant's Care Management
Employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week. The Defendant
classified Care Management Employees as exempt from state and
federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime when they
worked over 40 hours in an individual workweek. In fact, the Care
Management Employees primarily performed non-exempt work, including
asking members standardized questions to collect data for care
assessments; inputting answers to those questions into the
Defendant's computer system; using established guidelines to
maximize utilization of plan resources through application of
predetermined criteria; coordinating care by performing ministerial
tasks like arranging members with information and resources to
educate members concerning their health plan needs; and other
similar work, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a company that partners with healthcare providers
and health insurance providers to improve the quality and cost of
medical care. The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs to perform
utilization review and case management functions to attempt to
reduce the costs of medical care.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Others Similarly Situated:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Blvd, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM , PC
          5438 Rutherglenn Drive
          Houston, TX 77096
          Telephone: (512) 417-5716
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          www.4overtimelawyer.com
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454

BELLMORE GARDENS: Sandoval Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ovidio Sandoval and Jaime Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.  Bellmore Gardens, Inc.
d/b/a Island Greenery and Gene Judd, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01397 (E.D. N.Y., March 11, 2019) is a collective action on
behalf of plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the
Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants failed to pay the manual labor workers overtime
compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per
week, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Sandoval and Ramirez were employed by the Defendants as
manual labor workers from approximately 2011 through December
2018.

Bellmore Gardens, Inc. d/b/a Island Greenery is a company
headquartered in New York with a principal business address located
at 2036 Bellmore Avenue, Bellmore, New York, 11710.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Ching-Yuan ("Tony") Teng, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
            tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


BIG TIME RECOVERY: Perreault Files Class Action in S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Time Recovery,
LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Perreault, Julie Frisino
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Big Time Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00475-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Mar. 12, 2019).

Big Time Recovery, LLC is a privately held company in Canton, GA
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Substance
Abuse Clinics (Outpatient).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     Hyde & Swigart
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Dismissal Orders in Indiana Class Suits Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biglari Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the shareholders in
the class action lawsuits pending before the Superior Court of
Hamilton County, Indiana, have taken an appeal from the Judge's
order dismissing the lawsuits.

On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach
of fiduciary duty by the members of the company's Board of
Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari as a result of the
issuance of a dual class structure.

On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.

This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary
duty by the members of the company's Board of Directors. This
shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018
to approve the issuance of the dual class structure. On April 16,
2018, the shareholders withdrew their motions to enjoin the
shareholder vote on April 26, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.

The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of fiduciary
duty by the members of the company's Board of Directors and unjust
enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the issuance of the dual
class structure. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on
behalf of all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the
defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class,
and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs.

On December 14, 2018, the Judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits. On January 11, 2019, the
shareholders filed an appeal of the Judge's order dismissing the
lawsuits.

The Company believes the claims in each case are without merit and
intends to defend these cases vigorously.  

Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates
and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns,
operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and
Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak
n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in
April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based
in San Antonio, Texas.


BLUE APRON: Expects PAGA and Class Action Suits to be Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
expects a lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
and a class action lawsuit, which is filed before California
Superior Court by the same counsel, to be consolidated.

The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of
certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.  

The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.  

The parties are presently engaged in discovery in the PAGA case and
were discussing mediation when plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate
class action lawsuit, also in California Superior Court, alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period.

The Company has removed this subsequent case to federal court and
believes that it is likely that the two cases will be consolidated.


The Company is currently unable to provide any assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that adverse resolution of
these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BLUE APRON: IPO-Related Class Suits in New York Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend multiple class action lawsuits in New York
related to its June 2017 initial public offering.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO.  

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.  

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and
defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss
remains pending before the Court.

The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action.  

The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court
actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the
federal court action.  

The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of
any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bozzuto Management
Company. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bozzuto Management Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02221 (S.D.
N.Y., Mar. 11, 2019).

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

Bozzuto Management Company, also known as The Bozzuto Group, Inc.,
an integrated real estate services organization, engages in real
estate management, homebuilding, construction, real estate
development and sale, acquisitions, and land development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Dismiss CheckMate-026 Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion to
dismiss the class action related to the CheckMate-026 clinical
trial in lung cancer has been fully briefed and remains pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.


The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical
trial in lung cancer.

A fully briefed motion to dismiss in pending before the court.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. The company offers drugs in oncology,
immunoscience, cardiovascular, and fibrotic diseases. The company
was formerly known as Bristol-Myers Company and changed its name to
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in 1989. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeal in Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals has held a hearing on the appeal from the
decision denying class certification in the case entitled, In re:
Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, but
no order has been issued. but no order has been issued.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation
of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.

These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the
federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended
class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three
other Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the
District Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs.

BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the
class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On
August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class. On October 10, 2017, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The plaintiffs
appealed the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing on the
appeal of the denial of class certification, but no order has been
issued.

The Company continues to believe that these claims are without
merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.
The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides freight rail transportation services in North America. The
company was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
As of February 22, 2019, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of National Indemnity Company.  


CANADA: Ottawa Sued Over Child Welfare Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Jorge Barrera, writing for CBC News, reports that a $3.05 billion
class action lawsuit has been filed against the federal government
for discriminating against First Nations children by
"systematically" underfunding on-reserve child welfare services.

The lawsuit, which still needs to be certified to proceed as a
class action, was filed on March 4 with the Federal Court of Canada
in Toronto and Montreal.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of First Nations children affected
by on-reserve child welfare services between April 1, 1991, and
March 1, 2019.

The two law firms involved in the action, Toronto firm Sotos LLP
and Montreal firm Kugler Kandestin LLP, said they could not comment
publicly on the court action. The firms said they had given the
federal government until 5 p.m. Thursday, March 7, to respond to a
related letter and had committed to not speak with media until
after the deadline passed.

The statement of claim alleges that Ottawa knew for years about
"severe inadequacies" in its on-reserve First Nations child welfare
funding formulas, policies and practices but did nothing.

"The removal of a child from their home causes severe and, in some
cases, permanent trauma," said the statement of claim.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court.

Funding incentive to remove children, alleges lawsuit
The statement of claim said Ottawa is directly responsible for the
high number of First Nations children in foster care because it
underfunded prevention services while tying dollars to the number
of First Nations children that were put into care.

"The funding incentive to remove First Nations children from their
homes accounts for the staggering number of First Nations children
in state care," said the statement of claim.

"There are approximately three times the numbers of First Nations
children in state care now than there were in residential schools
at their apex in the 1940s."

The statement of claim also alleges that Ottawa failed to follow
Jordan's Principle, a legal requirement to place the needs of a
First Nations child ahead of jurisdictional disputes over funding
for health care and other public services.

Jordan's Principle was named after Jordan River Anderson, a five
year-old boy with a complex genetic disorder who died in 2005 while
Ottawa and Manitoba argued over who would pay for the child's
care.

The lawsuit is seeking compensation for "tens of thousands" of
First Nations children "who suffered or died" while waiting for
help from services that Ottawa was "legally required to provide"
between April 1, 1991 and March 1, 2019.

Many of the lawsuit's allegations against Ottawa are based on the
findings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's 2016 ruling which
said Ottawa discriminated against First Nations children by
underfunding child welfare services on-reserve.

Child welfare bill tabled
Indigenous Services Minister Seamus O'Regan's office said it was
aware of the filing and officials are reviewing it.

Since the tribunal ruling, Ottawa has moved to overhaul the First
Nations child welfare system and increase funding. In 2018-2019,
First Nations Child and Family Services program funding is more
than $1.1 billion, according to government data.

Jordan's Principle was named after Jordan River Anderson, a five
year-old boy with a complex genetic disorder who died in 2005 while
Ottawa and Manitoba argued over who would pay for the child's
care.

The lawsuit is seeking compensation for "tens of thousands" of
First Nations children "who suffered or died" while waiting for
help from services that Ottawa was "legally required to provide"
between April 1, 1991 and March 1, 2019.

Many of the lawsuit's allegations against Ottawa are based on the
findings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's 2016 ruling which
said Ottawa discriminated against First Nations children by
underfunding child welfare services on-reserve.

Child welfare bill tabled
Indigenous Services Minister Seamus O'Regan's office said it was
aware of the filing and officials are reviewing it.

Since the tribunal ruling, Ottawa has moved to overhaul the First
Nations child welfare system and increase funding. In 2018-2019,
First Nations Child and Family Services program funding is more
than $1.1 billion, according to government data.

The Liberal government tabled an Indigenous child welfare bill,
Bill C-92, which set out how child welfare agencies across the
country should handle cases involving Indigenous children.

The bill, which doesn't have much time left on the Parliamentary
calendar to pass, also aims to enable Indigenous jurisdiction over
child welfare -- though opinions are split on whether it truly
enables jurisdiction.

Ottawa also says it has been working to implement Jordan's
Principle. Between July 2016 and January 2019, Indigenous Services
approved 214,000 requests under Jordan's Principle, according to
the department's data.

Shuffled between 14 foster homes
The lead plaintiff, Xavier Moushoom, is an Algonquin man from the
Lac Simon Anishnabe Nation, Que., who was shuffled through 14
foster homes between the ages of nine and 18.

"By the time he became an adult, Mr. Moushoom had lost his roots,
his culture and his language," said the statement of claim.

"Mr. Moushoom suffered from anxiety attacks and developed substance
abuse problems he would eventually overcome through his own
determination with the help of his community."

Moushoom was born in 1987 in Lac Simon and both his parents
attended residential school, said the filing. From 1987 to 1995,
Moushoom lived on-reserve with his mother — who battled alcohol
abuse -- and his brother.

Moushoom's father also battled with alcohol abuse and sought
treatment in Montreal.

While a young child, Moushoom learned his Algonquin language and
spoke fluently with his grandmother, said the document.

In 1996, Moushoom and his brother were apprehended and put into
separate foster homes.

"To this day, he does not know the reasons for his apprehension,"
said the statement of claim.

Moushoom was rarely granted access to his mother and family while
he was in care and eventually lost his Algonquin language along
with cultural ties to his home community, said the filing.

'Stop the harmful practices'
Leading children's advocate Cindy Blackstock, who heads the First
Nations Child and Family Caring Society, said this is the third
major class action Ottawa has faced over its treatment of First
Nations children spanning generations.

Ottawa has already settled with residential school and Sixties
Scoop survivors.

"It is time for Canada to stop the harmful practices toward First
Nations children by settling this class action," said Blackstock.

Blackstock said Ottawa also needs to finally fully comply with the
human rights tribunal ruling, end inequalities to First Nations
public services and make required amendments to Bill C-92.

Blackstock said Bill C-92 needs to clearly affirm First Nations
jurisdiction and include legally required funding for First Nations
child welfare. [GN]


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: O'Neills Sue over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL; and GAIL O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-0238 (Mass. Super.,
Norfolk Cty., Feb. 21, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC provides mortgage loan servicing
support services to borrowers and investors in the United States.
It also offers home loans through its retail and wholesale
channels. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Anaheim,
California. It has branches in Warrenton, Virginia; Houston and
Plano, Texas; Fishers, Indiana; and other parts of the United
States. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of Carrington Holding Company, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Velez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield,
LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Velez on behalf of herself
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carson
Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02262 (S.D. N.Y., Mar.
12, 2019).

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

Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collection agency located in
Woodbury, New York and a branch office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
     Fagenson & Puglisi
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (212) 268-2128
     Fax: (212) 268-2127
     Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


CCB CREDIT: Nolasco Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA NOLASCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCB CREDIT SERVICES, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06619-KM-JBC (D.N.J.,
Feb. 22, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Kevin McNulty and referred to Magistrate Judge James B.
Clark.

CCB Credit Services, Inc. provides accounts receivable management
services for banks, finance companies, and credit card issuers in
the United States. It specializes in recovering active and inactive
bank, retail, and consumer receivables. The company offers
financial, medical collection, pre-collect, education collection,
communication collection, utility collection, and automotive
finance services, as well as services for active and inactive
portfolios. CCB Credit Services, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
based in Springfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELGENE CORP: Woods Balks at Merger Deal with Bristol-Myers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, PATRICIA WOODS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J.
ALLES, RICHARD W. BARKER, HANS BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL
D. CASEY, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, JULIA A. HALLER,
PATRICIA HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES J. LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, and JOHN
H. WEILAND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01597 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
20, 2019), targets Celgene Corporation's Board of Directors for
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company to Bristol-Myers Squibb Company through its wholly owned
subsidiary Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.

On January 3, 2019, Celgene announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement with Bristol-Myers, pursuant to which Merger
Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bristol-Myers. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, upon successful completion of the merger, each Celgene
common share issued and outstanding will be converted into the
right to receive: (i) $50.00 in cash, without interest, (ii) one
share of Bristol-Myers common stock, and (ii) one tradeable
contingent value right ("CVR") representing the right to receive
$9.00 in cash if a specified set of milestones is achieved, valuing
Celgene at $102.43 per share based on the closing price of
Bristol-Myers common stock on January 2, 2019 ($52.43 per share)
(the "Merger Consideration"). The consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Celgene.

The Merger Consideration being offered to shareholders in
connection with the Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair.
Defendants failed to obtain a collar provision to be included in
the Merger Agreement, which would protect the Company's
shareholders from a drop in Bristol-Myers' stock price between the
Proposed Transaction's announcement and completion.

Bristol-Myers' stock price fell from $52.43 on January 3, 2019, the
day of the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, to $45.12 on
the following day. On February 1, 2019, in order to convince
Celgene stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
the Board, jointly with Bristol-Myers, authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the lawsuit says.

Celgene  is an American biotechnology company that discovers,
develops and commercializes medicines for cancer and inflammatory
disorders.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Can Compel Arbitration in Adell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORRAINE ADELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba
VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV623 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on her Individual Claims for
Declaratory Judgment.

Adell has been a Verizon Wireless customer since Sept. 3, 2015,
when she purchased an IPhone at Costco Wholesale, an authorized
third-party retail outlet for Verizon products.  By her signature,
the Plaintiff acknowledged her agreement to the current Verizon
Wireless Customer Agreement and acknowledged her agreement to
important terms, including "Settlement of Disputes by Arbitration
Instead of Jury Trials."

On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint,
asserting a claim for relief on behalf of a class of Verizon
Wireless customers whose phones have an Ohio area code, seeking
damages for breach of contract for Verizon's practices in
connection with the imposition of an "administrative charge."

The Plaintiff also asserts a claim for declaratory relief on behalf
of all Verizon Wireless telephone customers that: (1) the waiver of
their personal constitutional right to the exercise of the Article
III judicial power in connection with their state law claims
against Verizon for breach of contract brought within the diversity
jurisdiction of the federal courts under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA") is not "voluntary," and therefore not
enforceable, because of the absence of the right to refuse to
consent to non-Article III arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") and still receive their equipment and
services from Verizon; and (2) their agreements to bilaterally
arbitrate their state law claims brought within the diversity
jurisdiction of the federal courts under CAFA are not enforceable
because of the "inherent conflict" between arbitration under the
FAA and CAFA's express purposes as stated by Congress.

The Defendant moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's state law
claims and to stay proceedings in the case.

Judge Boyko finds that the Plaintiff signed the conspicuous
language waiving the right to a jury trial and further acknowledged
that she had the opportunity to review all the terms of the current
Customer Agreement.  It is evidently clear that she possessed the
right to refuse to sign the Verizon Customer Agreement and to take
her business elsewhere.  The Judge agrees with the Defendant that
if Congress had wanted to override the FAA and ban arbitration
class action waivers, it could have done so manifestly and
expressly in the CAFA statute.  Thus, he determines that the
Plaintiff's contentions (1) that her consent to arbitration under
the FAA was not voluntary and (2) that CAFA and the FAA are in
conflict, are without merit.  So, the Plaintiff's assertion that
the arbitration agreement with Verizon is unenforceable fails.

Upon the application of one of the parties, the FAA requires the
Court to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Therefore, for all
the reasons set forth in his Opinion, Judge Boyko (i) granted the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings under
the Federal Arbitration Act; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on her Individual Claims for
Declaratory Judgment.  The matter is stayed and removed from the
active docket of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0B0gXL from Leagle.com.

Lorraine Adell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, William R. Weinstein -- wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com -- &
Daniel R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Law Office of Daniel R.
Karon.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Branden P. Moore -- bmoore@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, R.
Eric Bilik -- ebilik@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, pro hac
vice & R. Patrick Dover -- pdover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, 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 the company continues
to defend itself from a class action suit involving Stainless Steel
Cryobiological Tank.

During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.  

No monetary damages related to the alleged failure have been
specified or communicated to Chart at this point, and the company
is evaluating the merits of such claims in light of the limited
information available to date regarding use, maintenance and
operation of the tank which has been out of our custody for the
past six years when it was sold to the Pacific Fertility Center
through an independent distributor.  

Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.

Chart Industries said, "We have asserted various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since
manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation,
ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility
center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of
the tank."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, 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 the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank.

Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed
during the second quarter of 2018 in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against the Company and other defendants with respect to
the alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank
(model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The Toronto Institute for
Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.  

The company have confirmed that the tank in question was part of
the aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23,
2018.

Chart Industries said, "We have asserted various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits and are in the early stages of
litigation. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may
result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a potential
loss is not currently probable or estimable."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Singh Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MINOHOR SINGH, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIGNA
CORPORATION, DAVID CORDANI, THOMAS A. McCARTHY, HERBERT A. FRITCH,
RICHARD APPEL, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-3484-cv (2d Cir.),
Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Singh, on behalf of himself and other shareholders, appeals from an
Oct. 2, 2017 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut (Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge) dismissing the class
action alleging violations of federal securities laws by Cigna and
certain of its officers.  The Plaintiffs claim that certain of the
Defendants' statements were materially misleading, constituting
fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.
The District Court determined that the alleged misstatements do not
constitute fraud under the relevant legal standards and granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In early 2012, Cigna, a multi-national health services organization
incorporated in Delaware, purchased HealthSpring Inc., a successful
regional Medicare insurer based in Nashville, Tennessee, for $3.8
billion.  The goal of the acquisition was to bring Cigna into the
fast-growing Medicare insurance market, complementing Cigna's
commercial health business with Medicare offerings as current Cigna
customers aged.  Initially, the acquisition appeared to produce
benefits: within a year, HealthSpring had become Cigna's largest
source of revenue.

Cigna's leadership was aware that HealthSpring's extensive Medicare
business subjected the company to significant regulatory
responsibilities.  Indeed, during the acquisition and over the next
two years, Cigna and its officers issued several public statements
concerning Cigna's commitment to regulatory compliance.  During the
period these statements were released, however, Cigna's Medicare
operations experienced a series of compliance failures.  Over the
next four days, Cigna's stock price fell substantially, from
$140.13 to $135.85.

On Feb. 4, 2016, Cigna investor Jyotindra Patel filed a putative
class action against Cigna on behalf of all individuals who had
acquired Cigna securities between Feb. 27, 2014 (the date of the
2013 Form 10-K) and Jan. 21, 2016 (the date of the CMS letter and
sanction).  On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff-Appellant Singh moved for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, arguing that he (rather than
Patel) was the "most adequate" representative due to his
"substantial financial interest" and retention of a "nationally
recognized securities class action litigation firm."  On May 17,
2016 the District Court granted Singh's motion.

On July 29, 2016, Cigna announced that it had already spent nearly
$30 million to remedy the compliance violations, but that it may
"not be able to address matters arising from the [CMS Sanctions]
Notice in a timely and satisfactory manner.  At the close of
trading on Aug. 2, 2016, Cigna's stock price had fallen to $124.13
per share.

On Aug. 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs (now represented by Lead Plaintiff
Singh) filed an amended complaint, and on Nov. 30, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, extending the class
period to Aug. 2, 2016.  On Feb. 13, 2017, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 2, 2017, the District Court entered
judgement granting the motion.  The appeal followed.

Because the challenged statements are tentative and generic, and
because they emphasize the complex, evolving regulatory environment
that Cigna faced, Judge Cabranes concludes that the Plaintiffs have
failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable investor would view
these statements "as having significantly altered the total mix of
information made available."  These statements are not, therefore,
materially misleading.  Accordingly, the Judge affirmed the Oct. 2,
2017 judgment of the District Court.

                            *     *     *

Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that in
affirming the dismissal of a class action suit against health
services company Cigna, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit took the opportunity to address what it called "a creative
attempt to recast corporate mismanagement as securities fraud."

Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, writing for the panel,
continued: "The attempt relies on a simple equation: first, point
to banal and vague corporate statements affirming the importance of
regulatory compliance; next, point to significant regulatory
violations; and voila, you have alleged a prima facie case of
securities fraud!"

There was a problem with such an equation, Judge Cabranes and his
fellow panel members, Circuit Judge Robert Sack and District Judge
John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York sitting by
designation, noted: generic statements such as the ones Cigna made
in its public filing "do not invite reasonable reliance."

"They are not, therefore, materially misleading, and so cannot form
the basis of a fraud case," Judge Cabranes added.

The class action was brought in the wake of the regulatory issues
faced by Cigna's 2012 acquisition of Medicare insurer HealthSpring.
The plaintiffs claimed that a series of public filings misstated
the company's success in dealing with the substantial regulatory
compliance environment surrounding HealthSpring, which led to
regulators shutting down Medicare enrollment in 2016.

The panel backed the decision by U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant
of the District of Connecticut to dismiss the case for failing to
sufficiently allege materially false statements. The language used
by Cigna in public filings amounted to puffery and of a sort that a
reasonable investor would not rely on.

Rather, the statements reflected for the panel "a company actively
working to improve its compliance efforts, rather than one
expressing confidence in their complete (or even substantial)
effectiveness," Judge Cabranes wrote.

"If anything, these statements seem to reflect Cigna's uncertainty
as to the very possibility of maintaining adequate compliance
mechanism in light of complex and shifting government regulations,"
Judge Cabranes wrote.

The class action plaintiffs were represented on appeal by Labaton
Sucharow partner David Goldsmith -- dgoldsmith@labaton.com Cigna
was represented by Sidley Austin partner Andrew Stern --
astern@sidley.com  Neither responded to a request for comment.
[GN]

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/95KiGM from Leagle.com.

DAVID J. GOLDSMITH -- dgoldsmith@labaton.com -- (James W. Johnson
-- jjohnson@labaton.com -- Michael H. Rogers -- mrogers@labaton.com
-- James T. Christie -- jchristie@labaton.com -- on the brief)
Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

ANDREW W. STERN -- astern@sidley.com -- (James O. Heyworth --
JHEYWORTH@SIDLEY.COM -- Francesca E. Brody, on the brief) Sidley
Austin LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.


CITIGROUP INC: $9-Mil. Accord in Frontpoint Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the Citi defendants and
plaintiffs in the class action captioned as Frontpoint Asian Event
Driven Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., have entered
into a settlement under which Citi agreed to pay $9.99 million.

In 2016, a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, LTD., ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton
Act, and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged
manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore
Swap Offer Rate.

On May 22, 2018, the Citi defendants and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement under which Citi agreed to pay $9.99 million. No further
updates were provided in the firm's SEC report.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly available
in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Hellerstein, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Class Certification Cert. in Tel Aviv Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 two motions seeking class
certification are pending in lawsuits in Israel.

The cases are LANUEL, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET
AL., CA 29013-09-18, and GERTLER, ET AL. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, C1A
1657-10-18.  The cases allege manipulation of foreign exchange
markets were filed in the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel
against Citigroup and CGMI, and Citibank, respectively.  The
motions were filed in 2018.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Allianz Global Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the company is defending
a lawsuit launched by some of the institutional investors who opted
out of an August 2018 settlement with Citi defendants.  The case is
entitled, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, ET AL.

Numerous foreign exchange dealers and their affiliates, including
Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI, were named as defendants in
putative class actions consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of
defendants' alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to,
the foreign exchange market. Plaintiffs assert claims under the
Commodity Exchange Act, Sherman Act, and Clayton Act, and seek
compensatory damages, treble damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On November 7, 2018, some of the institutional investors who opted
out of an August 2018 settlement with Citi defendants filed a
lawsuit against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, and other defendants
under the caption ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. (docket number 18 Civ. 10364
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to
manipulate, the foreign exchange market. Plaintiffs assert Sherman
Act and unjust enrichment claims and seek consequential and
punitive damages and other forms of relief.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Adjourned
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the court has adjourned
the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of
litigation on behalf of holders of Citi-sponsored American
depositary receipts.

In 2015, Citibank was sued by a purported class of persons or
entities who, from January 2000 to the present, are or were holders
of depositary receipts for which Citibank served as the depositary
bank and converted, or caused to be converted, foreign currency
dividends or other distributions into U.S. dollars (docket number
15 Civ. 9185 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.).

On March 23, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying only a class
of holders of Citi-sponsored American depositary receipts that
plaintiffs own.

On September 6, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement.  

On January 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' request to
adjourn the final approval hearing for the settlement.  

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.



CITIGROUP INC: NYPL Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit entitled, NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., ET AL.

NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. was brought in 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (later transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York) against Citigroup, as well
as numerous other foreign exchange dealers.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a third amended class action
complaint, naming Citigroup, Citibank, and Citicorp as defendants.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of "consumers and
businesses in the United States who directly purchased
supracompetitive foreign currency at Benchmark exchange rates" from
defendants.

Plaintiffs allege claims under federal and California antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and are seeking compensatory damages,
treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly available
in court filings under the docket numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.)
(Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Contant Suit Fails to Win Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the court in Contant, et
al. v. Bank of America Corporation, has denied plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement.

In 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments sold by defendants, including Citigroup,
Citibank, Citicorp, and CGMI as defendants, captioned CONTANT, ET
AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices in
violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws.

On November 15, 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement with the Citi
defendants and requested plaintiffs to provide additional
information.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 7512
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 17 Civ. 4392 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield,
J.), and 17 Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Settlement of LIBOR Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the court has granted
final approval of settlement in the case entitled, IN RE
LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Citigroup and Citibank, along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR
panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation
proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of different putative classes and
individually, assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Commodities
Exchange Act, and state antitrust, unfair competition, and
restraint-of-trade laws, as well as various common law claims,
based on allegations that defendants suppressed or otherwise
manipulated USD LIBOR.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, treble damages
where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief.

On December 5, 2018, a court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement among Citigroup, Citibank and a class of investors who
purchased USD LIBOR debt securities from non-defendant sellers,
pursuant to which the Citi defendants paid $7.025 million.

On December 20, 2018, a court granted final approval of a
settlement among Citigroup, Citibank and a class of lending
institutions with interests in loans tied to USD LIBOR, pursuant to
which the Citi defendants paid $23 million.

Additional information concerning these actions and related actions
and appeals is publicly available in court filings under the docket
numbers 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.) and 17-1569 (2d
Cir.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Settlement with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the court has granted the
damages class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
settlement in the Interchange Fee Litigation.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal
district courts and consolidated with other related individual
cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This
proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND
MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded
payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things,
that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of
interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions and to restrain trade unreasonably through various
Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California
statutes.

Plaintiffs further alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act. Supplemental complaints also were filed against defendants in
the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's
respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and
violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's
initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

In 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the
terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, a
total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants
participating in the damages class settlement of 10 bps on
interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and
MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules. Various
objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
approval of the class settlement and remanded for further
proceedings. The district court thereafter appointed separate
interim counsel for a putative class seeking damages and a putative
class seeking injunctive relief. Amended or new complaints on
behalf of the putative classes and various individual merchants
were subsequently filed, including a further amended complaint on
behalf of a putative damages class and a new complaint on behalf of
a putative injunctive class, both of which named Citigroup and
affiliates.  

In addition, numerous merchants have filed amended or new
complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or
more issuing banks. Three of these suits 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v.
VISA INC., ET AL.; ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. VISA INC. ET AL.;
and LUBY'S FUDDRUCKERS RESTAURANTS, LLC, v. VISA INC., ET AL.,
brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, name Citigroup
and affiliates as defendants.

On January 24, 2019, the court granted the damages class
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement with
the defendants, including Citigroup.  

The settlement involves the damages class only and does not settle
the claims of the injunctive relief class or any actions brought on
a non-class basis by individual merchants.  

Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL
05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.)

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Suits over Interest Rate Swaps Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the company continues to
defend Interest Rate Swaps Cases

Beginning in 2015, interest rate swap (IRS) market participants,
including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and numerous other
parties, were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide
putative class actions. These actions have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to
prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby
causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with
their IRS transactions. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
and claims for unjust enrichment.

Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual actions
filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state
antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all of
these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On October 25, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs moved for leave
to file a fourth consolidated class action complaint.

On November 20, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss in TRUEEX LLC v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 18-CV-5361
(S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.) and 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer,
J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Sullivan Case Settlement Wins Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 the court has granted
preliminary approval of a settlement in the case, Sullivan v.
Barclays PLC, et al.

In 2015, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC,
ET AL., pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, filed a fourth amended complaint
naming Citigroup, Citibank, and various other banks as defendants.


Plaintiffs claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported
EURIBOR manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange
Act, the Sherman Act, and the federal civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and for unjust enrichment.

In 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On December 19, 2018, the court preliminarily approved a settlement
among the Citi and JPMorgan defendants and plaintiffs pursuant to
which the settling defendants collectively agreed to pay a total of
$182.5 million.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly available
in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Castel, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CLUB EROTICA: Former Dancer Files Class Action Over Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Martines, writing for TribLIVE, reports that a former dancer
at Club Erotica strip club in McKees Rocks is seeking a class
action lawsuit against the club and its owners contending she was
underpaid.

Sonya Jackson, who worked at the club at various times from May
2016 until late August 2018, alleges that club management
improperly classified dancers as independent contractors rather
than employees. As a result, she contends the dancers were not paid
properly for the hours they worked.

Filed in U.S. District Court, the lawsuit names the club, owner
Vincenzo Isoldi, general manager Franco Isoldi and president and
treasurer James W. Shepard as defendants.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Jackson alleges that despite dancers' status as
independent contractors, the club has "near total control over
them." The lawsuit was filed by the Pittsburgh-based law firm
Carlson Lynch.

Upon arrival, dancers must check in with a door clerk, then again
with the club's D.J. after getting dressed. They must pay a fee of
at least $10 in order to work and are subject to a mandatory
tip-out policy, in which dancers are required to share their tips
with other employees of the club.

At the end of the night, dancers are required to stay at the club
until management tells them they're allowed to leave, according to
the lawsuit. The club closes at 4 a.m.

Dancers are not paid an hourly minimum wage, according to the suit.
Sometimes, they end the night with little to no compensation and
are not allowed to perform if they have outstanding fees.

Ms. Jackson is seeking compensation for unpaid wages and believes
the suit could include at least 100 other members, according to the
lawsuit.

A spokesperson for the club who answered the phone on March 4 said
the owners declined to comment at this time. [GN]


COLACEM CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds, Desmeules, Avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l., on March 6 disclosed
that on January 28, 2019, a Settlement agreement reached in a class
action against Colacem Canada inc. ("Colacem") alleging inter alia
neighborhood disturbances, was approved by the Quebec superior
Court. Colacem has denied and continues to deny any misconduct or
liability of any kind in relation to the exercise of this class
action.

The rights of residents and owners or lessees of a piece of land,
an immoveable or a business in the municipalities of
Grenville-Sur-La-Rouge and Harrington, between June 8, 2008 and
January 29, 2015, might be affected.

Under the Court approved Settlement agreement, an amount of $1,3
million will be paid to resolve these claims, as well as an amount
of $135 000 to cover the cost of disbursements incurred by Class
Counsel in litigating this class action. Colacem has also agreed to
pay notice costs and the costs of administering the Settlement
agreement. Settlement funds will be paid to Class Members in
accordance with the Distribution Protocol that was approved by the
Court.

To make a claim, Class Members must complete the Claim Form
available on the website below and mail it to the Claims
Administrator at the following address by no later than June 9,
2019:

         Colacem Canada Inc. Class Action
         c/o Collectiva Class Action Services Inc.
         200-2170 Rene-Levesque Boulevard West
         Montreal, Quebec, H3H 2T8.

The Claim Form and related instructions can be found here:
www.colacem-settlement.com

For more information and/or to view copies of the Agreement and
Distribution Protocol, please visit www.colacem-settlement.com or
contact:

         Colacem Class Action Administrator
         c/o Collectiva Class Action Services Inc.
         2170 Rene-Levesque Boulevard West, Suite 200
         Montreal, Quebec H3H 2T8
         Phone number: 514.287.1000
         Toll free number: 1.800.287.8587

For further information: Source: Siskinds, Desmeules, Avocats,
s.e.n.c.r.l.; For media inquiries, please contact Karim Diallo at
(418) 694-2009 or karim.diallo@siskindsdesmeules.com [GN]


COLLECTO INC: Dominguez Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The
case is styled as Rey Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc. doing
business as: EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02229 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company. It offers receivables
collection services for banks, colleges and universities, student
loan lenders, telecommunications companies, and other
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



COMCAST CORP: Sept. 10 Set-Top Box Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you subscribed to Premium Cable and paid a rental fee for a
Set-Top Box, you could receive benefits from a class action
settlement.

A settlement has been reached with Defendants Comcast Corporation,
Comcast Holdings Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc. (collectively
"Comcast") about alleged unfair trade practices related to the
rental of "Set-Top Boxes" to customers who subscribe to Comcast's
Premium Cable services.

The Settlement offers a cash benefit to former Comcast subscribers
and a cash benefit or in-kind relief in the form of an account
credit to current Comcast subscribers who resided in the states of
California, Washington, or West Virginia during the Class Period or
who opted out of Comcast's arbitration clause as recorded within
the arbitration clause opt-out list kept at Comcast's offices, and
paid Comcast a rental fee for a Set-Top Box at any time during the
Class Period.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to
approve the Settlement. If it does, and after any appeals are
resolved, benefits will be distributed to those who file a valid
and timely Claim Form.

What is this lawsuit about?

The lawsuit claims that Comcast dominates the market for Premium
Cable in the areas in which it operates and abuses its power by
requiring consumers, as a condition of purchasing its Premium Cable
services, to use and to rent the Set-Top Boxes that it distributes.
The lawsuit further claims that by tying the sale of Premium Cable
to the rental of its Set-Top Boxes, Comcast has substantially
restricted competition in the market for the rental of Set-Top
Boxes, enabling Comcast to reap supra-competitive profits from
Class Members and producing significant adverse effects on
interstate commerce.

Comcast denies the claims and allegations in this lawsuit.

Who Is in the Settlement
To see if you will be affected by the Settlement or if you can get
a payment from it, you first have to determine if you are a member
of the Settlement Class.

How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

The Court decided that the Settlement Class includes all persons
who: (i) resided in and subscribed to Premium Cable in California,
Washington, or West Virginia during the Class Period, or (ii)
subscribed to Premium Cable in any state in the United States
during the Class Period and elected to opt out of Comcast's
arbitration clause as reflected in Comcast's records; and paid
Comcast a rental fee for a Set-Top Box at any time during the Class
Period.

The Class Period is from January 1, 2005 to September 5, 2018.

If you are unsure whether you opted out of Comcast's arbitration
clause, then you may call 1-888-748-8055 or email
info@SetTopBoxSettlement.com to determine whether you are recorded
as an arbitration clause opt-out within the arbitration clause
opt-out list kept at Comcast's offices.
The Settlement Benefits—What You Get If You Qualify

If the Settlement is approved and becomes final, it will provide
benefits to qualified members of the Settlement Class not to exceed
$15.5 million. The $15.5 million is not part of any fund. If more
than $15.5 million worth of claims is submitted by eligible
Claimants, the benefits will be distributed on a pro rata basis. If
less than $15.5 million worth of claims is submitted by eligible
Claimants, Comcast is entitled to retain the balance.

Subscribers who are Settlement Class Members and submit a valid
Claim Form can receive between $10.00 and $15.00, payable by check.
In lieu of that cash payment, Current Subscribers who are
Settlement Class Members and submit a valid Claim Form have the
option of receiving credits redeemable for a variety of Comcast
services. Benefit options may vary depending on the period of time
you rented a Set-Top Box and how many Set-Top Boxes you rented.

What do I need to do to participate in the Settlement?

If you qualify for the benefits described above, you must complete
and submit a Claim Form including all required information. You can
quickly and easily file your Claim Form online at
www.SetTopBoxSettlement.com. The deadline to file a Claim online is
11:59 p.m. PST on August 31, 2019. You also can request one be sent
to you by calling 1-888-748-8055 or by writing to Comcast Set-Top
Box Settlement, P.O. Box 6006, Portland, OR 97228-6006. Claim Forms
submitted by mail must be postmarked on or before August 31, 2019.
Please read all instructions carefully and fill out the Claim Form
completely.

How do I get out of the Settlement?

To exclude yourself from the Settlement and Settlement Class, you
must send the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel or Class
Counsel's designee a written request for exclusion ("Opt-Out
Request"). You must mail your completed request for exclusion,
postmarked no later than July 9, 2019, to:

Claims Administrator

Comcast Set-Top Box Settlement
P.O. Box 6006
Portland, OR 97228-6006

Class Counsel

Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NastLaw LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107

How do I tell the Court if I do not like the Settlement?

If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may,
if you wish, object to the certification of the Settlement Class,
to the terms of the proposed Settlement, or to Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

An objection to the Settlement Agreement must be filed with the
Court and served upon Class Counsel and counsel for Comcast to the
addresses below so that it is postmarked by July 9, 2019.

Court
U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Clerk of the Court
601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Class Counsel
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NastLaw LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Comcast's Counsel
Jaime Bianchi, Esq.
White & Case LLP
200 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?

On September 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a public
hearing in Courtroom 7B of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located at the U.S. Courthouse,
601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, to determine whether the
Settlement Class should be certified and whether the Settlement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be finally approved, with
judgment entered accordingly. The Court will also consider Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expense
reimbursement and any opposition thereto. This hearing may be
continued or rescheduled by the Court without further notice to the
Settlement Class. Members of the Settlement Class who support the
Settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other
action to indicate their approval of the Settlement. Members of the
Settlement Class who object to the Settlement are not required to
attend the Fairness Hearing. If you want to be heard orally in
opposition to the Settlement, either personally or through your own
separate counsel, you must state in your written objection your
intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing as set forth above.

Questions? Call 1-888-748-8055 or visit
www.SetTopBoxSettlement.com.


COMPETITIVE EDGE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Maldonado Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELOB MALDONADO, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. COMPETITIVE EDGE GROUP, INC., d/b/a COMPETITIVE
EDGE LANDSCAPING, a Florida Profit Corporation, and FRED R.
BOOTHBY, individually, Case No. 6:19-cv-00398 (M.D. Fla., March 1,
2019), alleges that, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Defendants have unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff and other
employees of minimum wage and overtime compensation during the
course of their employment.

Competitive Edge is a Florida for-profit corporation located and
transacting business within Longwood, Florida.  Competitive Edge is
headquartered and operates its principal location at 117 Trafalgar
Pl., in Longwood, Florida.  Fred R. Boothby is the President,
Treasurer, Secretary, and Director of the Company.

Competitive Edge provides landscaping services in the state of
Florida, and has done so since at least 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONAGRA BRANDS: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Backus and McFaddin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY BACKUS, Plaintiffs, v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC.,
Defendants, MARJEL McFADDIN and MARK BEASLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA
BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. C 16-00454 WHA, C 17-00387 WHA
(N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to consolidate the complaints; and (ii) granted in part and denied
in part their motion to amend the complaints.

Backus brought his putative class action in January 2016 against
the Defendant's use and mislabeling of artificial trans fats in its
margarine products.  For many years, Backus purchased and consumed
a variety of margarine spreads and sticks under the brand name
Fleischmann's, which was manufactured and sold by ConAgra Foods,
predecessor to defendant Conagra Brands.

Conagra's products used partially hydrogenated oil, a food additive
derived from low-cost oils that contained artificial trans fat,
which had been linked to increased risk of certain medical
conditions like cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
Alzheimer's disease, and organ damage.  In June 2015, The Food and
Drug Administration issued a final determination that partially
hydrogenated oils were no longer "generally recognized as safe"

Backus's amended complaint alleged various claims for relief for
Conagra's use of artificial trans fat, on the basis that using
artificial trans fat in food products was unlawful and unfair, and
for its product mislabeling, on the basis that its labels
misrepresented the product.  The mislabeling claims were premised
on front and back product labels that described the products as
containing "0g of Trans-Fat" and "No Trans-Fat"; labels that
claimed the products contained "100% Less Cholesterol" and "70%
Less Saturated Fat" than butter; and a label that claimed "the
delicious taste of Fleischmann's enhances favorite foods while
maintaining healthy lifestyle."

Conagra moved to dismiss and succeeded in dismissing all the use
claims and all but one of the mislabeling claims.  Only the
mislabeling claim related to maintaining a healthy lifestyle
survived.  The action continued for that single claim, but in
December 2016, Backus was rejected as a class representative for
presenting individualized issues and failing to satisfy the
typicality requirement.

In January 2017, the counsel for Backus filed another putative
class action against Conagra in the district with new Plaintiffs
Marjel McFaddin and Mark Beasley.  The complaint was nearly
identical to the complaint in the Backus action and included the
use and mislabeling claims that had already been dismissed.
Accordingly, Conagra again filed a motion to dismiss.

With the motion still pending, however, both the Backus and
McFaddin actions were stayed in October 2017 in light of two
separate actions, both also brought by the Plaintiffs' counsel,
fully briefed and pending before the court of appeals that teed up
the same issues of law that controlled these actions.

Now that the two actions in the court of appeals, Hawkins v.
Kroger, 906 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2018), and Hawkins v. AdvancePierre
Foods, Inc., 733 Fed. Appx. 906 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished), have
been decided, an order was filed lifting the stay and instructing
the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to consolidate and amend
the complaints.

Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiffs support consolidation and are
correct that both actions share nearly identical complaints and
involve many common questions of law or fact.  They, however, are
unpersuasive as to why these two actions in different procedural
postures should be consolidated.  Plaintiff Backus has already
failed class certification and there is a risk that his
individualized issues could cause confusion.  The offsetting
benefit of consolidation is unclear.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
stated at oral argument that the benefit was access to discovery
from the Backus action.  That benefit, however, can still be
achieved without consolidation and without the possible confusion
caused by Backus' individualized issues.  Thus, the motion to
consolidate is denied.  By noon on March 20, 2019, Conagra must
show cause as to why discovery from the Backus action should not be
usable in the McFaddin action to the same extent as in the Backus
action.

Next, the Judge finds that the consolidated complaint attempts to
reintroduce claims related to the use of partially hydrogenated
oils that had already been dismissed in the Backus action.  KZroger
specifically chose not to address use claims related to partially
hydrogenated oils and AdvancePierre, while unpublished and
nonbinding, provided dicta that arguably weakened the prospect of
successfully bringing partially hydrogenated oil use claims.
Nothing from those two decisions of the court of appeals supports
the reintroduction of the already dismissed use claims.  In
addition, at least five judges in our district, including the
undersigned, have disallowed use claims for partially hydrogenated
oils.  Conagra provides the most recent decision by Judge William
Orrick as supplemental authority.  Thus, the Judge denied the
motion to amend the complaints with claims related to the use of
partially hydrogenated oils.

Hw also finds that the consolidated complaint also attempts to
reintroduce mislabeling claims that were based on labels claiming
"70% Less Saturated Fat" and "100% Less Cholesterol" than butter.
He says those mislabeling claims were dismissed in the Backus
action and the Plaintiffs has provided no change in factual or
legal circumstance to support why they should be allowed again.
Hence, the inclusion of those claims in the amended complaints
similarly must be denied.

Finally, the Judge finds that Kroger did speak specifically to the
viability of mislabeling claims that involved "No Trans-Fat" or "0g
of Trans-Fat."  Those mislabeling claims and the healthy lifestyle
mislabeling claim that survived the original Backus action can be
included in the amended complaints.  The motion to amend the
complaints with respect to these specific mislabeling claims is
granted.

In conclusion, Judge Alsup denied the motion to consolidate.  By
noon on March, 2019, Conagra must show cause as to why discovery
from the Backus action should not be usable, to the same extent, in
the McFaddin action.  He granted in part and denied in part the
motion to amend the complaints.  The Plaintiffs must submit
separate amended complaints for the Backus action and the McFaddin
action that are limited to the mislabeling claims for "No
Trans-Fat", "0g of Trans-Fat", and "The delicious taste of
Fleischmann's enhances your favorite foods while maintaining your
healthy lifestyle."

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ak8kwt from Leagle.com.

Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Christopher Hamilton --
andrew@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm & Gregory Weston.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela M. Spivey --
angela.spivey@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Rachel Elizabeth
King Lowe -- rachel.lowe@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, Andrew G.
Phillips -- andrew.phillips@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro
hac vice, Jamie Smith George -- jamie.george@alston.com -- Alston
and Bird LLP, pro hac vice & Keisha Oldacre Coleman --
kcoleman@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


CORECIVIC INC: Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Bid in "Grae"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., have moved
the court to reconsider its denial of the motion for class
certification.

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons dated August 18,
2016, the Department of Justice directed that, as each contract
with privately operated prisons reaches the end of its term, the
BOP should either decline to renew that contract or substantially
reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and the overall
decline of the BOP's inmate population.  In addition to the decline
in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ memorandum cites purported
operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors as reasons
for the DOJ directive.  On February 21, 2017, the newly appointed
U.S. Attorney General issued a memorandum rescinding the DOJ's
prior directive stating the memorandum changed long-standing policy
and practice and impaired the BOP's ability to meet the future
needs of the federal correctional system.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired our securities between
February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.  

In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the
company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding
the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, our stock price was
artificially inflated.  

The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of our stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative
class of shareholders.  

On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2019, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify the matter as a class action.
Plaintiffs timely moved the court to reconsider that ruling,
simultaneously initiating the process to seek permission to appeal
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals should the court deny their
motion.  

CoreCivic said, "We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it. In addition, we
maintain insurance, with certain self-insured retention amounts, to
cover the alleged claims which may mitigate the risk that such
litigation would have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible cost-effective ways. The company is based in
Nashville,
Tennessee.


DAVITA INC: Bid to Dismiss Peace Officers' Fund Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita 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 the parties in the
securities class action lawsuit by the Peace Officers' Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Georgia are awaiting the court's decision on a
motion to dismiss.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives.

The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016
and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial
results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable
premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.


The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects."

In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018. On March 27, 2018,
the Company and various individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

Briefing on the motion is complete. The plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 6, 2018. The Company
filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19, 2018.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
action accordingly.

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

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DAYTON SUPERIOR: Zeigler Seeks Meal & Rest Breaks for Handlers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL P. ZEIGLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION, a
Delaware Compensation; REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, dba SELECT
STAFFING, a California company, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00440 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants maintained a company-wide policy and
practice to essentially not allow its employees any opportunity to
be able to take timely breaks or lunch periods pursuant to the
Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5-2001, and
other applicable Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
material handler in Rubidoux, California, from February 14, 2015
through July 2018. The Plaintiff's hourly wage was $18.27 per hour.
As a material handler, the Plaintiff was responsible for loading
and unloading trucks containing concrete accessories. Dayton's
shipping department was very busy, and on many occasions, Dayton
had trucks waiting to load and unload their equipment.

The Plaintiff alleges Dayton's shipping lead and operations manager
instructed Plaintiff and other employees in the shipping department
to work through meal and rest breaks to prevent an increased truck
backup. The Plaintiff was told by his superiors that he would be
able to take his meal and rest breaks "later" when there were no
trucks waiting to be loaded, however since the shipping department
was so busy, that slowdown rarely came. As a result, the Plaintiff
consistently missed rest and meal breaks. The Plaintiff alleges the
proposed class was also denied rest and meal breaks in this
regard.

The Plaintiff further alleges Dayton regularly required Plaintiff
and the proposed class to clock out for lunch at, or just before
the hour mark of the shift, and continue working off the clock. On
other occasions, the operations manager manually edited the time
clock so Plaintiff's time records reflected that Plaintiff took his
lunch, even though he had actually worked through his lunch without
taking a break. [BN]

Attorneys for Michael P. Zeigler, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC
          5023 Parkway
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876-9631
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

DILLARD STORE: Haggar Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Dillard Store Services, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Elia Haggar, KyoHak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Dillard Store Services, Inc. doing business as: Dillards Inc.,
an Arizona corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01800-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2019).

Dillard Store Services, Inc. operates as fashion apparel,
cosmetics, and home furnishing retailer. The company through its
stores offers a selection of merchandise, including fashion apparel
for women, men, and children; accessories; cosmetics; home
furnishings; and other consumer goods. The company was founded in
1996 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Dillard Store Services,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Dillard's, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

      - and -

   Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com



ELEMENT MATERIALS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Flores Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ROGER FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 9STCV08387 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have increased their profits by violating
state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to
provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (b) failing
to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu
thereof; (c) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and (d) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.

The Defendants had the financial ability to pay compensation but
willfully, knowingly and intentionally failed to do so all in order
to increase Defendants' profits, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants tests, inspects, and certifies materials throughout
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251

EMORY UNIVERSITY: Plans to Mediate Retirement Plan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Emory
University and about 45,000 workers announced plans to take their
dispute over the school's retirement plans to a professional
mediator.

The parties March 4 sought permission to pause the case so they can
pursue mediation with Hunter Hughes Alternative Dispute
Resolution.

Hughes is a frequent presence in class actions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, including in cases involving the
retirement plans of large universities. [GN]


ENT CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Heilman, writing for The Gazette, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Colorado Springs-based Ent Credit Union has been
filed by Frank Azar, Colorado's high-profile personal injury
lawyer, and a Washington, D.C., law firm.

The suit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver, alleges
that Ent improperly charges overdraft fees on debit card
transactions that didn't overdraw accounts.

Franklin D. Azar & Associates of Aurora and the Kaliel law firm of
Washington, D.C., filed the action on behalf of one Ent member in
El Paso County and another in Tarrant County, Texas. It seeks
unspecified restitution, actual, statutory and punitive damages,
interest and attorney fees.

The suit, which Azar announced in a March 5 news release, also
seeks an order to halt Ent's handling of such transactions and
declare the practice a breach of contract.

"Ent Credit Union has a long history of doing the right thing for
our member-owners," Ent CEO Chad Graves said on March 5 by email.
"We want to reassure our members that we take consumer complaints
-- and certainly allegations of this nature -- very seriously. We
have not yet received this lawsuit, having first learned of its
existence through the media today, however we are committed to
promptly researching and responding."

Ashley Brymer of El Paso County reportedly was assessed $25
overdraft fees on a $6.51 debit-card transaction at Sonic in March
2018 and two more transactions in July, though her Ent account had
a positive balance when the transactions were authorized, the suit
said.

Stephanie Nelson of Tarrant County, Texas, which includes Fort
Worth, was assessed $25 overdraft fees in August, September,
October and January for cable television bills she paid, even
though her Ent account had a positive balance when the transactions
were authorized, the suit said.

Ent and most other financial institutions set aside money for debit
card transactions when the transaction is authorized. But if
another transaction, such as a check, overdraws the account, the
bank charges an overdraft fee on the check and the debit card
transaction, Azar said in the release.

Such charges violate Ent's deposit agreement with its members,
which allows it to either accept or reject a transaction and charge
a fee if that transaction overdraws the account, the suit said.

Instead, Ent credits the account for any debit card transaction
during a "secret batch processing process" and then debits the
account a second time to actually pay the vendor or merchant, which
could overdraw a member account, the suit said.

Nelson and Brymer also were assessed fees multiple times on debit
card transactions that declined and tried to process two or more
times, generating additional overdraft fees on the same
transaction, the suit alleges. Ent's deposit agreement says members
will be charged one overdraft fee per transaction, a practice
followed by most major banks, the suit said.

Ent is southern Colorado's largest financial institution, with
nearly $5.5 billion in assets and nearly 342,000 members. Azar &
Associates is one of Colorado's largest law firms, employing 45
lawyers along the Front Range. It advertises extensively on
television, portraying Azar as "The Strong Arm." [GN]


ESPOSITO'S RISTORANTE: Miro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN MIRO, RAPHAEL-UMBERTO MUNROY-GARCIA, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ESPOSITO'S RISTORANTE & PIZZERIA II, INC.,
DOMENICK ESPOSITO, AND DOMENICKA ESPOSITO, Case No. 7:19-cv-01946
(S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and
reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Esposito's Ristorante & Pizzeria II, Inc., is a corporation formed
in the state of New York and is located at 359 Mamaroneck Ave., in
White Plains, New York.  The Individual Defendants own all or part
of the Corporate Defendant and are domiciled in the state of New
York.

The Defendants operate multiple restaurants.  The Corporate
Defendant is an eating or drinking place that prepares and offers
food or beverage for human consumption on its premises to the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          777 Westchester Ave., Suite 101
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 218-6190
          Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com


ESSENDANT INC: Sold to Staples for Too Little, Sultan Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. SULTAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ESSENDANT INC., RICHARD D. PHILLIPS, CHARLES
K. CROVITZ, DENNIS J. MARTIN, SUSAN J. RILEY, ALEXANDER M.
SCHMELKIN, STUART A. TAYLOR, II, PAUL S. WILLIAMS, AND ALEX D.
ZOGHLIN, SYCAMORE PARTNERS, STAPLES, INC., EGG PARENT INC., AND EGG
MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 2019-0172- (Del. Ch., March 1, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' alleged misconduct in connection with
the acquisition of Essendant by Staples, Inc., through its direct
wholly owned subsidiary Egg Merger Sub Inc. ("Purchaser").

This stockholder class action arises from a deficient sale process
whereby members of Essandant's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Essendant stockholders by effectuating the
merger of Essendant with Staples through a process that failed to
maximize stockholder value, Mr. Sultan contends.  On January 31,
2019, Purchaser merged with and into Essendant and Essendant has
become a wholly owned subsidiary of Egg Parent Inc., a Delaware
corporation.

Essendant was a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware.  The Company maintained its principal
executive offices in Deerfield, Illinois.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Essendant.

Sycamore is a private equity firm specializing in retail and
consumer investments.  Sycamore maintains its principal executive
offices in New York City.  Sycamore is the owner of Staples.

Staples is a Delaware corporation, a portfolio company of Sycamore,
and an affiliate of Parent and Purchaser.  Parent is a Delaware
corporation and an affiliate of Staples.  Purchaser is a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kawaski Corley, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1900867,
was transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 8, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01726.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor-Other.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. provides business-to-business
package shipping and ground delivery services. The company provides
day-certain service to every business address in the United States
and Canada, as well as residential delivery through its FedEx Home
Delivery service. The company also includes FedEx SmartPost, which
consolidates and delivers sensitive business-to-consumer packages
using the United States postal service for final delivery to any
residential address or post office box in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Accord Reached in Suit over Vehicle Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the putative
securities class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On September 11, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company alleging material misstatements
regarding its compliance with regulatory requirements and that the
company failed to timely disclose certain expenses relating to its
vehicle recall campaigns.

On October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed the claims
relating to the disclosure of vehicle recall campaign expenses but
ruled that claims regarding the alleged misstatements regarding
regulatory requirements would be allowed to proceed. On February
17, 2017, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege material
misstatements regarding emissions compliance. On November 13, 2017,
the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
emissions-related claims. On June 15, 2018, the Court certified a
class of the company's stockholders in the case.

On February 4, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the litigation contingent on court approval and
the company's insurers' confirmation for an amount within the
coverage limits of our applicable insurance policies. As such, any
potential loss is not material to the Group.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles,
components, and production systems. The company operates through
five segments: NAFTA, LATAM, APAC, EMEA, and Maserati. The company
was formerly known as Fiat S.p.A. and changed its name to Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. in October 2014. Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. was founded in 1899 and is based in London, the
United Kingdom.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Agreement Reached in Suit over US Sales Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an
agreement-in-principle has been reached in the consolidated lawsuit
over U.S. sales reporting.

On July 18, 2016, the company confirmed that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation into its
reporting of vehicle unit sales to end customers in the U.S. and
that inquiries into similar issues have been received from the U.S.
Department of Justice.

These vehicle unit sales reports relate to unit sales volumes
primarily by dealers to consumers while the company generally
recognize revenues based on shipments to dealers and other
customers and not on vehicle unit sales to consumers. The company
continues to cooperate with these investigations; however their
outcome is uncertain and cannot be predicted at this time. At this
stage, the company is unable to reliably evaluate the likelihood
that a loss will be incurred or estimate a range of possible loss.

Two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan making allegations with regard to the company's reporting
of vehicle unit sales to end consumers in the U.S.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action and on
October 4, 2018, the company entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the consolidated litigation, subject to court approval,
for an amount that is not material to the Group.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles,
components, and production systems. The company operates through
five segments: NAFTA, LATAM, APAC, EMEA, and Maserati. The company
was formerly known as Fiat S.p.A. and changed its name to Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V. in October 2014. Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. was founded in 1899 and is based in London, the
United Kingdom.


FORD MOTOR: Carlson Asserts FDCPA Breach in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Credit
Company LLC. The case is styled as Quinton Carlson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor
Credit Company LLC and Patrick K. Willis Company, Inc. doing
business as: SB Investigations, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00181-jdp (W.D. Wis., March 8, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides
various automotive financing products to and through automotive
dealers worldwide. It offers retail financing products, such as
retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles; and
direct financing leases for new vehicles to retail and commercial
customers, including leasing companies, government entities, daily
rental companies, and fleet customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Katelyn Cartier, Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Email: kcartier@consumerjusticecenter.com

      - and -

   Thomas John Lyons , Jr., Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


FORD MOTOR: Removes Van Bebber Suit to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ROBERT VAN BEBBER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY
HEALTH d/b/a MERCY MEDICAL CENTER – MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Merced
(Case No. 17-CV-02311) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on February 22, 2019. The clerk of court for
the Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00264-DAD-EPG. The case is assigned to Judge Dale A. Drozd
and referred to Magistrate Erica P. Grosjean.

Dignity Health offers healthcare services. The Hospital provides
urgent care, ambulatory, surgery, home health, imaging, laboratory,
cancer, women's care, and wound healing services. Dignity Health
serves patients in the State of California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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


FORSTER & GARBUS: Lugo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster and Garbus
LLP. The case is styled as Miguel Lugo individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster and Garbus
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01435 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 12, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Moran Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster and Garbus
LLP. The case is styled as James Moran individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster and Garbus
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01441 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 12, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FORTIS FUNDING: Naiman Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy Under TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORTIS FUNDING GROUP LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 4:19-cv-01160-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
March 1, 2019), alleges that the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff
on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading his privacy.

Fortis Funding Group LLC is capital funding company.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to
the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


FOWLER PACKING: Protective Order Bid in Aldapa Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING
COMPANY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order.

The action was filed on March 17, 2015, and currently proceeds on
the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint filed on Oct. 20, 2016.
The action was brought on behalf of two named Plaintiffs and a
proposed class of non-exempt agricultural employees of the
Defendants who allegedly performed uncompensated work in te
Defendants' fields in or near Fresno County.

The Plaintiffs raise nine causes of action in their first amended
complaint: 1) violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act; 2) failure to pay wages and/or overtime; 3)
failure to compensate for mandated rest periods; 4) failure to
reimburse expenses for tools and equipment in violation of 29
U.S.C. Section 1832(c) and Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; 5) waiting
time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; 6) unfair
competition pursuant to Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200; 7)
failure to record and pay for travel time and wait time; 8) failure
to reimburse for vehicle expenses under Labor Code Section 2802;
and 9) failure to provide and/or record meal periods.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have not been fully compensated by
the Defendants for all time worked.  They Plaintiffs describe that
their pay is calculated under one of three methods: 1) hourly
wages, 2) piece rate for certain work, and 3) a crew piece rate
determined by total production by a crew, to be divided evenly
among individual members of the crew.  They contend that they were
not paid for off-the-clock work while organizing materials and
equipment for work and were not paid while attending training
sessions.  They further contend that they did not receive required
rest breaks.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants added
"ghost workers" to crew lists, which resulted in a reduction in pay
for jobs paid by the crew piece rate, as the piece rate was divided
among members of the crew, including these fictitious members.
Finally, they also allege that they were required to provide their
own tools necessary for working, and the Defendants did not
reimburse the Plaintiffs for such tools.

The instant motion for a protective order relates to 25 depositions
that the Defendants are attempting to take of absent class members.
The Plaintiffs move the Court for a protective order quashing all
such depositions and the associated document requests because they
argue discovery directed at absent class members is generally not
permitted, and argue that the Defendants have not met the
heightened burden for such discovery.  If any depositions of absent
class members are allowed, the Plaintiffs request the Court to
restrict the number to 10 total in line with the general limitation
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.

Further, if any such depositions are permitted, the Plaintiffs
request that given the potential deponents are current or former
employees and depend on daily wages, the depositions should be
limited to three to four hours each, and the deponents should be
compensated with reasonable wages for their lost time.  The
Plaintiffs also request the Court to restrict the Defendants'
potential use of the deposition testimony by preventing such being
used for any motion for decertification.  Finally, they request
that if the deponents fail to appear, the Court should not allow
penalties such as sanctions or the striking of declarations from
being imposed on Plaintiffs.

In support of their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs
submitted declarations from 46 employees, including the two named
Plaintiffs, and thus 44 of the declarations came from the absent
class members.  In opposition to the motion, the Defendants
submitted 100 declarations from other employees of the Defendants.


On Jan. 24, 2018, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted.  Prior to the order granting the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, the Defendants did not seek to depose any
employees other than the two named class members, who were deposed
before the Plaintiffs filed their motion, and these are the only
depositions completed by the Defendants thus far.  The Plaintiffs
have conducted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

On Jan. 23, 2019, the Defendants served notices of depositions,
requests for production of documents, as well as deposition
subpoenas, on 25 out of the 44 absent class members who provided
declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' 2017 class certification
motion.  The Plaintiffs' counsel wrote to the Defendants' counsel
on Jan. 30, 2019, objecting to the deposition notices, requesting
to meet and confer, and requesting that the depositions be vacated
pending a conference.  

The Plaintiffs objected to the Defendants' deposition notices,
contending that: (1) discovery of absent class members is generally
not permitted, citing McPhail v. First Command Financial Planning,
251 F.R.D. 514, 517 (S.D. Cal. 2008); (2) the Defendants exceeded
the 10-deposition limit set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(a); and (3) the Defendants improperly requested documents via
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 because Rule 30 only permits
document requests directed at parties.

The counsel for all parties had a telephone conference on Feb. 4,
2019. During the conference, Plaintiffs took the position that
Defendants were not entitled to any discovery from absent class
members.  Ultimately, the parties were unable to resolve the
dispute and the instant motion for a protective order was filed.

The Plaintiffs argue that as an employer, the Defendants can obtain
information from other sources and thus the noticed depositions and
document requests are unnecessary because there is no information
held by the proposed deponents that the Defendants do not already
have access to or could not easily gather through less intrusive
and burdensome means.  Judge Boone finds that the Defendants have
sufficiently demonstrated necessity for the proposed depositions
under the relevant case law cited by both parties.  

The Judge now turns his attention to the burden imposed by the
potential depositions, and whether the discovery is sought for an
improper purpose.  The Plaintiffs argue tge Defendants must
demonstrate that responding to the discovery would not require the
assistance of the counsel.

Recognizing the presumptive ten deposition limit in Rule 30 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and weighing the necessity and
potential burden on these absent class members, the Judge finds at
this point in the discovery process, granting the Defendants leave
to complete 15 depositions of the absent class members who
submitted declarations in support of the motion for class
certification is a reasonable allowance.

Additionally, at this point, he declines to impose any limitation
on the duration of the individual depositions, given the potential
need for translators, and because the needs of the potential
depositions are unknown before a handful of initial depositions are
completed.  However, the Judge is not opposed to reconsidering this
aspect after the first few initial depositions are completed, and
at that juncture, the Plaintiffs may move for such limitations to
be imposed on subsequent depositions if the duration of the initial
depositions prove to be overly burdensome to the deponents.

The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants' stated purpose of conducting
the discovery to gain a better understanding of trial strategy due
to the Plaintiffs not having submitted a trial plan, is not an
appropriate purpose for the discovery at this stage of the
proceedings, as the Court has already twice denied the Defendants'
attempts to compel the Plaintiffs to submit their trial plan, with
the Court most recently advising the Defendants to not attempt
another such motion until the close of the merits-phase of
discovery, scheduled for January 2020.

The Judge finds no improper purpose in the discovery sought by the
Defendants.  As for the Plaintiffs' request that the protective
order specifies that the Defendants cannot use the deposition
testimony in support of any argument or motions for class
decertification, he declines to grant this request.  He agrees with
the Defendants in that decertification of class actions that
ultimately prove incompatible with class adjudication is an
accepted, and necessary, part of class action litigation.  For
these reasons, he does not find evidence that the Defendants'
proposed depositions are being sought for any improper purposes.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Boone granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for protective order.  He
granted the Defendants leave to conduct a total of 15 depositions
of the absent class members who submitted declarations in support
of the motion for class certification.  The depositions will not be
limited in time duration at this point, however after the first
three depositions are completed, the Plaintiffs may present to the
Court a request for a limitation on the duration of the further
depositions.

The Magistrate denied the Plaintiffs request to limit the
Defendants' future ability to utilize the deposition testimony for
purposes of class decertification.  He also denied their request to
limit the Defendants' ability to seek sanctions or other penalties
for deponents that fail to appear for the depositions.

As the Magistrate declined to make such a blanket restriction
before any particular situation is presented to the Court, however
the Court will duly consider the fact that the Defendants assured
the Court that they do not plan on seeking any such sanctions or
penalties if the Defendants in fact do pursue such remedies.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SX1o3p from Leagle.com.

Beatriz Aldapa & Elmer Avalos, Plaintiffs, represented by Dexter
Flood Rappleye -- drappleye@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, ALC,
Erica Deutsch -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, Mario
Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho &
Lynch Aplc & Ira L. Gottlieb -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush
Gottlieb, A Law Corporation.

Fowler Packing Company Inc., a California Corporation, AG Force
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company & Fowler Marketing
International LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com --
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade Wieland --
ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.


FRC BALANCE: Bousson Seeks All Wages Earned for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BOUSSON, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. FRC BALANCE, LLC , an Arizona Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-000113626-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., March 13, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees with all wages earned and unpaid at termination
in violation of, among other statutes, Labor Code sections. These
violations resulted from, among other unlawful actions, Defendants'
willful failure to provide accurate and complete compensation to
aggrieved employees under Labor Code sections 226.7, 351, 510, 512,
1197, and 2802.

According to the complaint, in 2017, the Plaintiff commenced
working for Defendants, holding a position Defendants titled "Sous
Chef." He continued working for Defendants until December
2018.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

           William B. Sullivan, Esq.
           Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
           Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
           SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
           2330 Third Avenue
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 702-6760
           Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
           Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq.
           E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                   yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupllp.com
                   ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

FRITO-LAY NORTH: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Allred Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARRY ALLRED and MANDY C. ALLRED, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. and FRITO-LAY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-1345 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis
L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and sell
a variety of flavored and unflavored snack products, including
"Salt and Vinegar Flavored Potato Chips."  The Plaintiffs contend
that the Defendants' packaging, labeling, and advertising of the
Product is false and misleading and that the Product is misbranded
under California law because it is labeled as though it is flavored
with only natural ingredients, when it actually contains
undisclosed artificial flavors.

The Plaintiffs claim that there are three issues with the
Defendants' labeling of the Product.  First, because the Product
contains additional flavoring ingredients that dominate and
overwhelm the flavors of the small amount of actual vinegar in the
seasoning, the front label is required by law to disclose those
additional flavors rather than misleadingly claim that the Product
is 'Vinegar' flavored.  Second, the Product ingredient list
violates federal and state law because it misleadingly identifies
the malic acid flavoring ingredient only as generic 'malic acid'
instead of using the specific, non-generic name of the ingredient.
Third, the Product contains an undisclosed artificial flavor made
from petrochemicals.

On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in state court, bringing causes of action for violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the unlawful and
unfair prongs of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the False
Advertising Law ("FAL") and for breach of express and implied
warranties.  The Plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of all
consumers who purchased the Product in California during the period
six years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing until
the class is certified.

The Defendants removed the action to the Court on July 3, 2017.
Although the Plaintiffs sought to have the action remanded, the
Court denied their motion on the grounds that jurisdiction was
established under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On Aug. 9, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
original Complaint on the grounds that (1) the Plaintiffs' claims
were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") and
accompanying federal regulations; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to
state a claim as to any of their causes of action because they had
not plausibly pled that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by
the labeling of the Product; (3) the Plaintiffs' allegations were
insufficient to support their claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA;
(4) the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims failed
because they did not plausibly allege that any statements on the
Product's label were false; (5) the Plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranty claims failed because the Plaintiff did not allege that
the Product was unfit for its purpose, human consumption, or did
not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use;
and (6) the Plaintiffs' claims were partially barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations.

The Court denied the Defendants' first motion to dismiss on March
7, 2018.  On April 4, 2018, the Defendants' filed for
reconsideration on the grounds that (1) the filing of subsequent
class action complaints challenging the labeling of products
containing malic acid confirmed that Plaintiffs had not plausibly
alleged that malic acid is an artificial flavor, (2) the Court's
interpretation of the "common or usual name" requirement for the
labeling of malic acid in the Product's ingredients list rested on
an erroneous ruling of 21 C.F.R. Section 184.1069(a), and (3) the
Court should clarify its ruling on the statute of limitations
because the continuous accrual exception did not authorize the
Plaintiffs to bring claims outside the limitations period.

On June 1, 2018, while the Defendants' motion for reconsideration
was pending, the Plaintiffs requested leave to file an amended
complaint.  Because the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file
the operative First Amended Complaint, it denied as moot the
Defendants' motion for reconsideration.

The instant Motion followed on Aug. 17, 2018.  As in their motion
for reconsideration, the Defendants argue in their second motion to
dismiss that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice because: (i) the Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim as to any of their causes of action because they have not
plausibly pled that malic acid imparts a vinegar flavor in Lay's
Salt & Vinegar Flavored Potato Chips; (ii) the Plaintiffs' claims
that the chips are mislabeled because they list malic acid in the
ingredient list are preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act and accompanying federal regulations governing the
labeling of food products; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' claims are
partially barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The Defendants have requested the Court take judicial notice of
various complaints filed by the Plaintiffs' counsel.  Because the
Court does not rely on these documents, Judge Sammartino denied as
moot the Defendants' requests.

As to the motion to dismiss, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have alleged that malic acid imparts a vinegar flavor which
provides the vinegar flavor of the Product rather than actual
vinegar.  It is not implausible that malic acid imparts a vinegar
flavor to the Product and acts as a flavor enhancer for the
purposes of the other products identified in the Plaintiffs'
exhibits.  Consequently, she concludes that the Plaintiffs have met
their pleading burden under Rule 12(b)(6).

Because she has determined that it is inappropriate to determine
whether malic acid is a "flavor" at the motion-to-dismiss stage, ,
the Judge determines that it would be premature to determine the
preemption issue at this stage.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Defendants are correct that the
Court intended to invoke the continuous accrual doctrine in its
prior Order, as made clear by its quotation to Aryeh, and that the
continuous accrual doctrine -- rather than the continuing violation
doctrine -- applies in the case.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' CLRA
and FAL claims based on purchases prior to May 11, 2014, and their
breach of warranty and UCL claims based on purchases prior to May
11, 2013, are time-barred.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sammartino granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Specifically,
she granted the Defendants' Motion to clarify that the Plaintiffs
are entitled to tolling under the continuous accrual doctrine and
that the statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs from bringing
claims based on purchases made prior to the applicable limitations
periods.  She otherwise denied the Defendants' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/w8kpcl from Leagle.com.

Barry Allred, on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly
situated, and the general public & Mandy C Allred, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexis M. Wood, Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron, David Elliot -- david@westonfirm.com -- The
Elliott Law Firm, Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron & Michael Houchin, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Frito-Lay,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Andrew S.
Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Arianna Maureen Scavetti -- ascavetti@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr. --
fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jason R.
Meltzer -- jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
pro hac vice, Jocelyn D. Hannah, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP &
Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Glock Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL GLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. FTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; MICHAEL J. DOSS;
LANCE TURNER; GOH YONG SIANG; BOON SIMM; DOMENIC J. DELL'OSSO, JR.;
BRYAN J. LEMMERMAN; ONG TIONG SIN; CAROL J. JOHNSON; MAJU
INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) PTE LTD; CHK ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.;
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. DC1902668 (Tex.
Dist., 160th Judicial, Dallas Cty., Feb. 22, 2019) is a securities
class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
FTSI common stock in or traceable to the Company's February 5, 2018
initial public offering.  The Plaintiffs seek to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statements filed by the Defendants were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose adverse facts
that existed at the time of the IPO:

     (a) That the hydraulic fracturing market was experiencing
intense and increasing competition and a glut of increased supply
as companies re-entered the market and increased output due to a
rise in the price of commodities;

     (b) That FTSI was not positioned to capitalize on increased
demand for hydraulic fracturing services in the industry overall,
but rather was positioned to lose market share and suffer
decelerating revenue growth and, ultimately, decreased revenues as
competitors flooded the market and undercut the Company's prices
for its services, even as commodity prices increased;

     (c) That, as FTSI suffered decreased demand for its services
and intense price competition, it was not positioned to increase
its fleet size by 19% in the nine months following the IPO, but
rather needed to materially reduce its fleet size;

     (d) That FTSI was facing downward pricing pressures due to an
increase in hydraulic fracturing supply, and the Company's efforts
to raise prices by 56% on average year-over-year leading up to the
IPO had made the Company uniquely vulnerable to price competition,
and such price increases were temporary and did not reflect
sustained market power, limiting the Company's ability to secure
new contracts and exposing it to reduced work and renegotiated
pricing for its services with current customers;

     (e) That the Company's purportedly superior services, market
share, geographic diversity, improved operational efficiencies and
in-house manufacturing capabilities did not insulate it from
intense downward pricing pressures in the hydraulic fracturing
industry, and, indeed, the Company was set to be disproportionately
impacted by adverse pricing trends;

     (f) That the Company's "dedicated" work contracts did not
guarantee the provision of services by FTSI for a specific duration
or that the Company would receive a set amount of revenues or
profit, but rather that the work provided by FTSI pursuant to such
contracts could be ceased and renegotiated at the customer's
discretion, thereby exposing the Company to significant revenue and
profit volatility;

     (g) That the Company was experiencing customer churn and at
least three of  FTSI's major customers were on the brink of
prematurely terminating "dedicated" contracts with the Company;

     (h) That the 3,650% increase in revenues from related parties
leading up the IPO reflected a temporary increase in the provision
of services to defendant Chesapeake Energy rather than a long-term
business trend, and the provision of services by FTSI to Chesapeake
Energy would decrease at a greater rate than the provision of
services provided to non-related parties following the IPO; and

     (i) As, a result of (a)-(h) above, the Company's business,
financial results and prospects as presented in the Registration
Statement were materially false and misleading when made.

Following the IPO, the price of FTSI stock declined. By February
13, 2019, the price of FTSI shares had fallen to $9.29 per share,
nearly 50% below the price at which FTSI shares had been sold to
investors in the IPO only one year previously.

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. The company serves E&P companies that specialize in
unconventional oil and natural gas resources. FTS International,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. Gilmore, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744—3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.Com
                  jgilmore @kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Michael Albert, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92 1 01
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  malbert@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631)367—7100
          Facsimile: (631)367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (470) 632-6000
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3 101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


GARDA CL: Asks High Court to Flip Ruling in Suit over Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Garda CL Northwest, Inc., fka AT Systems, Inc., the
Petitioner vs. Lawrence Hill, et al., the Respondents, Case No.
18-1083 (U.S.), is an appeal to the Supreme Court of United States
from the decision of the Washington State Supreme Court dated Aug.
23, 2018.

Hill et al. filed this class action claim against their employer,
an armored transport company, for altering time cards, denying rest
and meal breaks, and requiring off-clock work. The class consists
of approximately 480 driver/messengers who worked for Garda in
Washington State at any time between February 2006 and February
2015. The company agreed to settle the time card claim and the
court has certified a class of all Washington driver/messengers for
the meal and rest break claims.

The trial court rejected Garda's arguments and granted the
Plaintiffs prejudgment interest and double damages for their missed
rest breaks and meal periods.  Garda appealed several issues
concerning liability.  It also appealed the award of double damages
but only as to the meal period violations (not the rest break
violations).  Garda also appealed the Plaintiffs' recovery of both
prejudgment interest and double damages for the same violations.

In 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on
liability but reversed the trial court's award of double damages
for meal period violations and reversed portions of the prejudgment
interest award regarding rest break violations because the
Plaintiffs also recovered double damages for those violations.  The
Court of Appeals explained that Garda had established its
statutory, bona fide dispute defense because the law was not that
clear about whether meal periods could be waived in a CBA.

In the 2018 decision, the Washington Supreme Court held that Garda
has failed to prove a bona fide dispute based on waiver, and that
aggrieved workers may recover both double exemplary damages under
RCW 49.52.070 and prejudgment interest under RCW 19.52.010 for the
same wage violation.  The State Supreme Court reversed and remanded
to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.

Garda filed a petition for writ of certiorari on Feb. 19, 2019.
According to the Petition, the Parties' collective bargaining
agreement more than meet even the improper "clear and unmistakable"
waiver test: Several of the agreements explicitly mention "waiver";
all of them "discuss meal breaks"; and all of them provide for meal
breaks that are "flatly irreconcilable" with Washington law's
version of an "on duty meal break." The agreements, after all,
contemplate "on-duty meal breaks" that Plaintiffs must "work
through," and provide that employees can get "off-duty" meal breaks
only if they get advance approval on a case-by-case basis. The
Plaintiffs therefore "clearly and unmistakably" waived their usual
meal-break rights, and the Washington Supreme Court erred in
concluding otherwise.[BN]

Attorneys for the Petitioner:

          Fred Anthony Rowley, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & OLson, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: fred.rowley@mto.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Marchinsky et al. Sue over Defective Fuel Pump
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MARCHINSKY; and JANET SMIT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05849
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants manufacture and sell a defective 6.6L, V-8, turbocharged
Duramax engine containing a CP4 high-pressure fuel pump.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose that
the Subject Vehicle contained defects within the engine, and
particularly its CP4 Fuel Pump, that can cause fuel pump failure
resulting in spread of tiny metal particles throughout the fuel
system, damaging the fuel system and engine. The CP4 high-pressure
fuel pump is referred to as a "ticking time bomb" which cause
engine failures which eventually result in sudden and unexpected
stalling and loss of power while driving.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENERAL REVENUE: Fry Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Sharon Fry, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
General Revenue Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-00172 (S.D. Ohio,
March 4, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely violated the
TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system and an
artificial or prerecorded voice to place non-emergency calls to
telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without
prior express consent, in that it places autodialed calls to wrong
or reassigned cellular telephone numbers.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Inman, South Carolina.

The Defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Navient Corporation.
The Defendant is based in Mason, Ohio and was founded in November
1981 to specialize in the collection of education-related
receivables. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
      7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600
      West Bloomfield, MI 48322
      Tel: (248) 737-8000
      Fax: (248) 737-8003
      E-mail: ron@ronweissattorney.com


GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit involving immigration detainees.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court"). The complaint alleges that the
Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers
Act and the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages,
compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages,
restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as
the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed — two in Washington and one in
California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on
September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The second was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney
General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9,
2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state’s minimum wage laws.

However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims based that the Company violated the TVPA and
California's equivalent state statute.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.

The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters
at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably
estimable at this stage of the lawsuit.  

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GOOGLE INC: Underpaying More Men Than Women, Review Reveals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hamza Shaban, writing for Washington Post, reports that when Google
reviewed its own pay structure recently, it yielded an unexpected
result: It was underpaying more men than women for doing similar
work, the company revealed in a blog post published on March 4.

The annual analysis comes as Google faces a class-action lawsuit
that alleges it denied career opportunities to women and
systematically paid them less than men performing similar work. The
tech industry as a whole also is grappling with enduring criticism
about a lack of diversity and dysfunctional work environments.

Google declined to comment beyond the blog post.

Google said it analyzes pay across most of its job groups to ensure
it compensates employees fairly, based on their work. If the
company finds statistically significant discrepancies within an
employment category, it said it raises pay within the group to
eliminate gaps.

The review considers such factors as the market rates for a
position, an employee's location and his or her performance rating.
But managers also have the prerogative to boost pay using dedicated
funds for such adjustments, the company said.

In its 2018 study, Google found that managers had dipped into the
discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay
gap for men in the same job category. This job class of lower-level
software engineers is one of the larger groups at Google, the
company said.

In addition, Google said it found disparities in its job offers. In
both cases, Google's analysis led to pay adjustments to eliminate
the discrepancies. In total, Google made $9.7 million in pay
adjustments to 10,677 employees. Google did not disclose how many
male employees received raises as a result of the analysis.

Google's workforce is 69 percent male, according to its 2018
diversity report. Its parent company, Alphabet, counted 98,771
employees at the end of 2018. Though Alphabet does not disclose how
many people work at Google, the vast majority of Alphabet's staff
works for the search giant.

Google acknowledged that its annual study does not offer a complete
picture of how women and underrepresented minorities are
compensated within the company. "Our pay equity analysis ensures
that compensation is fair for employees in the same job, at the
same level, location and performance. But we know that's only part
of the story," Google's lead analyst for pay equity, people
analytics, Lauren Barbato, said in the blog post.

Ms. Barbato said Google will conduct a comprehensive review of its
compensation process, examining factors beyond comparing the pay of
people at the same level. Google will also consider raises from
promotions and how it assigns a new employee's level of seniority
within a position, a process known as leveling. [GN]


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Claims Admin. Process in Calif. Suit Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the claims
administration process has been completed in a class-action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses.

On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses, from July 2006 onward,
alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West Publishing
Corporation, BAR/BRI's former owner.

On April 10, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
a decision that was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on November 7, 2011. The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to
a mediator for the purpose of exploring a settlement.

In the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties reached a comprehensive
agreement to settle the matter. The settlement was approved by the
District Court in September 2013.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the
District Court, which, once again, set attorneys' fees on January
11, 2018. Distribution of settlement funds was made in December
2018, and the claims administration process has been completed.

Graham Holdings Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
diversified education and media company worldwide. It provides test
preparation services and materials, as well as data science
education, and training and healthcare simulation services;
professional training and exam preparation for professional
certifications and licensures; and non-academic operations support
services to Purdue University Global. The company was formerly
known as The Washington Post Company and changed its name to Graham
Holdings Company in November 2013. Graham Holdings Company was
founded in 1877 and is based in Arlington, Virginia.


GROUPON INC: Judge Tosses Instagram Users' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Groupon Inc.
users can't sue the company as a class for using their Instagram
images without consent, a federal court said March 4.

Identifying users by their Instagram usernames is too complicated
to do on a classwide basis, Judge Ronald A. Guzmán wrote for the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Christine Dancel, who went by the username "meowchristine," sued
Groupon in state court on behalf of Illinois residents. Dancel took
a picture of herself and her boyfriend at a restaurant and posted
it to Instagram tagged with the restaurant's name. Groupon posted
the photo and others on the restaurant's Deal Page, she alleges.

Groupon used her Instagram picture without her consent in violation
of the Illinois Right to Publicity Act, Dancel says.

The IRPA bars the use of "an individual's identity for commercial
purposes during the individual's lifetime without having obtained
previous written consent from the appropriate person."

Groupon argued that deciding whether a particular Instagram
username constitutes an "identity" under the act presents an
individualized question of fact specific to each class member.

The court agreed. "To establish identity under the IRPA, putative
class members would have to show that they were identified to a
reasonable audience by the defendant's use of his or her name or
likeness," the court said.

"It is simply impossible to make any type of across-the-board
determination as to whether these names ‘identify' a particular
person, as that term is defined by the IRPA," the court said.

Edelson P.C. represented the consumers.

Novack and Macey LLP represented Groupon.

The case is Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., 2019 BL 71832, N.D. Ill., No.
18-2027, 3/4/19.  [GN]


HARBOR FREIGHT: Haggar Files ADA Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Freight Tools
USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu,
Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Harbor Freight Tools USA
Inc. a Delaware corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01799-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal., Mar. 12, 2019).

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

Harbor Freight Tools is a privately held discount tool and
equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California, which
operates a chain of retail stores as well as a mail-order and
eCommerce business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


HEALTHY HALO: Ford Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Joseph Ford Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Healthy Halo Insurance Services, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-01565 (C.D. Calif., March 4, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed unsolicited,
prerecorded solicitation calls and sent unsolicited, autodialed
text messages to consumers, including to consumers whose phone
numbers are registered on the national Do Not Call registry.

The Plaintiff Ford is an Edwardsville, Pennsylvania resident.

The Defendant Healthy Halo is a California corporation
headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Healthy Halo sells health
insurance plans to consumers. The Defendant operates using a number
of different assumed names such as BuyHealthInsurance.com, ACA
Alternative Plans, Healthy Boomers, and more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda Benedict, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
      7710 Hazard Center Drive, Ste. E104
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (760) 822-1911
      E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com


HERTZ GLOBAL: Asks Court to Reinstate Claims in Ramirez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the case, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et
al., have asked the federal district court to exercise its
discretion and allow plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to
include additional allegations from the administrative order
entered by the SEC with respect to the Company on December 31,
2018.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of
its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

The complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April
27, 2017. On September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs have not sought further appellate review of the
affirmance, however on February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
motion asking the federal district court to exercise its discretion
and allow plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include
additional allegations from the administrative order entered by the
SEC with respect to the Company on December 31, 2018.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides airport and off airport vehicle rental and leasing
services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


HILL'S PET: Stewart Seeks Damages Over Pet's Vitamin D Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01306 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2019) is an action on
behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated for equitable
relief and to recover damages and restitution for: (i) breach of
express warranty, (ii) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, (iii) fraud, (iv) fraudulent omission, (v)
negligence, (vi) strict product liability, (vii) unjust enrichment,
(viii) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
(xix) violation of California's False Advertising Law, and (x)
violation of California's Unfair Business Practices Law.

Plaintiff purchased Hill's Prescription Diet i/d Canine Chicken &
Vegetable Stew 12.5oz and Hill's Prescription Diet i/d Canine 13oz
dog food for her dog, Roxy. The label of these particular products
advertises that it offers "Clinical Nutrition" and "Therapeutic Dog
Nutrition." The label also represents that the products "provide
complete and balanced nutrition for maintenance of adult dogs and
growing puppies." Plaintiff purchased Hill's Prescription Diet dog
food for Roxy based on Hill's advertising and representations. But
they were false.

The food was not therapeutic, says the complaint. Nor did it
provide balanced nutrition. Instead, both the Prescription Diet and
Science Diet dog foods contained elevated, toxic levels of vitamin
D. As a result of consuming the recalled dog food, Roxy exhibited
numerous symptoms of vitamin D poisoning, these include:
substantial weight loss, vomiting, and loss of appetite. These
issues placed an emotional and financial strain on Plaintiff, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Deborah Stewart is a resident of San Francisco,
California, and a citizen of the State of California.

Defendant manufacturers, markets, advertises, labels, and sells
various brands of pet food, including Hill's Prescription Diet and
Hill's Science Diet dog foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
     Miami, FL 33133
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com


HOTEL CASABLANCA: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hotel Casablanca,
Inc. The case is styled as Byron Breeze on behalf of himself, and
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Hotel Casablanca,
Inc. a New York Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02235
(S.D. N.Y., Mar. 12, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Hotel Casablanca Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY
and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Hotels-Apartment, located at 147 West 43rd Street Front 2, New
York, NY 10036.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hector V. Ramirez, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 745-0588
     Fax: (877) 253-1691
     Email: ramirez@nklegal.com


HUAZHU GROUP: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huazhu Group Limited (NASDAQ:HTHT) ("Huazhu" or the "Company"),
China's leading hotel management group n March 6 disclosed that the
putative securities class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California against
the company and its management in October 2018, alleging violation
of the U.S. securities laws in relation to reports of a possible
data breach, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
February 27, 2019.

                  About Huazhu Group Limited

Huazhu Group Limited is a hotel operator and franchisor in China.
As of December 31, 2018, the Company had 4,230 hotels or 422,747
rooms in operation. With a primary focus on economy and midscale
hotel segments, Huazhu's brands include Hi Inn, Elan Hotel, HanTing
Hotel, HanTing Premium Hotel, JI Hotel, Starway Hotel, Manxin
Hotel, Joya Hotel, Crystal Orange Hotel, Orange Hotel Select,
Orange Hotel and Blossom Hill. The Company also has the rights as
master franchisee for Mercure, Ibis and Ibis Styles, and
co-development rights for Grand Mercure and Novotel, in Pan-China
region.

The Company's business includes leased and owned, manachised and
franchised models. Under the lease and ownership model, the Company
directly operates hotels typically located on leased or owned
properties. Under the manachise model, the Company manages
manachised hotels through the on-site hotel managers it appoints
and collects fees from franchisees. Under the franchise model, the
Company provides training, reservation and support services to the
franchised hotels and collects fees from franchisees but does not
appoint on-site hotel managers. The Company applies a consistent
standard and platform across all of its hotels. As of December 31,
2018, Huazhu Group operates 21 percent of its hotel rooms under
lease and ownership model, 79 percent under manachise and franchise
models. For more information, please visit the Company's website:
http://ir.huazhu.com.[GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Haag Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNE MARIE HAAG, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant,
Case No. 12-CV-6521L (W.D. N.Y.), Judge David G. Larimer of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 23.

The Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to New York State law on
behalf of a putative class of car buyers.  She alleges that
Defendant Hyundai misrepresented or omitted material facts about an
alleged vehicle defect at the time she purchased her 2009 Hyundai
Santa Fe, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349.  The
matter was removed from New York Supreme Court, Monroe County to
the Court on Sept. 27, 2012, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiff contends that she purchased a 2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
from a Hyundai dealership, and that at the time of the purchase,
the Defendant was concealing or knowingly omitting information from
consumers concerning an alleged brake system defect: rotor/caliper
brake assemblies that corroded prematurely and were not covered by
the vehicle's warranty.  She further alleges that had she been
informed of the alleged defect, she would not have purchased her
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe, and would not have incurred out of pocket
expenses to replace portions of the vehicle's braking system.

Pending before the Court is a motion for certification of a class
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23.  The Plaintiff moves for
certification of a class, generally defined as all persons
(including corporations, partnerships, etc.) who purchased or
leased a model year 2007-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicle, in the
State of New York, from the defendant or from any related or
affiliated entity.

Judge Larimer finds that the Plaintiff satisfies the threshold
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a).  However, he finds that
the Plaintiff has produced no evidence of an injury common to the
class, under the diminution in value/overpayment damages theory she
now espouses.  Based on the present record, he finds that the
Plaintiff has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
that common issues would predominate over individual ones, such
that certification of the proposed class would be appropriate.  The
Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be denied, and the
action must proceed solely on the Plaintiff's behalf.

Given that the action has not achieved class action status within
the meaning of CAFA, and because there is presently no demonstrated
alternative basis for the Court to continue to exercise
jurisdiction over the matter, the remand to the venue from which it
was initially removed -- the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Monroe -- is appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Larimer denied the Plaintiff's
motion to certify the action as a class action.  Because the lack
of certification deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the matter
pursuant to CAFA, the matter is remanded to New York Supreme Court,
Monroe County.  The Defendants' pending motions to exclude expert
testimony are denied as moot, without prejudice, and the
Plaintiff's motion for intervention of an additional class
representative is likewise denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PUSKCg from Leagle.com.

Anne Marie Haag, both individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elmer R.
Keach, III, Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC, Gary S.
Graifman -- email@kggsaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com --
Migliaccio & Rathod & Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP.

James H. Wheeler, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Gary S.
Graifman, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Hyundai Motor America, Defendant, represented by Michael L. Kidney
-- michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac
vice, Timothy J. Graber -- tgraber@gmclaw.com -- Gibson, McAskill &
Crosby, James W. Clayton -- james.clayton@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice & Brian P. Crosby --
bcrosby@gmclaw.com -- Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP.


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Severe Engine Defects
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Hyundai and Kia are facing a proposed class
action in Washington federal court claiming they failed to warn
consumers of severe engine defects that caused unexpected stalls
and spontaneous fires. [GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Choi Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the transition period from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, that
the company has been named as defendant in a purported class action
suit entitled, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.

On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. Case
2:19-cv-05151-MCA-LDW.   

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on claims that that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements in various press
releases and securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November
7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the substance of its
interactions with FDA during the Immunomedics' Biologic License
Application for sacituzumab govitecan.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Ferguson Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the transition period from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, that
the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit
entitled, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016;
and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed
June 10, 2016.

These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances,
and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016
(with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and
June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016
that the Company would present updated information regarding its
IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of
Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The
complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading
in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled the
presentation because it contained previously reported information.


The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the common stock, and that the
Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter.

An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on
February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter.

A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26,
2018 and the motion was fully briefed as of April 4, 2018.  

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

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

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Has Yet to File Responsive Pleading in Odeh Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the transition period from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, that
the company has not yet filed a responsive pleading to the case
entitled, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.   

A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. Case 2:18-cv-17645-MCA-LDW, filed
December 27, 2018.

This case concerns the Company's decision to not disclose the
results of observations made by FDA during its inspection of the
Company's manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in
August, 2018.

The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report document issued by the
FDA which set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during
the inspection. Such observations included, inter alia, manipulated
bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure
in the batch record, and backdating of batch records.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in artificially inflated prices for
the company's common stock, and that the Company and certain of its
officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Consistent with court rules, the
Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading to this complaint.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Files Motion to Prevent Release of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco plc disclosed that the judgment in the two
Quebec Class Action lawsuits against its subsidiary, Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd., and two other Canadian tobacco companies was
publicly issued by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal on March
1, 2019.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Superior Court's decision of May
2015.

A British American Tobacco spokesperson said:

"We are extremely disappointed that the Quebec Court of Appeal did
not overturn the trial court's judgment against our Canadian
subsidiary, Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. We are still of the view
that this decision is wrong -- ignoring the reality that both adult
consumers and government have known about the risk associated with
smoking for decades. As a result, we believe it should be
overturned.

"Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. needs to review the court's decision
in more detail and will decide on next steps over the coming days
and weeks. Given the significance of the judgment, they have said
that they fully intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
of Canada."

Following the release of the judgment from the Quebec Court of
Appeal, the plaintiffs requested immediate release of the funds on
deposit, which was refused. They then filed a formal motion to
release the funds. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. filed a motion to
prevent the release of the funds in question.

British American Tobacco was not a party to the proceeding and is
not a party to the judgment, only its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. [GN]


IN8LOVE CHIROPRACTIC: Underpays Office Managers, Pham Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINE PHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IN8LOVE CHIROPRACTIC, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19SMCV00375 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 22, 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 Pham was employed by the Defendants as office
manager.

In8love Chiropractic, Inc. help patients preserve and restore
health by establishing optimal physical conditions for the body to
function properly, relieve pain, reduce inflammation and heal while
promoting overall wellness. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
          Allyssa Villanueva, Esq.
          BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1290 B Street Suite 314
          Hayward, CA 94541
          Telephone: (510) 897-9967
          Facsimile: (510) 439-2632
          E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com
                  allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com


INSULET CORP: Settlement in ATRS Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court in the
case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, ("ATRS") has issued an order approving the
settlement.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain
individual current and former executives of the Company. Two suits
subsequently were voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, ("ATRS") alleged that the Company (and certain
executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of
settlement, under which all claims were released and a payment was
made to the plaintiffs and the class they purport to represent.

On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order approving the
settlement.

The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses in connection
with this matter for the amount of the final settlement liability
that was not covered by insurance, which amount was not material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements.   

Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin
delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.
Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Acton, Massachusetts.


IPT NAME: Seo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Hyuk Jin Seo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. I.P.T Name and Design Inc. (d/b/a Tyche
NYC), Eun Chul Shin (a/k/a Chris Shin a/k/a Diego shin), John and
Jane Does 1-10, and XYZ CORPS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02202-ALC (S.D. N.Y., March 11, 2019) is an action brought
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay,
and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") on behalf of the employees who
worked for the Defendants.

The Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed
I.P.T Employees by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/ or policy
of violating the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. This policy and
pattern or practice includes, inter alia, the following: failing to
keep accurate records of hours worked by I.P.T Employees as
required by the FLSA and the NYLL; failing to pay I.P.T Employees
minimum wages for all hours worked; and failing to pay I.P.T
Employees overtime pay for all hours worked over forty hours per
week.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from in or about 2007 until in
or about December of 2018 as a jewelry polisher at Defendants'
Jewelry Shop.

I.P.T NAME AND DESIGN INC. (d/b/a TYCHE NYC), is a New York
corporation, licensed to do business in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Farzad Ramin, Esq.
     KIM & BAE, P.C.
     40-21 Bell Blvd., Second Floor
     Bayside, NY 11361
     Phone: (718) 321-0770
     Fax: (718) 321-0799
     Email: FRamin@kimbae.com


IRON MOUNTAIN: Modica Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled JENNIFER MODICA, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated current and former employees and as proxy
for the LWDA v. IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-1140, was removed on March 1, 2019, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00160 to the
proceeding.

On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court.  The Plaintiff asserts five causes of action
in her Complaint against Iron Mountain: (1) "Failure to Furnish
Accurate Wage Statements; (2) "Failure to Pay All Wages Due and
Owing on Separation; (3) "Failure to Timely Provide Payroll
Records; (4) "Failure to Timely Provide Personnel Records; and (5)
"Private Attorney General's Act Claim for Recovery of Civil
Penalties."[BN]

Defendant IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., is
represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Monica Rodriguez, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                  morodriguez@seyfarth.com


JACKSON MEMORIAL: Seeks Unpaid Back Wages for Nurses
----------------------------------------------------
JOSE R. PORTALES SANCHEZ, and similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, vs. THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY, d/b/a
JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a Florida Public Health Trust, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20835-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a registered
nurse for Defendant. The Plaintiff began working for Jackson
Memorial on or about 2016. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals were paid on an hourly basis. The Defendant deducted at
least 4 hours per week from his hourly pay for lunch breaks.
However, the Plaintiff rarely too lunch breaks.  The Plaintiff was
assigned to the emergency room and either worked through his break
or could not leave the floor and had to be instantaneously
available as the need arose.

The Plaintiff complained about not being paid for these breaks and
was fired as a result. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals often worked more than 40 hours per week but were not
paid time and half for those hours worked over 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff complained about Jackson Memorial failure to pay
overtime and he was fired as a result of his complaints, the
lawsuit says.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is a non-profit, tertiary care teaching
hospital and the major teaching hospital of the University of Miami
Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. It
currently has around 1,550 licensed beds.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Gary A. Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
          1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-9510 Ext. 314
          Facsimile: (305) 375-9511

JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Janus Henderson
Indices LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend itself
against several class action lawsuits related to VelocityShares
Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY") against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which
effective January 1, 2019 was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC
("Janus Indices"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse
VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).
Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

The Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in
the Eisenberg case. On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was
filed in the Eisenberg and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated
in the SDNY under the name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse
AG, et al.), adding Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus
Henderson Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties,
and adding allegations of market manipulation by all of the
defendants.

On February 7, 2019, a fourth lawsuit was filed against Janus
Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc, and
Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of New York by certain investors in XIV (Y-GAR Capital LLC
v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.) The allegations in Y-GAR
generally copy the allegations in the Set Capital case.

The Group believes the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and is strongly defending the actions.

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: May Appeal Sexual Abuse Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline St-Pierre, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class action lawsuit against
two Jehovah's Witnesses entities alleging a culture of silence
within the group led to the covering up of sexual abuse.

The action was approved for current or former Jehovah's Witnesses
who allege they were sexually assaulted as minors in Quebec by
either an elder of the religious group or a fellow member.

Lisa Blais, a former follower of the religion, filed the motion in
September 2017, alleging she was sexually assaulted by a member of
the group when she was a child.

The Feb. 27 ruling authorizing the lawsuit cites Ms. Blais'
allegation that Jehovah's Witnesses leaders sought to discourage
Ms. Blais from reporting her assailant to police because she would
have risked tarnishing the image of Jehovah.

"The plaintiff wants to sue the defendants for their failures
regarding her protection and the dissuasion from reporting sexual
assaults to police authorities, given the culture of silence
present in the Jehovah's Witnesses community," Justice Chantal
Corriveau wrote.

Ms. Blais was expelled from the religious group in 1996.

In a written statement, the Jehovah's Witnesses public information
desk said the class action was authorized on the basis of unproven
allegations.

"We will consider our options for appeal but are certain if this
matter proceeds to trial, the facts will clearly show Jehovah's
Witnesses report allegations of abuse to the authorities, in line
with the Youth Protection Act," the statement said. "The well-being
of children is of utmost importance to Jehovah's Witnesses."

The action seeks $150,000 in moral damages and $100,000 in punitive
damages for each member of the class. It names the Watch Tower
Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the religion's main legal
entity, as well as the Canadian branch.

The judge notes in her decision that the purpose of a class action
is not to put a religion on trial.

"The class action does not call into question the beliefs
conveyed," she wrote. "However, it is possible to submit to the
courts ways of doing things that may be faulty and cause harm to
victims."

Sarah Woods, a lawyer representing Ms. Blais, said she has been
contacted by several other Jehovah's Witnesses but does not know
how many people will ultimately be part of the class action. She
also noted that the defendants have 30 days to appeal Justice
Corriveau's decision.

"I already have a lot of people who raised their hands, who want to
be witnesses, who want to tell their stories, who know how it works
. . . . The allegations will have to be supported with evidence,
with questioning and a trial," Ms. Woods said, adding that the
process will take a few years. [GN]


JPMORGANCHASE: Antitrust Class Action Proceedings Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Powell, Secretary/Treasurer Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
Inc., disclosed that proceedings in the federal class-action
anti-trust lawsuit against JPMorganChase charging the investment
bank with manipulating the gold and silver futures markets --
http://www.gata.org/node/18844-- have been suspended for three
months at the request of the U.S. Justice Department, just as the
department has arranged suspension of proceedings in the
class-action anti-trust lawsuit against Deutsche Bank charging
similar market manipulation.

In both cases the Justice Department has told U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York that proceedings would
jeopardize its criminal investigation into market rigging, which
has been admitted by a former JPMorganChase trader, John Edmonds,
who awaits sentencing.

According to court filings, the White Plains, New York, law firm
representing the plaintiffs against JPMorganChase, Lowey
Dannenberg, concurred in the government's request to suspend
proceedings. The stay is to continue for three months and may be
extended.

The Justice Department's motion, granted by the court on February
26 -- http://www.gata.org/files/JPMorganChaseClassActionStay.pdf
-- said "the government is not seeking an open-ended stay that
could indefinitely postpone this matter and thus jeopardize the
parties' interests in a timely resolution." The motion added, "Any
developments in the criminal case during the period the
consolidated action is stayed may reduce or completely resolve the
need to litigate certain issues in the consolidated action."

Much of the Justice Department's motion is redacted to conceal from
the public evidence still under investigation. Edmonds has said he
and other traders manipulated the gold and silver markets for years
with the knowledge of their supervisors at JPMorganChase. In its
motion to conceal that evidence, also granted by the court on
February 26, the Justice Department said disclosure "could lead to
destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, and otherwise
interfere with the government's ability to conduct its
investigation":

http://www.gata.org/files/JPMorganChaseClassActionStaySeal.pdf

Monetary metals investors may be skeptical of the Justice
Department's stalling the Deutsche Bank and JPMorganChase cases,
since the department and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission do not seem ever to have responded conscientiously to
complaints of gold and silver market rigging until the class
actions commenced.

How much time will the court give the Justice Department to delay
getting to the bottom of the issue? The court might hasten matters
if enough monetary metals mining companies protested the harm done
to them and their shareholders by market rigging, but of course
most monetary metals mining companies don't mind at all.

GATA -- http://www.gata.org-- is a civil rights and educational
organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code. [GN]


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Faces Tanious Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, 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 28, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by
Hany Tanious.

On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc.
(together, the "Defendants").

The complaint purports to bring this action on behalf of Hany
Tanious, as an individual, and "all owner operators who performed
work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent
contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this
action through the present."

Mr. Tanious is a truck owner-operator and formerly an independent
contractor who was a party to an independent contractor operating
agreement with Landstar Ranger, Inc.. The complaint asserts claims
based on the alleged misclassification of Mr. Tanious as an
independent contractor and alleges violations under California law
relating to overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, failure
to reimburse certain expenses, wage statements, waiting time and
unfair competition.

Mr. Tanious is seeking, on behalf of himself and the purported
class, payment of minimum wages, restitution and certain statutory
damages and penalties, including compensatory, consequential,
general, liquidated and special damages. None of the California
Labor Code provisions under which Mr. Tanious seeks relief apply to
independent contractors.

Landstar System said, "Due to a number of factors including the
preliminary status of this matter, the Company does not believe it
is in a position to conclude whether or not there is a reasonable
possibility of an adverse outcome in this case or what damages, if
any, the plaintiffs would be awarded should they prevail on all or
any part of their claims. However, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and it intends to assert these defenses
vigorously."

Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management
solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation
Logistics and Insurance. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968
and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


LIFETOUCH INC: Davis Files Consumer Class Action in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifetouch, Inc. The
case is styled as Antonio Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lifetouch, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02130-DDC-KGG (D. Kan., March 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

Lifetouch Inc. is an American based photography company
headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. It was founded as
National School Studios in 1936 by Eldon Rothgeb and R. Bruce
Reinecker and incorporated in March 1948.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
   McInnes Law LLC
   1900 West 75th Street, Suite 120
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 220-2488
   Fax: (913) 273-1671
   Email: jack@mcinnes-law.com


LOGITECH: Challenges Judge's Policy of Barring Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that facing a mandamus
petition by a class action defendant challenging his policy of
barring settlement discussions before class certification, U.S.
District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco told the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that his rule enhances the negotiating
power of absent class members whose interests he is obliged to
protect.

"Absent class members deserve, before their claims are
extinguished, to have their recovery discounted only on the merits
of their claims without further discount based on possible
unsuitability of the case for class certification," Judge Alsup
wrote, responding to a Feb. 13 invitation from the 9th Circuit to
respond to a mandamus petition from the computer peripherals
company Logitech. "It is no answer to say that if a
pre-certification class settlement is tendered for preliminary
approval, these certification issues can all be flushed out by the
district judge without the benefit of a Rule 23 motion. Once
counsel have cut a deal, they will align to support the deal.
Neither counsel will surface any problems that might have plagued a
certification motion. There will be no one to explain the extent to
which plaintiff's counsel discounted the claims based on Rule 23
problems or even to point out what those problems were. Inquiries
by the district judge can rarely uncover those concerns as clearly
as a litigated Rule 23 motion."

Logitech's lawyers at Mayer Brown, as you may recall, contend that
Judge Alsup's policy of generally prohibiting pre-certification
settlement negotiations is an unconstitutional prior restraint on
defendants' free speech rights. Judge Alsup told the 9th Circuit
that his policy implicates commercial speech, which isn't as
robustly protected as other forms of speech. According to Judge
Alsup, commercial speech may be restrained as long as there is a
"reasonable fit" between the means of restriction and its intended
purpose. Here, he said, his policy merely delays settlement talks
for the greater good of assuring fair negotiations between class
defendants and absent class members.

"No "clearly erroneous" prior restraint can be shown here (and it
is an open question whether prior restraint rules even extend to
commercial speech)," Judge Alsup wrote, citing the 9th Circuit's
2011 ruling in Hunt v. City of Los Angeles. No court, the judge
said, has ever found a First Amendment violation for a judicial
policy to protect class members – a dispositive point, he said,
for the 9th Circuit to consider.

Judge Alsup emphasized that his rule just delays settlement talks
to even the power imbalance between defendants and prospective
class members. Before the class is certified, he said, plaintiffs'
lawyers discount the potential value of their claims to account for
the risk that they won't be able to sue on behalf of everyone who
has alleged been injured. "Plaintiff's counsel necessarily
negotiates from a position weakened by the uncertainty over whether
or not counsel will later win or lose a class certification
motion," the judge wrote, citing Fordham class action expert Howard
Erichson. "In turn, this weakness can prejudice any deal struck
before the issue of certification is determined. To avoid this
prejudice to absent class members, it is better to clear away any
doubts about certification, so that if certification is granted,
plaintiff's counsel can negotiate from strength with a
certification win in hand."

The Logitech case was a good example, Judge Alsup said. Class
certification in the case -- which involves allegations that the
company misrepresented the number of drivers in certain computer
speakers – had already been briefed when Logitech filed its
mandamus petition and a stay motion at the 9th Circuit. Had the
appellate court not granted a stay, Judge Alsup would already have
weighed the arguments for and against class certification, clearing
the way for a settlement.

"Why, if Logitech desires to settle on a class-wide basis, hasn't
Logitech simply stipulated to a class and then negotiated?" Judge
Alsup wrote. "The answer seems obvious. Logitech wants to take
advantage of the uncertainty over the outcome of a Rule 23 motion
to extract a cheaper settlement while wiping a class-wide liability
off its books … Logitech wants to hold on to this advantage. Like
all defendants in class actions, Logitech knows the tables will be
turned when and if a claim is certified for class treatment."

Logitech lawyer Donald Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer
Brown declined to comment on Judge Alsup's filing. So did
plaintiffs' lawyer Rafey Balabanian at Edelson. But Fordham's
Erichson -- who seems to be Judge Alsup's guru when it comes to
protecting absent class members – told me by email that he thinks
the judge has shown considerable insight about the dynamics of
class action negotiations and has devised a policy to address the
power imbalance between defendants and prospective class members.

"Judge Alsup is entirely correct that in a settlement-only class
action, the class negotiates from a position of weakness," Erichson
said in an email. As Judge Alsup told the 9th Circuit, plaintiffs'
lawyers discount their claims to account for the risk of losing a
class certification motion, Mr. Erichson said. And before a class
is certified, Mr. Erichson said, defendants can shop around for a
plaintiffs' lawyer willing to settle cheaply. Too many judges, the
Fordham prof said, don't bother to police class action settlements
to make sure they're fair. Judge Alsup, he said, deserves cheers
for telling lawyers exactly what he will and won't stand for.

"This kind of clarity is a model for how judges should interact
with lawyers, in my view," Mr. Erichson said.

If there was a flaw in Judge Alsup's 9th Circuit filing, it's that
the judge could have sidestepped the question of whether his
prohibition on precertification settlement talks is a prior
restraint on speech, Mr. Erichson said. "If I were in his shoes, I
would have said to the 9th Circuit that the main point of my order
was to prevent bad settlements, not to impose a prior restraint on
speech," the professor said. "Judge Alsup may very well be right
that, even as a prior restraint on speech, his order is defensible
under the First Amendment. But I don't see that as the main issue
here. One way or another, the important thing is for the 9th
Circuit to leave Judge Alsup plenty of room to do his job as a
district judge who must decide whether a proposed class settlement
is fair, reasonable and adequate."

That is certainly what Judge Alsup said he wants -- and he reminded
the 9th Circuit that its judges also paid homage to trial judges'
policing of class deals in last year's approval of the Volkswagen
clean diesel settlement. "When it comes to class action
settlements, the usual criticism of trial judges is that they have
done too little -- not too much -- in protecting absent class
members," Judge Alsup wrote. No one can accuse him of that sin.
[GN]


MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Aigen Suit Moved to District of Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SCOTT AIGEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIOAL INC; STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE INC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25285, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on February 22, 2019.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00519-PWG to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Aigen suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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

              - and -

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


MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Benwitz Suit Moved to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ADAM BENWITZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIOAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00565, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on February
22, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00523-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Benwitz suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

              - and -

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


MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Durant Suit Moved to District of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NITYA BODHI DURANT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.; and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORT WORLDWIDE
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00084, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland on February 21, 2019.  The
Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00514-PWG
to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W.
Grimm.

The Durant case is associated with Case No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG, et
al.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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

              - and -

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


MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Skinner et al. Suit Moved to D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KIRK SKINNER; and JOHN
TURGEON-SCHRAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL INC; STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE INC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02131, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on February 22, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:19-cv-00512-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Skinner et al. suit is a member case in the multi-district
litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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

              - and -

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


MARRONE BIO: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.,
SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND,
L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.,
PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B.
BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL,
HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET
BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM
FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH,
JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN,
RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN
STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Defendants.

Master No.: 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN
Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
CLASS; (II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (III) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (IV)
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:      All persons or entities who or which purchased or
otherwise acquired MBI common stock directly in or traceable to the
Company's secondary offering pursuant to MBI's Form S-1
Registration Statement, dated May 16, 2014, and its Prospectus
dated June 5, 2014, and were damaged thereby (the "EY Settlement
Class").


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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action with
respect to claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("EY" or the
"Settling Defendant") on behalf of the class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Certification of Settlement Class; (II)
Proposed Settlement; (III) Settlement Hearing; and (IV) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P. ("Lead Plaintiffs" or "The Funds"), on behalf of
themselves and the other members of the EY Settlement Class, have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action with Defendant Ernst &
Young LLP ("EY" or the "Settling Defendant," and together with Lead
Plaintiffs, the "Settling Parties") for $775,000 in cash (the "EY
Settlement").  The EY Settlement, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the above-captioned securities class action (the
"Action") pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California (the "Court") against EY.  The
claims asserted against EY are the only remaining claims in this
Action and, therefore, if the EY Settlement is approved by the
Court, the Action will be completely resolved subject to any
appeals.1

A hearing will be held on July 11, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., at the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert T. Matsui
United States Court House, Courtroom 7, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California, 95814, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 14, 2019 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; and (ii) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the EY Settlement, and you may
be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at MBI EY
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3219, Portland, OR
97208-3219, by toll-free phone at (855) 907-3227, or by email at
info@MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com.  Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
www.MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class and previously
submitted a Claim Form in connection with the Secondary Offering
Class in the previously announced MBI Settlement in this Action,
you do not need to submit a Claim Form again.  Unless you properly
exclude yourself from the EY Settlement Class, your earlier Claim
Form will be considered for participation in this Settlement.  If
you are an EY Settlement Class Member and DID NOT submit a Claim
Form in connection with the MBI Settlement, however, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM, postmarked no later than May 6, 2019, to be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
(as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice).  This is the only
way to now be eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement
Fund.  If you are an EY Settlement Class Member and you remain in
the EY Settlement Class, you will be bound by the EY Settlement as
approved by the Court and you will give up any Released Lead
Plaintiffs' Claims (defined in ¶ 43 of the Notice) that you have
against EY and EY's Releasees (defined in ¶ 44 of the Notice), so
it is in your interest to submit a Claim Form.  If you are a member
of the EY Settlement Class and have not previously submitted a
Claim Form in connection with the Secondary Offering Class in the
previously announced MBI Settlement in this Action and do not
submit a Claim Form now, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the EY Settlement.  You will,
however, nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the EY Settlement Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 27, 2019,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed EY Settlement and/or Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and EY's Counsel such that they are received no later than
June 27, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, EY, MBI, or
EY's counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

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

         MBI EY Securities Litigation
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 3219
         Portland, OR 97208-3219
         (855) 907-3227
         www.MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com

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

         LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
         Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         (212) 262-6700

Dated:  March 5, 2019

By Order of the Court

1 The current proposed settlement is in addition to another partial
settlement -- the "MBI Settlement" -- previously approved by the
Court, resulting in an aggregate recovery of $12 million,
$3,869,616 of which was allocated and distributed (net of fees and
expenses) to members of the EY Settlement Class.  If approved, the
proposed EY Settlement will constitute an additional and
supplemental distribution of settlement funds to the EY Settlement
Class.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Discovery Underway in Suit vs. Chicago Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) continues to defend a class
action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. (CB&I) common stock and alleging damages on their
behalf arising from alleged false and misleading statements made
during the class period from October 30, 2013 to June 23, 2015.

The case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS (the "Securities
Litigation").

The defendants in the case are: CB&I; a former chief executive
officer of CB&I; a former chief financial officer of CB&I; and a
former controller and chief accounting officer of CB&I.

On June 14, 2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead
plaintiff. On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of alleged
misrepresentations about CB&I's accounting for the acquisition of
The Shaw Group, CB&I's accounting with respect to the two nuclear
projects being constructed by The Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial
reporting and public statements with respect to those two projects.


On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and
the parties are currently engaged in the discovery process.  

McDermott International said, "We are not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter
and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of December 31,
2018. We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously."

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

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Edwards & PERS Mississippi Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court
has consolidated the Edwards v. McDermott International, Inc., et
al. and Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v.
McDermott International, Inc., et al.

On November 15, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements made during the class period from January 24,
2018 to October 30, 2018.  

The case is captioned: Edwards v. McDermott International, Inc., et
al., No. 4:18-cv-04330. The defendants in the case are: McDermott;
David Dickson, the company's president and chief executive officer;
and Stuart Spence, the company's chief financial officer.  

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the integration of the
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) business, certain CB&I
projects and their fair values, and our business, prospects and
operations.  

The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

On January 14, 2019, a related action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking
class action status on behalf of all shareholders of McDermott
common stock as of April 4, 2018 who had the right to vote on the
CB&I merger.

Before being consolidated with the Edwards action, the case was
pending in the same court as the Edwards action and captioned: The
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. McDermott
International, Inc., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00135.

The plaintiff has alleged the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement that the
company used in connection with the Combination.  The plaintiff
asserted claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.


This action was filed shortly before the statutory deadline to
apply to be the lead plaintiff for the claims asserted in the
Edwards action.  

The company filed a motion to consolidate the two actions, and the
court granted that motion on February 22, 2019. The court has not
yet appointed a lead plaintiff for either set of claims.

McDermott International said, "We expect to file a motion to
dismiss all of the claims. We are not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these
matters and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of
December 31, 2018. We believe the claims are without merit and we
intend to defend against them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Unit Still Faces Cantrell Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's subsidiary continues to defend itself from a class action
suit entitled, Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc.  

A former employee of one of the company's subsidiaries commenced a
class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards ACT ("FLSA")
entitled Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc., (S.D. Texas 2017) Case
No. 4:17-CV-2679 on or about September 5, 2017, alleging that he
and his fellow class members were not paid one and one half times
their normal hourly wage rates for hours worked that exceeded 40
hours in a work week.  

The companny's subsidiary has yet to answer the allegations in the
complaint, as agreed by the parties, in order to allow mediation to
take place. The first mediation session commenced in October 2018
and is ongoing.

McDermott International said, "We do not believe a risk of material
loss is probable related to this matter, and, accordingly, our
reserves for this matter were not significant as of December 31,
2018. While it is possible that a loss may be incurred, we are
unable at this time, to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any."

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

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MDL 2492: Chuinard Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Edmund Chuinard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00475 (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-01132 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 Chuinard 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: Crowe Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Wesley Crowe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Thomas More University, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00439 (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-01127 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 Thomas More
University Student-Athletes.

The Crowe 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: Elliott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Thomas Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Canisius College of Buffalo, N.Y., the Defendants,
Case No.  1:19-cv-00493 (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-01161 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 Canisius College of
Buffalo, N.Y. Student-Athletes.

The Elliott 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: Fahy Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Matthew Fahy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501 (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
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01167 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 Fahy 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: McMonigle Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, WILLIAM MCMONIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00496 (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-01163 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 McMonigle 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: Moravec Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jonathan Moravec, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00487 (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-01155 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 Moravec 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: Presley Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JONATHAN PRESLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.  1:19-cv-00447 (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-01136 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 Presley 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: Randolph Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Michael Randolph, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00456 (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-01150 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 Randolph 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: Reedy Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, TYLER REEDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00463 (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-01112 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 Reedy 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: Watson Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRYAN WATSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00366,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on February 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01070 to the proceeding. The
Case is assigned to the Hon. John Z. Lee.

The Watson suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2492.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), organization in
the United States that administers intercollegiate athletics. It
was formed in 1906 as the Intercollegiate Athletic Association to
draw up competition and eligibility rules for gridiron football and
other intercollegiate sports. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNERSLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


MDL 2492: Young Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Floyd Young, 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-00497 (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-01164 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 Young 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 2591: GMO Class Members Can't File Suit Against Attorneys
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that farmers who
will collect from the $1.5 billion settlement resolving claims
Syngenta AG's marketing of genetically modified corn seeds shut
them out of the Chinese market can't sue their attorneys, a federal
court said March 1.

The farmers weren't injured when their firm, Watts Guerra LLP,
excluded them from the Syngenta class action, Judge John W.
Lungstrum wrote for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

The farmers were included in the eventual settlement class and
therefore will recover as much as other class members, the court
said.

And they won't have to pay their attorneys twice because the firm
will receive attorneys' fees only from the $503 million pot set
aside from the settlement for fees, the court said.

Six sets of corn growers formerly represented in the Syngenta case
by Watts Guerra and associated counsel brought this spin-off class
action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and other laws on behalf of 60,000 farmers who
signed retainer agreements with the firms.

They alleged the firms pursued individual lawsuits while failing to
tell their clients about the benefits of participating in the class
action, in order to maximize their attorneys' fees.

But the court found the farmers weren't actually injured by the
firms' management of their cases and therefore lack standing to
bring this class action. It dismissed the case entirely.

Douglas J. Nill in Minneapolis represented the farmers.

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons LLP represented Watts Guerra.

The case is In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. (Kellogg v. Watts
Guerra, LLP), 2019 BL 70333, D. Kan., No. 14-md-2591, 3/1/19. [GN]


MDL 2672: Court Denies Bids to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 3614, 3615, 3618, 3634 Burke v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-0267-CRB Glenn v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-1008-CRB Hartenstein v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-6700-CRB Pennings v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-2104-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the ECF Nos. 3614, 3615,
3618, and 3634 motions to remand.

Three individuals and one couple who opted out of the 2.0-liter
class settlement are respectively the Plaintiffs in Burke, Glenn,
Hartenstein, and Pennings.  They filed these cases against
Volkswagen Group of America ("VWGoA") in California state court,
and VWGoA removed the cases to federal court.  The cases were
removed to the Central and Southern Districts of California and
ultimately transferred to this Court as part of the MDL.  The
Plaintiffs share the same counsel, and their counsel has filed four
motions to remand on their behalf.

VWGoA removed the cases at issue on the basis of both federal
question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.  In their
remand motions, the Plaintiffs have argued only that the cases were
not properly removed on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction.
In other words, they have not made either a facial or factual
challenge to diversity jurisdiction.

In their reply briefs, the Plaintiffs have taken a different tack
altogether, indirectly arguing that the Court, as the transferee
district court in the MDL, should issue a suggestion of remand to
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the basis that
centralized proceedings have run their course and that the actions
should be returned to the Central and Southern Districts of
California.

Judge Breyer finds that the allegations in VWGoA's notices of
removal are sufficient to support that both of the requirements
have been met.  He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity
subject-matter jurisdiction over the four cases at issue.  To the
extent that the Plaintiffs' motions are construed as requesting
that the Court issues a suggestion of remand to the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, the Judge declines to issue such an
order at this time.

He explains that in multidistrict litigation, remand to transferor
district courts is appropriate when centralized pretrial
proceedings have run their course.  The centralized pretrial
proceedings here have not yet reached that point.  To the contrary,
continued consolidation will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, all of which are
factors the counsel against remand.  In due course, the Court will
issue one or more scheduling orders governing further proceedings
in these and other opt-out cases in the MDL.

Having concluded that there is diversity subject-matter
jurisdiction over the four cases at issue and that centralized
pretrial proceedings remain appropriate, Judge Breyer denied the
ECF Nos. 3614, 3615, 3618, and 3634 motions to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 27, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3ZvASI from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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


MDL 2672: Court Resolves Reconsideration Bids and Bid to Sched CMC
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 5579, 5758, 5870, 5922, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has issued an order on Motions
for Reconsideration, and Motion to Schedules a Case Management
Conference.

The Court previously granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order that
denied the Lead Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add
insider trading claims under Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Having reviewed the motion and the authorities cited therein, as
well as the Defendants' opposition and Lead Plaintiff's reply,
Judge Breyer denied the motion.  He finds that the Lead Plaintiff
has not cited to any controlling authority that is in direct
conflict with the Court's prior holding that the proposed insider
trading claims would be immediately subject to dismissal under the
facts alleged.  He also denied the Defendants' motion for leave to
file a sur-reply in opposition to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

The Defendants have moved for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Order that denied their motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to allege direct
reliance.  The Judge finds that the arguments that the Defendants
make in support of reconsideration are fact based and will be
resolved best at a later stage in the litigation.  Hence, he denied
the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

Finally, the Judge has reviewed the parties' joint case management
statement and adopted in full the Defendants' proposed schedule for
future litigation in the action.  He denied the Lead Plaintiff's
administrative motion to schedule a case management conference.

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

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

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

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

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


MDL 2743: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Flooring Durability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Diana Cantu-Guerrero filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at
Alexandria.

The appellate case is captioned as Diana Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 19-1231, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Diana
Cantu-Guerrero appealed a court decision in MDL No.
1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.  That appellate case is titled Diana
Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 18-2351.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 4, 2016.  The cases in the
litigation concern the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured
laminate flooring sold by Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for residential use,
the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate flooring scratches too
easily and fails to meet the advertised industry standard.[BN]

Party-in-Interest - Appellant DIANA CANTU-GUERRERO is represented
by:

          Christopher Andres Bandas, Esq.
          Robert William Clore, Esq.
          BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC
          500 North Shoreline Boulevard
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          E-mail: cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com
                  robertclorerclore@bandaslawfirm.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees ERIN FLOREZ, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; LOGAN PEREL, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
KAREN HOTALING, individuals on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; KELLY RYAN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; JIM MOYLEN, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and SHAWN
BURKE are represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Sally Handmaker Guido, Esq.
          Douglas James McNamara, Esq.
          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: shguido@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  stoll@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant-Appellee LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Diane Pulley Flannery, Esq.
          Andrew Franklin Gann, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4716
          E-mail: mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com
                  dflannery@mcguirewoods.com
                  agann@mcguirewoods.com


MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Faces Scarantino Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has been named as defendant in a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit entitled, Scarantino v. McRoberts et al.

The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"merger agreement") with Omega, pursuant to which, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions set forth in the
merger agreement, the company will merge with and into Omega (such
merger transaction, the "merger") at the effective time of the
merger (the "merger effective time"), with Omega continuing as the
surviving company in the merger.

On February 22, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a derivative and class action lawsuit against the Company, its
board of directors and Omega in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, entitled Scarantino v. McRoberts et al.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of fiduciary
duties by the Company's board of directors in connection with its
approval of the Company's proposed merger with Omega and the
omission from the Form S-4 of certain information that is material
to stockholders.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
the parties from filing an amendment to the Form S-4, an injunction
preventing the consummation of the merger and, in the event the
merger is consummated, rescission of the merger or damages, plus
attorneys' fees and costs.

MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company focuses on investment in a diversified mix of
healthcare properties and healthcare related real estate debt
investments. MedEquities Realty Trust owns, develops, operates,
leases, and disposes healthcare properties and portfolios. The
company is based in Nashville, Tennessee.


METLIFE INC: Faces Thew et al. Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Metlife, Inc. The case is
captioned as NATHAN THEW; and MARY THEW, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. METLIFE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00333-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21,
2019). The case was transferred from Judge Christina A. Snyder to
the calendar of Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on February 26, 2019.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. MetLife, Inc. was
founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


METLIFE INC: Stipulated Briefing Schedule in Pitt Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN A. PITT, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest
to Michael A. Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Michael A.
Pitt, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, v. METLIFE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Missouri corporation; METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation; and METLIFE GROUP, INC., a New York
Corporation Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06609 YSR (N.D. Cal.), the
parties filed with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California their
revised joint stipulation for briefing schedule for pleadings in
response to First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC").

The Plaintiff filed her FAC on Feb. 11, 2019.  The FAC is 47 pages
long, 160 paragraphs, and contains claims for (1) Declaratory
Relief or Judgment under California state law; (2) Declaratory
Relief or Judgment under federal law; (3) Breach of Contract; (4)
Bad Faith; (5) Unfair Competition; and (6) Financial Elder Abuse.
The FAC added factual allegations, a new legal theory (financial
elder abuse), and a fourth Defendant: MetLife, Inc.

The parties have met and conferred extensively regarding the legal
and factual issues presented by the FAC.  Pursuant to Local Rule
6-1(a), the parties propose the following stipulated schedule for
responding to the FAC:

     a. The Defendants' responsive pleadings will include Motions
to Dismiss addressing various issues they believe are presented by
the FAC.  The Defendants will have until March 22, 2019, to file
their motions to dismiss.

     b. The Plaintiff will have until April 29, 2019, to file any
Oppositions;

     c. The Defendants will have until May 23, 2019, to file any
Replies;

     d. The hearings on any Motions to Dismiss can be held on June
18, 2019 at 2 p.m., or any other date as the court may determine.

The parties further agree that good cause exists for adopting the
proposed briefing schedule because of the scope of issues that will
be raised in the responsive pleadings and, consequently, the time
and resources that both sides will need to fully research and brief
those issues for the Court.  Both the Plaintiff's and the defense
counsel are familiar with the issues presented by the FAC and
anticipated responses, and have experience litigating similar legal
issues (including against one another).

More specifically, the Motions to Dismiss will address a number of
issues referenced in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as well as other related issues, such as:

     a. Personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). Some Defendants
will argue that personal jurisdiction is lacking over them.  The
Plaintiff will oppose.

     b. Failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants
will also argue that the Plaintiff has failed to state valid
claims.  In turn, this will require exploration of choice of law
issues, proper interpretation of the California Insurance Code and
then application of that Code to the life insurance policy in
question here, the interpretation and availability of relief under
California's Business and Professions Code (e.g. whether the
Plaintiff has stated valid claims for restitution or injunctive
relief).  Separately, the Defendants will challenge the Plaintiff's
allegations that class treatment is appropriate.  The Plaintiff
will oppose.  A further description of the issues from the
Defendants' point of view, as the Court as additional facts
supporting the proposed briefing schedule, are included in the
accompanying Declaration of defense counsel Linda B. Oliver, Esq.

     c. The Defendants will further claim that the Northern
District is not the proper venue for the action.  The Plaintiff
will oppose.

The parties recognize and agree that the usual due-course time
limits for fully briefing all of these issues for the Court would
be insufficient.  They further agree that the case is still in its
early stages -- with no party having served formal discovery yet --
and that no party is prejudiced by the proposed stipulated
schedule.  Furthermore, the requested time modification would have
a minimal effect on the schedule for the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/YTadhL from Leagle.com.

Susan A. Pitt, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Michael A.
Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Michael A. Pitt, and on
Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Craig McKenzie
Nicholas, Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, Alex Michael Tomasevic --
alex@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, Georg Michael
Capielo -- gcapielo@einsurelaw.com -- Winter and Associates, Jack
Bruce Winters, Jr., Winters and Associates & Sarah D. Ball --
sball@einsurelaw.com -- Winter and Associates.

General American Life Insurance Company, a Missouri Corporation,
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation &
MetLife Group, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Christopher Charles Frost --
cfrost@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper and Gale, Janet Choi --
jchoi@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper Gale LLP & Linda Beth
Oliver -- loliver@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP.

Metlife, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Linda Beth Oliver, Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Hope Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jason Hope, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 619761/2018, was removed from the Supreme
Court, 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-01341 to
the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 alleging Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00689-WB (E.D. Pa., Feb.
15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Forbes, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. FORBES, PC
          200 Eagle Road, Suite 50
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 263-9399


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Navarroli FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Illis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on behalf of
himself and the class members described below, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and ENCORE
CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 2047 (N.D. Ill.).

In late February 2018, Navarroli received a letter from the
Defendants, sent by MCM, that offered settlement of an alleged
consumer debt.  The letter offered three payment options.  The
first option invited a one-time payment of 60% of the alleged debt,
with a due date of March 30, 2018.  The second option directed
Navarroli to make a monthly payment for six months in an amount
that would total 80% of the alleged debt, with a due date of March
30, 2018 for the first monthly payment.  The final option detailed
a monthly payment plan as low as $50 a month.  Separate from the
payment options, the letter also listed its offer expiration date
of March 30, 2018.  The letter did not disclose that making a
payment could restart the statute of limitations and revive an
otherwise legally unenforceable debt.

Navarroli claims that this failure to disclose is a concrete
informational injury, which violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and suffices to confer Article III
standing.  Navarroli sued the Defendants bringing class action
claims under the FDCPA, alleging that MCM's form letter fails to
provide necessary disclosures and contains false, deceptive, or
misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692e, 1692e(2), and 1692e(10).

The Defendants disagree and filed the present motion to dismiss.

Judge Illis explains that the plaintiff in Meyers v. Nicolet Rest.
of DePere, LLC, brought his case against Nicolet Restaurant under
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") claiming
that the restaurant's failure to truncate the expiration date of
his credit card on his receipt was a statutory violation.  The
Seventh Circuit found that Meyers had not suffered any harm, and
that his alleged injury was not caused by the type of conduct
Congress sought to deter with FACTA, which was aimed primarily at
identity theft.   By contrast, MCM's dunning letter significantly
heightens the risk of financial injury to recipients of the letter
who could unwittingly pay on a time-barred debt and renew the
statute of limitations period.

In Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., the plaintiff brought his
case against Time Warner after they failed to destroy his personal
information, which the plaintiff alleged was a violation of the
Cable Communications Policy Act.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed that
Gubala had not alleged any plausible (even if attenuated) risk of
harm to himself from such a violation or any risk substantial
enough to be deemed `concrete.  Thus, like Meyers, and unlike
Navarroli's case, not only did Gubala not allege a personal injury,
the alleged statutory violation was not the type of conduct that
Congress sought to deter.

In Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, and Collier v. SP Plus Corp.,, the
same pattern repeats.  Although all of these cases stand for the
proposition that a court cannot find standing where the plaintiff
does not allege more than a bare statutory violation, the Judge
holds they are inapposite.  In contrast, Pantoja v. Portfolio
Recovery Assocs., LLC, Keele v. Wexler, and McMahon v. LVNV
Funding, LLC, directly address the issue before the Court and
indicate that Navarroli's allegations are sufficient to confer
standing.  The Defendants have not distinguished them.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illis denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IFd3Ea from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Navarroli, on behalf of himself and the class members
described below, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cassandra P. Miller,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Paul Michael Waldera,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin Llc.

Midland Funding, LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Heather L. Kramer -- hkramer@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett PLLc & Theodore Wilson Seitz -- tseitz@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett, PLLC.

Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather L.
Kramer, Dykema Gossett PLLc.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Parties in ESI Litigation Agree to Settle
----------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. ("ESI") litigation have agreed
in principle to settle the lawsuits.

On November 29, 2018, a complaint captioned Brian Morris et. al. v.
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon by alleged former
stockholders of ESI in connection with the acquisition of ESI by
the Company.

The complaint named the Company's subsidiary, Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. ("ESI"), and the former members of ESI's board of
directors as defendants. Five additional complaints were
subsequently filed, two in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon and three in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the
State of Oregon.

The cases filed in the U.S. District Court were dated December 6,
2018 and December 12, 2018 and captioned Melvyn Klein et. al. v.
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Donald Mager et. al.
v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., respectively. The
complaints filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court were dated
December 5, 2018, December 5, 2018 and December 13, 2018 and
captioned Michael Kent et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries,
Inc. et al., Christopher Stanley et. al v. Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. et al. and Eduardo Colmenares et. al. v. Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc., MKS Instruments, Inc., et al.,
respectively (collectively with Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc. et. al., the "Lawsuits").

On February 16, 2019, the parties came to an agreement on a
settlement in principle that would resolve the Lawsuits, which is
subject to the execution of a settlement agreement and dismissal of
the Lawsuits with prejudice.

These lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of
former ESI stockholders, asserting various claims against the
former members of the ESI board of directors, ESI, MKS, and MKS'
merger subsidiary, including breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege that
the consideration paid to the ESI shareholders did not
appropriately value ESI, and that ESI's merger related disclosures
failed to disclose certain material information regarding the
merger. These complaints purport to seek unspecified damages.

The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. ESI
provided supplemental merger related disclosures to eliminate the
burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible
disruption to the merger that could result from further
litigation.

MKS Instruments, Inc. ("MKS" or the "Company") was founded in 1961
as a Massachusetts corporation. The company is a global provider of
instruments, subsystems and process control solutions that measure,
monitor, deliver, analyze, power and control critical parameters of
advanced manufacturing processes to improve process performance and
productivity.


MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Clyde & Co. Attorneys Discuss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saud Alsaab, Esq. -- saud.alsaab@clydeco.com -- and Sara
Al-Hudaithy, Esq. -- Sara.Al-Hudaithy@clydeco.ae -- of Clyde & Co.,
in an article for Lexology, report that in December 2017, in a
first for the region, the Capital Market Authority in Saudi Arabia
introduced a new class action regime for claims by shareholders of
listed companies in KSA.

The CMA introduced detailed Regulations for the new class action
regime, granting the Committee for the Resolution of Securities
Disputes ("CRSD"), which is a specialist tribunal for securities
disputes, a range of new powers to accept and administer
shareholder class actions in the Kingdom.

The first class action to be approved under this new regime became
clear when the General Secretariat of the Committees for Resolution
of Securities Disputes (CRSD) published an announcement on its
website on 19 February 2018 linking to a decision by the CRSD dated
4 February 2019 under which the CRSD had used its power under
Article 52 of the Regulations to approve the first shareholder
class action. The CRSD accepted the request by a shareholder to
register a class action lawsuit against the former Board of
Directors of Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG), its senior management
and its auditor for alleged violations committed during the
subscription in the company's shares as part of its 2008 IPO.

The CMA has previously taken regulatory action on related issues.
On 8 February 2017 the Appeal Committee for Resolution of Security
Disputes, issued a final and conclusive decision convicting seven
former members of MMG's board and their auditor for breach of
Article 49/a of the Capital Market Law and Article 7 of the Market
Conduct Regulations. The Appeal decision concluded that those
former board members conducted practices that created a false and
misleading impression regarding the value of the company's share,
during the subscription stage. The class action therefore seeks to
consolidate shareholder claims that have already been brought
against the MMG Board before the CRSD to order the defendants (MMG
board members) to pay a compensation for damages sustained,
resulting from these offences.

The CRSD invited concerned investors who had subscribed to MMG's
shares prior to its IPO on the Capital Market on 12/07/2008, to
submit a request via the Capital Market Authority (CMA) website in
order to join the class action within 90 days of the announcement.


It should be noted that the class action related to the investors
before the IPO stage described above. Violations allegedly
committed after the IPO stage for misleading and manipulating their
financial statements relating to MMG's shares are still under the
CRSD and the CMA's investigation. [GN]


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Sargent Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Monarch Recovery Management and Monarch Recovery Holdings have been
named as defendants in a class action captioned as, JANELLE
SARGENT, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILIARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiff, vs. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., AND MONARCH
RECOVERY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 702799/2019 (NY Sup. Ct., Feb. 5,
2019).

The Defendants are summoned to answer the complaint and serve a
copy of their answer, or if the complaint is not served with the
summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs
attorney within 20 days after the service of the summons, exclusive
of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is
complete if the summons is not personally delivered to Defendant
within the State of New York).

In case the Defendants failed to appear or answer, judgment will be
taken against them by default for the sum of $1,000 as regards
Plaintiff individually and $500,000 to be distributed among the
class members in any certified class with interest from the 15th
day of February 2018, together with the costs of this action and
attorney's fees, the summons says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Ste., 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107

MONICA & ANDY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monica & Andy, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monica & Andy,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01405 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 11,
2019).

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

Monica & Andy, Inc. operates an e-commerce platform that offers
clothing and accessories for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS E. CARTER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00362 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 28, 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: Harters Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY E. HARTER and DELORES HARTER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00375 (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: Schwartz Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SCHWARTZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00406 (E.D. Mo., March 5, 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 Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Megan Myers Arvola, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
          marvola@gorijulianlaw.com

MONTE CARLO INN: Sued over Hotel's "28-Day Shuffle" Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH FREDERICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MONTE CARLO INN; WANG HANE GROUP,
INC.; MAY HSIAO MEI WANG; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCVQ8500 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 13, 2019),
seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful practices of unlawfully
forcing tenants to vacate their residences at Defendants'
low-income residential hotel.

The Plaintiff occupied a unit at Defendants' residential hotel
during the Class period. Upon 28 consecutive days of occupancy by
Plaintiff at the hotel, however, Defendants required Plaintiff to
move out, or check out of the hotel and then reregister 24 hours
later, or both. Other Class members, who also resided at
Defendants' residential hotel, were similarly required to move out
of the premises, or check out and reregister, before the expiration
of 30 consecutive days of occupancy. This practice -- commonly
known as the "28-day shuffle" -- was employed by Defendants to
deprive their tenants of important consumer protections and tenancy
rights that only vest with tenants who occupy a residence for more
than 30 days.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S. OHN, APC
          25129 The Old Road, Suite 207
          Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
          Telephone: (661)475-5220
          Facsimile: (310)694-3049
          E-mail: gerald@ohnlaw.com

               - and -

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          3 Pointe Drive, Suite 304
          Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 494-6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406-2722
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com

MOVADO RETAIL: Faces Haggar ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYOHAK CHU; and VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOVADO
RETAIL GROUP, INC. doing business as: MVMT WATCHES, INC.; and Does
1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01338-DSF-GJS
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer and
referred to Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish.

Movado Retail Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Movado Group
Inc. The Company designs, develops, sources, markets, and
distributes fine watches in the United States and internationally.
Movado Group Inc.  was formerly known as North American Watch
Corporation and changed its name to Movado Group, Inc. in 1996.
Movado Group, Inc. was founded in 1961 and is based in Paramus, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MRS BPO LLC: Halloway Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Fatin A. Halloway on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01706 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 11, 2019).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
     Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
     Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
            mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
            osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION: Lynch Appeals Order & Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick J. Lynch filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated January 31, 2019, and
District Court Clerk's Judgment dated February 1, 2019, in his
lawsuit styled Lynch v. National Prescription Administrators, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 03-cv-1303, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation on April 29, 2005, transferred a
number of previously disclosed cases to the Eastern District of
Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
including this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs in the MDL assert that certain of the Defendants'
business practices, including those relating to Express Scripts,
Inc.'s contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers for
retrospective discounts on pharmaceuticals and those related to the
Company's retail pharmacy network contracts, constitute violations
of various legal obligations including fiduciary duties under the
Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, common law
fiduciary duties, state common law, state consumer protection
statutes, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices.

The appellate case is captioned as Lynch v. National Prescription
Administrators, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-523, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick J. Lynch, as Trustee of the Health and
Welfare Fund of the Patrolmens's Benevolent Association of the City
of New York and The Retiree Health & Welfare Fund of the
Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Plans, is
represented by:

          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 218-2725
          E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com

Defendants-Appellees National Prescription Administrators, Inc.,
and Express Scripts, Inc., are represented by:

          Christopher Valeriote, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          E-mail: chris.valeriote@huschblackwell.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Axelrod Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Life
Insurance And Annuity Corporation. The case is styled as Leonard H.
Axelrod and Vicki Axelrod Feinstein, individually and as a Trustee
for the Leonard H. Axelrod Family Insurance Trust 082604, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. New
York Life Insurance And Annuity Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02170 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to Diversity-Contract Dispute.

New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation offers life
insurance and annuities. The company was incorporated in 1980 and
is based in New York, New York. New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of New York Life Insurance
Co.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Kevin W. Barrett, Esq.
   Bailey &Glasser LLP
   209 Capitol Street
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-6555
   Fax: (304) 342-1110
   Email: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com


NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Nebraska Wind Farm
----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a Nebraska homeowner
has filed a proposed class action alleging that a wind farm built
next to his property by Florida-based NextEra Energy made him sick
because of the incessant noise and strobelike effects that occur
when the wind turbine's blades pass before the sun.

Filed on March 1 in West Palm Beach federal court, the lawsuit is
seeking damages to be determined at trial for hundreds of residents
nationwide who live within three miles of a NextEra wind turbine.
The complaint accuses NextEra of negligence and creation of a
private nuisance by locating wind turbines too close to homes,
interfering with residents' use and enjoyment of their property.
[GN]


NIO INC: Tan Says Financial Report Misleading
---------------------------------------------
JONATHAN TAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. NIO INC., BIN LI, and LOUIS T.
HSIEH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01424 (E.D.N.Y., March 12,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") of NIO between September 12, 2018 and March 5, 2019, both
dates inclusive.

On September 11, 2018, NIO filed a Form F-1/A (the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement stated that
NIO is "developing our own manufacturing facility in Shanghai which
we expect to be ready by the end of 2020." Both Defendants Li and
Hsieh signed the Registration Statement. NIO boasted in the
Registration Statement that having its own manufacturing facility
would allow NIO to "expand its manufacturing capability for the ET7
and future models" and "facilitate our ability to obtain our own
[Electric Vehicle] manufacturing license."

This information is material to investors because NIO, while
purporting to be an electric car company, actually does not
manufacture its own cars. Rather, it contracts with a little-known
Chinese state-owned auto manufacturer, JAC Auto, to build its
electric vehicles.

Also, since 2010, the Chinese government has issued subsidies to
purchasers of electric vehicles. The Chinese government indicated,
however, that it would start to reduce the subsidies in 2019.

On November 11, 2018, NIO held a conference call with analysts to
discuss its earnings release for the third quarter of 2018 (the "Q3
2018 Earnings Call"). On the Q3 2018 Earnings Call, Defendant Li
assured investors that the anticipated reductions in government
subsidies for electric cars would not have an impact on NIO's
business, stating: "Of course, the subsidy in the next year will
decrease. The government is -- they were asking for opinions. And
we think this is not going to affect our gross margin that much
because the sales price already includes the subsidy and this will
not affect us that much."

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operational and financial results, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) NIO would not be building its own manufacturing
plant and would instead continue to rely on JAC Auto to manufacture
its vehicles; (2) reductions in government subsidies for electric
cars would materially impact NIO's sales; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about NIO's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 5, 2019, after the market closed, Defendants released
NIO's earnings report for the fourth quarter of 2018 ("Q4 2018
Earnings Report"). In the Q4 2018 Earnings Report, Defendants
disclosed that: NIO would be terminating its agreement with the
Shanghai government to build its own manufacturing plant in
Shanghai, and instead continue to contract with JAC Auto to build
its cars.

NIO's deliveries of its electric vehicles fell from more than 3,000
vehicles in December 2018 to 1,805 vehicles in January 2019, and
further dropped to 811 vehicles in February 2019. NIO disclosed
that the slowdown was primarily caused by anticipation of subsidy
reductions for electric vehicles in China in 2019.

On this news, shares of NIO fell $3.07 per share or over 30% over
the next two trading days to close at $7.09 on March 7, 2019.

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

NIO purports to design, jointly manufacture, and sell electric
vehicles. NIO is headquartered in Shanghai, China and incorporated
in the Cayman Islands. NIO's ADSs trade on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker "NIO."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

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

NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: 9th Cir. Arbitration Order in McGhee Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD McGHEE, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORTH
AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-56248 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendant-Appellant appeals the district court's order denying
its motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action filed
by Plaintiff-Appellee McGhee, a merchant who signed up for NAB's
credit card processing service.

McGhee did not assent to the arbitration clause on the User
Agreement webpage.  Although McGhee assented to the Terms and
Conditions when filling out the online application by clicking on
the button next to the "I have read and agree to the Terms and
Conditions" hyperlink, the Terms and Conditions webpage did not
provide constructive notice to a reasonably prudent user that the
User Agreement was a part of the contract between NAB and its
customers.

The onus fell on NAB to put its customers on notice of the binding
terms of the contract in a clear and straightforward way.  NAB
failed to do so, instead causing confusion through the convoluted
placement of contradictory documents on its website.  Therefore,
McGhee did not assent to the arbitration clause on the User
Agreement webpage when assenting to the Terms and Conditions.

Nevertheless, NAB argues that the district court's order should be
reversed because McGhee failed to provide a declaration or other
similar evidence to rebut NAB's alleged "prima facie" showing that
McGhee assented to the User Agreement.  But NAB did not make a
"prima facie" showing that McGhee assented to the User Agreement
and the arbitration clause; therefore, it was unnecessary for
McGhee to provide rebutting evidence.

For these reasons, the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/wQnFA4 from Leagle.com.


NORTH AMERICANS INNS: Scott et al. Seek Regular & OT Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SCOTT, and DEBBIE RICHARDS, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NORTH
AMERICANS INNS, LLC, SHARMA HOSPITALITY, LLC, PAUL D, SHARMA, and
SHAUN B. SHARMA, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00022-LGW-BWC
(S.D. Ga., March 13, 2019), seeks to recover unapid regular and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly
situated collective group are or have been employed by the
Defendants, working as staff at a hotel owned by Paul Sharma and
Shaun Sharma. The Defendants offered the Plaintiffs residency at
Defendants' agreement to perform the equivalent of full-time
employment (40 hours per week) for the hotel. However the
Defendants failed to meet a number of requirements necessary to
qualify for credit towards wages pursuant to the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
          THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
          152 New street, Suite 109B
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: 404 944 3128

OHIO NATIONAL: Cook Files Class Action Over Insurance Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ohio National
Life Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Stephen Cook
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company, Ohio
National Life Assurance Corporation, Ohio National Equities, Inc.,
Ohio National Financial Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00195-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 11, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The Ohio National Life Insurance Company offers life insurance
services, and insurance and annuity products.

Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation provides life insurance
services. The company was founded in 1979 and is based in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ohio National Equities, Inc. operates as a brokerage firm. The
Company buys and sells securities such as stocks, bonds, mutual
funds, and other investment products.

Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. provides insurance
protection and wealth accumulation products for individuals,
groups, and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Esq.
     Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A. - 2
     600 Vine Street, Suite 2704
     Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008
     Phone: (513) 421-2400
     Fax: (513) 421-7902
     Email: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com


ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Edwards Suit over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00773-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 22, 2019) alleges
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and referred to Magistrate Judge Tim A.
Baker.

OneMain Financial Group, LLC was formerly known as OneMain
Financial, Inc. and changed its name to OneMain Financial Group,
LLC in November 2015. The company was founded in 2010 and is based
in Irving, Texas. OneMain Financial Group, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of OneMain Financial Holdings, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com
                  lsmith@smithmarco.com


OPERATING ENGINEERS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Furwa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Nina Biermann, Nicole Furwa,
Andrew Gibbs and Matthew Lewis filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in their lawsuit titled Nicole Furwa, et al. v. Douglas Stockwell,
et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12392, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Thompson, Sr., et al. v.
Douglas Stockwell, et al., Case No. 19-1200, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16, 2019, the
Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled Nicole Furwa, et al. v. Douglas
Stockwell, et al., Case No. 18-2437.

The Defendants-Appellants are Dan Boone, Kenneth Dombrow, Scott
Hart, Lisa Lauzon, James Oleksinski, Operating Engineers Local 324
Health Care Plan, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Defined
Contribution Plan, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Pension Plan,
Operating Engineers' Local 324 Retiree Benefit Fund, Operating
Engineers' Local 324 Vacation and Holiday Fund, Douglas Stockwell
and M.E. Woodbeck, Jr.

The lawsuit is brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants MATTHEW LEWIS, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated; ANDREW GIBBS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; NINA
BIERMANN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated;
and NICOLE FURWA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Donald H. Scharg, Esq.
          BODMAN
          201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 743-6000
          E-mail: dscharg@bodmanlaw.com

Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees DOUGLAS STOCKWELL, KENNETH
DOMBROW, SCOTT HART, DAN BOONE, LISA LAUZON, M.E. WOODBECK, JR.,
JAMES OLEKSINSKI, OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 HEALTH CARE PLAN,
OPERATING ENGINEERS' LOCAL 324 PENSION PLAN, OPERATING ENGINEERS'
LOCAL 324 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, OPERATING ENGINEERS' LOCAL 324
VACATION AND HOLIDAY FUND and OPERATING ENGINEERS' LOCAL 324
RETIREE BENEFIT FUND are represented by:

          Nancy Harris Pearce, Esq.
          FINKEL WHITEFIELD SELIK
          32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334-1567
          Telephone: (810) 356-4900
          E-mail: info@fwslaw.com


ORBITAL ATK: June 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)

STEVEN KNURR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

vs.

ORBITAL ATK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01031-TSE-MSN
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS (I) WHO HELD STOCK IN ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION
(ORBITAL SCIENCES) AS OF DECEMBER 16, 2014 AND EXCHANGED SHARES OF
ORBITAL SCIENCES STOCK FOR SHARES OF ORBITAL ATK, INC. (ORBITAL
ATK) COMMON STOCK ON OR AROUND FEBRUARY 9, 2015 IN CONNECTION WITH
THE MERGER BETWEEN ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. (ALLIANT) AND ORBITAL
SCIENCES, AND/OR (II) WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ORBITAL ATK COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN MAY 28, 2015 AND AUGUST 9, 2016, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a
hearing will be held on June 7, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., before the
Honorable T.S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401
Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Action for
the sum of One Hundred Eight Million Dollars ($108,000,000.00) in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, which would result in this Action being dismissed with
prejudice against the Released Persons as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement dated January 30, 2019; (2) whether the Plan
of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys fees and expenses in connection with this Action,
together with interest thereon, and Plaintiffs request for an award
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their
representation of the Class.

If you purchased, acquired or sold Orbital ATK common stock
(including by tendering shares of Orbital Sciences stock in
exchange for shares of Orbital ATK common stock in connection with
the merger between Alliant and Orbital Sciences), your rights may
be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form,
you may obtain copies by writing to Orbital ATK Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
404109, Louisville, KY 40233-4109, or by downloading this
information at www.OrbitalSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form
by mail (postmarked no later than May 30, 2019), or electronically
(no later than May 30, 2019) at
www.OrbitalSecuritiesLitigation.com, establishing that you are
entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered
in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the
above address, postmarked by May 10, 2019.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than May 10, 2019, and received by
the following no later than May 10, 2019:

Counsel for Plaintiffs
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
THEODORE J. PINTAR
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
LYLE ROBERTS
401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20004

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERKS OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL: Underpays Security Staff, Misquez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MISQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff. vs. POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER,
a California corporation; DOES 1-10, business entities, forms
unknown; DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08514 (Cal Super. Ct., March 13, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to provide legally mandated off-duty
meal periods and rest periods because, among other reasons,
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of regularly failing to
provide any rest breaks to Class Members, and of requiring Class
Members to remain on-call during all meal periods and rest periods
that were provided. The Defendants failed to pay any premiums for
these violations.

The Class Members consist of all non-exempt/hourly current and
former employees of Defendants who work or worked for Defendants in
the State of California during the Class Period and who hold or
held job titles such as "Security Officer" or similar job titles.
The Defendants employ these workers to perform security and
monitoring tasks relating to the Defendants' health care business.

Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. offers health care
services. The company's services include oncology and cancer care,
cardiac and vascular care, women's and children’s care, and
kidney care services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Chantal M. Payton, Esq.
          PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-3039
          Facsimile: (310) 870-7207
          E-mail: CPavton@PavtonEmplovinentLaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander M. P. Perry, Esq.
          Kaelan T. Nielsen, Esq.
          CHAMPION LAW FIRM
          16000 Ventura Boulevard, Penthouse 1208
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 995-8200
          Facsimile: (818) 995-8204
          E-mail: Alex@ChampLawFirm.com
                  Kaelan@ChampLawFirm.com

POSTMATES INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Albert Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA ALBERT, Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07592-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Joseph C.
Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Postmates' motion to
dismiss Albert's second amended complaint.

The case began when Dora Lee, another Postmates courier, filed a
putative class action in state court.  Postmates removed to the
Court under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to compel
arbitration of Lee's claims, and the Court granted that motion
based on Lee's failure to opt out of the arbitration clause of
Postmates' Fleet Agreement within the time allowed to do so.  At
the same time, the Court granted Lee's motion to file an amended
complaint naming Albert and Kellyn Timmerman as additional
Plaintiffs.

Postmates then moved to compel arbitration of Timmerman's claims
and to dismiss Albert's claims.  The Court granted the motion to
compel Timmerman's claims and the motion to dismiss Albert's
claims, but allowed Albert leave to amend most of his claims.  The
Court dismissed a claim under California Labor Code section 226.8
with prejudice because that statute does not provide a private
right of action, and dismissed with leave to amend Albert's
remaining claims -- generally based on failure to pay sufficient
wages and failure to reimburse business expenses -- for failure to
allege that Postmates owed such wages and reimbursements to Albert
himself, rather than to "couriers" generally.  The Court did not
reach Postmates' remaining arguments but encouraged Albert to
consider those arguments in drafting a second amended complaint.
The Court also granted a request by Plaintiffs to dismiss rather
than stay Lee and Timmerman's claims in order to allow them to
appeal the Court's orders compelling arbitration, and severed
Albert's claims to avoid confusion from his claims proceeding
simultaneously with Lee and Timmerman's appeal.

Albert's second amended complaint includes the following claims:
(1) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of section
2802 of the California Labor Code; (2) failure to pay minimum wage
in violation of sections 1197 and 1194 of the Labor Code; (3)
unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition
Law (the "UCL"); (4) a claim for penalties under California's
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") based on purported
violations of a number of underlying sections of the Labor Code
related to reimbursement of expenses, minimum wage, and willful
misclassification; and (5) a claim for declaratory judgment
establishing that Postmates has violated the Labor Code by
misclassifying its couriers as independent contractors, in which
Albert also seeks an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with
the Labor Code, which Albert contends would constitute public
injunctive relief.

Albert alleges that he worked as a delivery driver for Postmates in
August of 2018, and that Postmates terminated him on Aug.30, 2018
because his customer rating [purportedly] fell below a certain
metric.  According to Albert, Postmates misclassified him and other
drivers as independent contractors when, under California law, they
would correctly be classified as employees.  Albert alleges that,
in the course of performing deliveries and running Postmates'
smartphone application, he incurred costs for the use of his
vehicle, including for gas and car insurance, as well as phone and
data expenses that he would not have incurred if he had not worked
for Postmates, and for which Postmates did not reimburse him.
Albert also alleges that Postmates only paid him $193.77 for 26
hours of work, averaging $7.45 per hour, despite California's $11
per hour minimum wage.

Judge Spero granted Postmates' motion with respect to Albert's UCL
claim for restitution based on section 226.8, which is dismissed
with prejudice, and with respect to all claims based on failure to
reimburse expenses related to Albert's vehicle, which are dismissed
with leave to amend.  He otherwise denied the motion.

Among other things, the Judge finds that in light of the California
Supreme Court's April 2018 decision that individuals whose services
are provided within the usual course of the employer's business are
employees, Albert's allegations are sufficient to support a
plausible inference that Postmates' classification of him as an
independent contractor in August of 2018 was a willful
misclassification.  To the extent that it seeks injunctive rather
than restitutionary relief, Albert's UCL claim based on section
226.8 may proceed.

He also finds that Postmates has presented no persuasive reason why
California should have its interest in the enforcement of its laws
delayed by other private Plaintiffs' complications related to
arbitration, nor why proceeding with this case while others are
stayed would cause judicial inefficiency.   Even if the
arbitrations involve similar issues of classification, it is not
clear why the state's interest in enforcing its laws should wait
for the conclusion of those arbitrations, each of which -- by the
terms of Postmates' Fleet Agreement -- can only resolve the claims
of a single courier

If Albert wishes to pursue claims for reimbursement of
vehicle-related expenses, he may file a third amended complaint no
later than March 22, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/298ERe from Leagle.com.

Joshua Albert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Postmates Inc., Defendant, represented by Theane Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay
Saikrishna Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Michele Leigh Maryott --
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Peter C.
Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 3 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
THIS NOTICE AFFECTS all individuals or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Precision Castparts Corp.
during the period of May 9, 2013 through January 15, 2015,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon, that Murphy v. Precision Castparts
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00521-SB ("Action") against
Precision Castparts Corp. ("PCC"), Mark Donegan, and Shawn R. Hagel
(collectively, "Defendants"), has been certified as a class action
on behalf of the Class, except for certain individuals and entities
that are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the
full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"). Lead
Plaintiffs AMF Pensionsforsakring AB and the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System have been appointed by the Court to
represent the Class.  There is no settlement or monetary recovery
for Class Members at this time; this is only a notice that the
Class has been certified.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LAWSUIT.  The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class Members. If you have not yet received a full printed
Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for the Action,
www.PrecisionCastpartsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting
the Administrator:

Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp., et al. c/o JND Legal
Administration P.O. Box 91228 Seattle, WA  98111 (888) 305-6485
info@PrecisionCastpartsSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you did not receive the Notice by mail, and you are a member of
the Class, please send your name and address to the Administrator
so that if any future notices are disseminated in connection with
the Action, you will receive them.  

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
         Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         (610) 667-7706
         info@ktmc.com

         James W. Johnson, Esq.
         Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         (888) 219-6877
         info@labaton.com

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in PCC
common stock.  You will automatically be included in the Class, and
you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all
past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.  If you are a Class Member and do not
wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to
exclude yourself from the Class.

If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, but
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion postmarkedno later than May 3, 2019 in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
it is within the Court's discretion whether to allow a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a
settlement or judgment in the Action; accordingly, this may be the
only opportunity to request exclusion from the Class.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
as set forth above or visiting the website
www.PrecisionCastpartsSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions.

DATED:  March 11, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON


PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Faces Class Action Over Unconstitutional Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Karlin, writing for Times Union, reports that New York's major
teachers' unions are defending against a class action lawsuit in
which college professors who were not union members are demanding
retroactive repayment of dues-like fees in the wake of last June's
U.S. Supreme Court Janus decision.

If the plaintiff in Seidemann v Professional Staff Congress (PSC)
were to win, it could set a precedent costing public sector unions
several years' worth of agency fees the instructors paid out over
the past several years.

"Unconstitutional agency fees were taken from the paychecks of
teachers and professors against their will.  This money, taken over
multiple years, adds up to significant sums," David Seidemann's
lawyer, Jonathan Klein, of the Clark Hill firm, said in an email.

Union officials, though, condemned the move and noted that similar
suits in other states have been unsuccessful.

"Professor Seidemann's lawsuit is one of a number of identical
lawsuits filed by anti-union activists across the country," PSC
President Barbara Bowen said in a prepared statement.

"Every one of these cases that has been decided has been dismissed
as meritless. We are confident that Professor Seidemann's case will
also be found to be without merit."

David Seidemann is a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences
at Brooklyn College, which is part of the City University of New
York system. PSC is the union representing instructors and others
at CUNY.

Because dues and fees are shared among sister and umbrella unions,
United University Professions, which represents State University of
New York professors, as well as New York State United Teachers,
which represents K-12 public school teachers, are also named in the
class action suit. Also named are the AFL-CIO and American
Association of University Professors Collective Bargaining
Congress.

Lawsuits like this have failed so far since there is no indication
that unions acted wrongfully in collecting the fees before the
Janus decision, said union officials.

"Judges across the country have been very consistent in ruling in
favor of the unions because of the good faith defenses," said UUP
President Fred Kowal.

NYSUT spokesman Matt Hamilton added that they are looking to
dismiss the legal complaint. "We are confident we will prevail," he
said in an email.

Since the Janus decision, a number of suits, some financed by
anti-union organizations, have been filed against public sector
unions regarding various details about compliance with the ruling.

Mr. Seidemann said in an email that the firm representing him is
doing so pro bono, which he added is "something I am very grateful
for."

His agency fees ran about $1,000 annually and he believes he is
owed three years' worth, based on a statute of limitations. It
wasn't immediately clear how many other plaintiffs in the class
action suit would get refunds were he to prevail.

In the landmark Janus decision, the Supreme Court ruled that
members of public sector unions aren't required to pay "agency
fees," or dues-like payments if they aren't enrolled in a union but
are nonetheless represented by a union.

Started by an Illinois state employee, Mark Janus, who disagreed
with his union's politics, the decision was hailed as a victory for
union critics and conservatives and as a setback for public sector
unions.

Without the mandatory agency fees, public sector employees can
still reap the benefits of union membership such as collective
bargaining but they don't have to pay anything.

The fear is this could eventually degrade the finances of many
unions if too many employees chose to stop paying their dues,
knowing that they won't instead have to pay agencies fees.

The Professional Staff Congress Union represents about 30,000 CUNY
faculty and staff members. [GN]


PROSHARES TRUST: Faces Mareno Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES D. MARENO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PROSHARES TRUST II, PROSHARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC,
TODD B. JOHNSON, EDWARD KARPOWICZ, MICHAEL L. SAPIR, LOUIS M.
MAYBERG, ABN AMRO CLEARING CHICAGO LLC, BANCA IMI SECURITIES CORP.,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN, SACHS
& CO., HRT FINANCIAL LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, KNIGHT EXECUTION & CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, MERRILL LYNCH
PROFESSIONAL CLEARING CORP., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC., NEWEDGE
USA LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, TIMBER HILL, LLC, UBS
SECURITIES LLC, VIRTU FINANCIAL BD LLC and WEDBUSH SECURITIES,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01955 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2019), is brought
on behalf of those who purchased shares of ProShares Short VIX
Short-Term Futures ETF ("SVXY" or the "Fund") pursuant to the May
15, 2017 registration statement seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Fund was subject to extreme risks
that were not adequately disclosed to investors, the Plaintiff
alleges.  While defendants told investors in the Fund that the SVXY
was appropriate for managing daily trading risks, in fact the Fund
was inappropriate for this purpose as it was subject to a high
likelihood of catastrophic losses in a matter of minutes, the
Plaintiff contends.

ProShares Trust II is the registrant for the Fund and issuer of
SVXY shares.  The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust organized
into separate series of exchange-traded funds, or "ETFs."  ETFs are
investment funds that bundle together securities to offer investors
the ability to invest in diversified portfolios, much like mutual
funds.

ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") is the sponsor and
commodity pool operator for the Fund.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Trust and/or the Sponsor.

Defendants ABN AMRO Clearing Chicago LLC, Banca IMI Securities
Corp., Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., HRT Financial LLC, Jefferies LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Knight Execution & Clearing Services, LLC, Merrill
Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Mizuho Securities USA LLC,
Newedge USA LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Timber Hill, LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, Virtu Financial BD LLC and Wedbush Securities,
Inc., served as underwriters for the offer and sale of SVXY shares
during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          David C. Harrison, Esq.
          Peter Demato, Jr., Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com
                  pdemato@lowey.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Chester County Files RICO Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Actavis LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Chester County, Pennsylvania, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue
Pharma LP, The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Purdue Pharmaceutical
Products, L.P., Purdue Products, L.P., Rhodes Pharmaceutical, L.P.,
Richard S. Sackler, Jonathan D. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler,
Kathe A. Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler, Theresa
Sackler, David A. Sackler, Trust for the Benefit of members of the
Raymond Sackler Family, Endo International PLC, Endo Health
Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals Companies Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. f/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis
PLC, Allergan Finance LLC f/k/a Actavis Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC,
Actavis Pharms Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Insys Therapeutic
Inc., Mallinckrodt, PLC, Mallinckrodt, LLC, SPECGX LLC, Cardinal
Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Amerisourcebergen Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01018-PBT (E.D. Pa., Mar. 11, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's
health.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development,
production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic
pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States.

Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and
biologic products.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
     KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, PC
     Two Commerce Sq., Ste. 3900
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 735-8700
     Fax: (215) 735-5170
     Email: dgross@kcr-law.com


QIHOO 360: Altimeo Files Securities Suit Over Tianjin Qixin Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Altimeo Asset Management, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd., Hongyi Zhou,
Xiangdong Qi and Eric X Chen, Case No. 2:19-cv-01619 (C.D. Cal.,
March 5, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This securities class action is brought on behalf of all former
owners of Qihoo 360 stock and American Depositary Shares who: (a)
sold shares, and were damaged thereby, during the period between
January 11, 2016 and July 15, 2016, inclusive; and (b) held shares
as of July 15, 2016.

This case concerns a scheme by Qihoo 360 and certain of its
officers and directors to depress the value of Qihoo 360's stock
and ADS in order to avoid paying a fair price to Qihoo 360's
shareholders during a transaction to take the Company private. The
Defendants executed this scheme by failing to provide shareholders
adequate disclosure of all material information related to a merger
with Tianjin Qixin Zhicheng Technology Co., Ltd., Tianjin Qixin
Tongda Technology Co., Ltd., True Thrive Limited ("Midco"), New
Summit Limited, and solely for purposes of Section 6.19 of the
Merger Agreement, Global Village Associates Limited and Young
Vision Group Limited, and making false assurances about the fair
value of Qihoo 360's stock and ADS. As a result, the company misled
shareholders who approved the $9.3 billion take-private deal in
2016. Qihoo 360 shareholders were misled into accepting
consideration from the merger that was well below fair value for
their Qihoo 360 shares, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an independent portfolio management company based
in France and approved by the French Financial Authority, with
significant assets under management. A fund affiliated with Altimeo
held Qihoo 360 securities as of July 15, 2016 and sold Qihoo 360's
securities during the class period, and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

The Defendant Qihoo 360 is incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands, with its principal executive offices located at
Building 2, 6 Haoyuan, Jiuxianqiao Road, Chaoyang District,
Beijing, People's Republic of China, 100015. Prior to the Merger,
the Company's stock was listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol
"QIHU." The Defendant, formerly known as Qihoo Technology Company
Limited, is purported to be the leading internet company in the
People's Republic of China.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Qihoo 360.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Ave, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Tel: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

REALOGY GROUP: Court Grants Final Approval of Dodge Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in Dodge, et al. v. PHH Corporation, et
al., formerly captioned Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH
Corporation, et al. (C.D. Calif.).

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.

On May 19, 2017, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement of
the action, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay
approximately $8 million (or one-half of the settlement).

In settling the matter, the Company specifically denied any
wrongdoing with respect to the claims asserted in the case.

As a result of the settlement, the Company accrued $8 million in
the second quarter of 2017 and the liability is included in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

The Court granted final approval of the settlement effective as of
August 27, 2018.  

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Faces Whitlach Class Action in Alameda
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in a putative class action lawsuit entitled,
Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century
21 Real Estate LLC (California Superior Court for the County of
Alameda).

This is a putative class action complaint filed on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M ("Century 21 M&M").

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate ("Century 21"), as an alleged joint employer of the
franchisee's independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class
that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M
and Century 21 in California.

The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its
independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals,
broker associates and other similar positions as independent
contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper
records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made
unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff
and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts
an unfair business practice claim based on the alleged violations.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Time to Appeal Order in Carretta Suit Has Lapsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 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 the time to
appeal the court's decision in dismissing the class action lawsuit
commenced by Roger and Maureen Carretta has lapsed.

On September 24, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by
Roger and Maureen Carretta against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
d/b/a Royal Caribbean International in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida relating to the
marketing and sales of our Travel Protection Program.

The plaintiffs purported to represent an alleged class of
passengers who purchased the Travel Protection Program. The
complaint alleged that the Company concealed that it received
"kickbacks," in the form of undisclosed commissions on the sale of
the travel insurance portion of the product from an underwriter,
and allegedly improperly bundled Travel Insurance Policies with
non-insurance products. The complaint sought damages in an
indeterminate amount.

On November 26, 2018, the Court dismissed the entire action with
prejudice on the grounds that, among others, the claim was filed
beyond the time limitations contained in the passenger ticket
contract. Plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and the time
period for filing an appeal has lapsed.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. operates as a cruise company. The
company operates cruises under the Royal Caribbean International,
Celebrity Cruises, Azamara Club Cruises, and Silversea Cruises
brands. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. was founded in 1968 and is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


ROYAL CATERERS: Facing Contreras Suit in N.Y. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caterers, Inc., has been named as a defendant in the case
captioned as ALEJANDRO CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL CATERERS INC.; ELENI
OPERATING CORP. D/B/A ROYAL REGENCY HOTEL; ROYAL REGENCY INC.; NICK
PAXOS; GUS PAXOS; and PHYLLIS PAXOS, Defendants, Case No.
26926/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 22, 2019). The case is assigned to
Judge Elizabeth A. Taylor.

Royal Caterers Inc. is engaged in the catering business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
          One Old Country Road
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

The Defendants are represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          44 South Broadway, 14th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 872-8060


SAM'S WEST: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYOHAK CHU; and VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAM'S WEST,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01290-CAS-MRW
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder
and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.

Sam's West, Inc., doing business as Sam's Club, operates as a
retailer and a membership warehouse club that provides products to
members in the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was
founded in 1983 and is based in Bentonville, Arkansas, with club
locations in the United States and Puerto Rico.  Sam's West is a
subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


SANTA ROSA: Misclassifies Workers as Contractors, Mendoza Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN MENDOZA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00195
(M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act because the Plaintiff and its other
workers were improperly classified as independent contractors and
did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, and did not receive pay for out-of-town travel time
during normal business hours.

Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc., carries out and coordinates its main
function from its principal place of business located in Franklin,
Williamson County, Tennessee.  The Company provides staffing
services to customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Mediation in Stevens Suit Set for May 7
--------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the mediation in the
class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Stevens is scheduled for May
7, 2019, in Atlanta, Georgia.

On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and
its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management
Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as
defendants (the "Stevens Complaint").

The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting
and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan.

All parties to the matter have agreed to participate in non-binding
mediation with the goal of resolving the matter in an efficient and
satisfactory manner, while avoiding protracted litigation costs.
The court granted a motion to stay the litigation pending the
outcome of mediation, which is scheduled for May 7, 2019, in
Atlanta, Georgia.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, the defendants believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the allegations contained
in the Stevens Complaint vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the
make-up of the purported class named in the Stevens Complaint, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
specificity or discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation
and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company
is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the matters set forth in the Stevens Complaint."

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company and its
subsidiary continue to defend several lawsuits related to the role
of SEI Private Trust Company in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a
defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the
purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.

The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner
in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of
deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana
Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute
for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust
Company.

Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the
claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern
District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary
liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of
the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern
District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.

During February 2017, SEI filed its response to the Ahders
Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for the Northern
District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of all claims
in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law.

In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern
District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain.
Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI
and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the
Lillie proceeding.

On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings to the Middle District
of Louisiana. No material activity has taken place since remand.

Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule
for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established.

Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC
indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken
place since.

In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by
the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA).

The matters were removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and consolidated. The court then
dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the
United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February
26, 2014. The matters were remanded to state court and no material
activity has taken place since that date.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits."

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEMPRA ENERGY: 393 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Feb. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that 393 lawsuits have been
filed over the so-called Aliso Canyon Leak as of Feb. 21, 2019.

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of
the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon
natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since
1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells
at the storage facility.  SoCalGas worked closely with several of
the world's leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18,
2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.  

As of February 21, 2019, 393 lawsuits, including approximately
48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have
also named Sempra Energy.

All these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney, two complaints on behalf of certain
firefighters and the federal securities class action, are
coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for
pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding).

Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the
individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65
claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint
for Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will
be managed for pretrial purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and violations of
Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming
Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost
profits, property damage and diminution in property value,
injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil
penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65
claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain
chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two
consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and
businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius
of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of
a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business
within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action).

Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also
asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and
continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation.

The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage.

Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the
Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In
February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition
filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling.

In September and October of 2017, property developers filed two
complaints, one of which was amended in July 2018, against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for strict liability,
negligence per se, negligence, continuing nuisance, permanent
nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, as
well as claims for negligence against certain directors of
SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. These claims are
joined in the Coordination Proceeding.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company’s San Diego Gas & Electric Company segment generates,
transmits, and distributes electricity; and supplies natural gas.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SHK MANAGEMENT: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHK Management, Inc.
The case is styled as Byron Breeze on behalf of himself, and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SHK Management, Inc.
a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02234 (S.D.
N.Y., Mar. 12, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

SHK Management, Inc., doing business as Korman Communities,
operates as a real estate company. The Company offers property
management, development, legal and financial, short-term and
furnished multi-family residential apartments services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hector V. Ramirez, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 745-0588
     Fax: (877) 253-1691
     Email: ramirez@nklegal.com


SI FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Class Suit Over Berkshire Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SI Financial Group, Inc., Mark D. Alliod, Rheo A.
Brouillard, Roger Engle, Donna M. Evan, Michael R. Garvey, Robert
O. Gillard, Kevin M. McCarthy, Kathleen A. Nealon, Dennis Pollack,
and Robert C. Cushman Sr., Case No. 3:19-cv-00321 (D. Conn., March
5, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 11, 2018, SI and Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. issued a
joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger. The Merger Agreement provides that immediately
following the close of the Proposed Transaction, SI's wholly owned
subsidiary, Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company, will merge
with and into Berkshire's wholly owned subsidiary Berkshire Bank.

On February 26, 2019, SI filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Form
DEFM 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
SI stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) SI's and Berkshire's financial projections, relied upon by the
Company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. in its
financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by KBW; and (iii) Company insiders' potential conflicts of
interest, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of SI common stock.

The Defendant SI is the parent holding company for Savings
Institute. Savings Institute operates 24 full-service offices
throughout Windham, New London, Tolland, Hartford and Middlesex
counties in Connecticut and Newport and Washington counties in
Rhode Island.  Savings Institute operates as a community-oriented
financial institution offering a full range of financial services
to consumers and businesses in its market area, including life
insurance and annuities.

The Individual Defendants are member of SI's board of directors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


STATE FARM: Florida Court Dismisses MSPA Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed the case, MSPA Claims 1,
LLC, and others Plaintiffs, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 8-23165-Civ-Scola
(S.D. Fla.), with prejudice.

According to the operative complaint in the case, Florida
Healthcare Plus ("FHCP") made conditional payments for medical
expenses incurred by Medicare beneficiary enrollees who were
involved in car accidents in August 2013 and May 2014.  State Farm,
say the Plaintiffs, was the primary payer under the MSP Act, with a
statutory duty to reimburse FHCP for these payments, but failed to
do so.  This failure triggered FHCP's right to recover not only the
payment amounts but statutory damages as well.

As alleged in the complaint, FHCP, in April 2014, assigned all its
"rights and claims for subrogation, recovery and reimbursement"
against State Farm to La Ley Recovery Systems, Inc.  This
assignment was part of an agreement, attached to the complaint,
under which FHCP agreed to pay La Ley 50% of any claims La Ley
collected.  

Under the agreement, FHCP "retains La Ley Recovery as an
independent contractor to recover," among other things, "for
payment of medical services" incurred by FHCP's enrollees.  The
agreement also provides La Ley will pay for various legal costs up
front but, at the same time, affords La Ley the right to deduct
these costs out of any recovery prior to disbursing any amount due
to FHCP.

Another term of the La Ley agreement requires FHCP's approval in
the even La Ley seeks to "assign the Agreement in whole or in part.
As presented in the complaint, La Ley "assigned the agreement to
MSPA Claims 1 through a written assignment executed on February 20,
2015.  Through a similar series of transactions, originating from
another entity—Interamerican Medical Center Group, LLC— MSP
Recovery assigned other claims to MSPA Claims 1 on the same date.
Lastly, no assignments to either MSP Recovery Claims, Series or
Series 16-05-456 are alleged until June 12, 2017.

The initial complaint in the case was filed in state court, on Dec.
22, 2014, and named only one Plaintiff: MSP Recovery, LLC and
included allegations relating only to FHCP.  Eventually, on Feb.
16, 2016, MSPA Claims 1 was substituted as the Plaintiff for MSP
Recovery.  Afterwards, through the amended complaint now before the
Court, the two other Plaintiffs -- MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
and Series 16-05-456 -- were added.  Based on the inclusion of a
federal claim in this iteration of the complaint, State Farm
removed the case, on Aug. 3, 2018, to the Court.

State Farm, in response to the Plaintiffs' operative complaint --
the fourth amended class action complaint -- submits the Plaintiffs
lack standing to bring these claims.  The Plaintiffs counter they
have adequately alleged and established their standing and urge the
Court to deny State Farm's motion to dismiss.

Judge Scolla agrees with State Farm that the Plaintiffs lack
standing.  He finds that the Plaintiffs' fundamental insistence
that they have adequately alleged standing based on the assignments
originating from FHCP and Interamerican is wrong.  Although the
assignments from FHCP to La Ley and from Interamerican to MSP
Recovery predate the filing of the lawsuit, the assignments from La
Ley and MSP Recovery to MSPA Claims 1 do not.  This timing is fatal
to the Plaintiffs' standing.  The Judge thus need not address the
parties' more involved arguments regarding the validity of the
various assignments and any agreements, or repudiations thereof,
that predate those assignments.

The Judge granted State Farm's motion to dismiss.  Because he has
not addressed the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, the dismissal
is without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs, however, have not requested
leave to amend; nor have they indicated in their response to State
Farm's motion to dismiss any inclination whatsoever to do so.  The
Judge thus dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.  The
Clerk is directed to close the case.  Any pending motions are
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CbLk25 from Leagle.com.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC & SERIES
16-05-456, Plaintiffs, represented by Andres Rivero --
arivero@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP, Alan H. Rolnick --
arolnick@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP, Charles Edward
Whorton -- cwhorton@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP, David
Lee DaPonte -- ddaponte@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre, Jorge
Alejandro Mestre , Rivero Mestre LLP & Kingsley Chinedu Nwamah --
knwamah@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by D Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Stephanie Ann Fichera, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Benjamine Reid --
breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt.


STATEWIDE FUMIGATION: Denial of Delgado Class Certification Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLAS DELGADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATEWIDE
FUMIGATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. D072966 (Cal. App.), Judge Cynthia of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division One, (i) reversed the
trial court's order of Sept. 1, 2017, denying class certification
and limiting Delgado to pursuing individual relief only; and (ii)
remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Delgado filed the putative class action against Statewide on May
27, 2016, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current
and former employees of Statewide.  Delgado alleged multiple causes
of action against Statewide.  The causes of action included a
variety of Labor Code violations, such as the failure to provide
meal periods, to provide rest periods, to pay minimum and straight
time wages, to pay overtime compensation, to pay wages in a timely
manner upon termination of employment, and to provide accurate
statements and maintain required records.

He also alleged a cause of action for unfair business practices
under Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.  He
asserted all of the Labor Code violations, and the Section 17200
claim, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated employees.  Finally, Delgado asserted a representative
cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., for all of the violations of the
Labor Code alleged elsewhere in the complaint.

On Oct. 5, 2017, Delgado filed a notice of appeal from the court's
order denying class certification and effectively dismissing his
PAGA claim.

On appeal, Delgado contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in declining to continue the hearing date for the motion
for class certification.  According to Delgado, the court was aware
that he had been unable to obtain necessary discovery materials
from Statewide, given that approximately a month prior to the class
certification hearing, the court entered an order compelling
Statewide to provide the requested discovery.  He maintains that he
could not have obtained the discovery materials and prepared a
class certification motion in the time allotted by the court's
prior order setting the class certification hearing date.  He
states that he informed the court about the problems he was having
in obtaining discovery and requested a further continuance prior to
the hearing date, but that the court nevertheless went forward with
the hearing.  

Delgado also contends that the trial court erred in ruling that a
class action would not be manageable on the grounds that the
defendant was purportedly insolvent and had failed to retain new
counsel after its previous attorneys withdrew from representing it.
Finally, Delgado contends that, to the extent the trial court
limited him to proceeding solely on his individual claims, the
court effectively dismissed his PAGA cause of action.  This,
Delgado argues, was erroneous.

Judge Cynthia concluded that the trial court's decision not to
continue the date for the hearing on class certification was an
abuse of discretion.  The short amount of time that the trial court
allowed between its orders compelling production of documents and
scheduling the deposition of Statewide's "Person Most
Knowledgeable" ("PMK"), and the deadline for filing the motion for
class certification, effectively denied Delgado a meaningful
opportunity to conduct discovery on class action issues before it
issued its order denying class certification -- an order that had a
significant impact on the viability of Delgado's case.

Although she reversed the trial court's class certification order
on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in failing
to continue the class certification hearing, she also addressed
Delgado's contention that the trial court erroneously limited him
to individual relief, because there is a possibility that this
error could recur on remand in the event that the court ultimately
determines that no class should be certified.  On this issue, she
concluded that the court's ruling limiting Delgado to pursuing only
his individual claims for relief had the effect of erroneously
dismissing his PAGA representative claim.

She therefore reversed the trial court's order and remanded the
matter with directions to permit Delgado time to attempt to obtain
the discovery that the court previously ordered Statewide to
produce, and to accord Delgado sufficient time after obtaining the
discovery to file his motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 5, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/HfOfpn from Leagle.com.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
-- Thomas S. Campbell -- tom@rastegarlawgroup.com -- and Nida
Siddiqui for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Simpson Delmore Greene, Terence L. Greene -- tgreene@sdgllp.com --
and Ross M. Poole -- rpoole@sdgllp.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


STEPPING STONE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Thompson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachaun Thompson On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stepping Stone Health Services, LLC and
Samuel Ugbo, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00897-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
March 11, 2019) seeks to challenge the policies and practices of
the Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
as well as the statutes of the State of Ohio.

Although Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff, the FLSA
Collective, and Ohio Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek,
the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and
Ohio Class overtime at a rate of one and one half times the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint.

As a result, the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and Ohio Class
were not properly paid overtime for many of their overtime hours
worked as required under the FLSA and Ohio law.

Plaintiff Rachaun Thompson was employed by Defendants from
approximately February 2016 to August 2017, and from November 2017
to March 2018 as a home health aide/caregiver.

Stepping Stone is a home health agency providing hourly and live-in
home health aides.[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
     Phone: (216) 912-2221
     Fax: (216) 350-6313
     Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
            rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
            kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


STERLING CATERERS: Gonzalez Suit Alleges Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------
Chassity Gonzalez and Justine Gonzalez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Sterling Caterers Inc. dba Ateres
Avrohom, Platinum Affairs Ltd. dba Continental Caterers, and Jacob
Hirsch, Case No. 603074/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 5,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for retaliation pursuant
to New York Labor Law.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class
consisting of similarly situated employees who performed work for
Defendants as service employees from 2010 to the present but were
subject to retaliation as a result of the Class Settlement Action.
The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiffs and members of the
class by threatening termination to anyone who would return a claim
form or sought to participate in the Membrives v. Platinum Affairs
Ltd., Index No. 603295/2016 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.) settlement, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff Chassity Gonzalez is an individual who resides in the
State of New York and who had worked for the Defendants in various
food service capacities from approximately 2010 to 2018 at the
Defendants' Ateres Avrohom and Continental Caterers catering
locations.

The Plaintiff Justine Gonzalez is an individual who resides in the
State of New York and who had worked for Defendants in various food
service capacities from approximately 2008 to 2018 at Defendants'
Ateres Avrohom, private residences, and other
catering facilities.

The Defendant Sterling Caterers Inc. is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York, with a headquarters and principal place of business
located at 75 Ross Street, Brooklyn, New York 11249 and is engaged
in the hospitality industry as that term is used and defined in 12
NYCRR Part 146.

The Defendant Platinum Affairs Ltd. is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York, with headquarters and principal place of business located
at 75 Rutledge Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211 and is engaged in
the hospitality industry as that term is used and defined in 12
NYCRR Part 146. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA Action in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan.

The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan
accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover
alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a
result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court").

Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar
lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
District Court.

After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.
The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint
on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery,
plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on
December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new
defendants.

On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second
amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16,
2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification.
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the
District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to
March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three
individual defendants from action.

On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. An additional motion for partial summary
judgment was filed by defendants on October 5, 2018.

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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SYCAMORE VILLAGE: Judge Kevin Hoerner to Decide on Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that Rookie Associate Judge Kevin
Hoerner holds in his hands two cases that other St. Clair County
judges turned loose like hot potatoes.

In one, he must decide whether to certify a class action on a claim
that Sycamore Village nursing home in Swansea misused biometric
information of employees.

The other, he must decide whether plaintiffs from other counties
belong in a suit against Syngenta Crop Protection.

In the Syngenta suit, two St. Clair County plaintiffs and 10 others
claim weed killer paraquat caused Parkinson's disease.

Both suits have seen four judges in four months. Both started in
2017.

John Driscoll of St. Louis filed the Sycamore Village suit for
former employee Saroya Roberson and a class she represents.

He didn't name Sycamore Village as defendant, instead naming
Symphony Sycamore LLC and four other Symphony entities.

Former chief judge John Baricevic entered an appearance for
Roberson.

Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson assigned the suit to circuit judge
Vincent Lopinot, now retired.

Defendants moved to dismiss the suit, claiming Roberson lacked
standing because she alleged a phantom injury.

Judge Lopinot denied the motion last May, without a word of
explanation.

Last July, Baricevic's son C.J. Baricevic entered an appearance for
Roberson.

Judge Lopinot started a hearing on class certification last Oct.
30, and realized that the suit involved Sycamore Village.

He told the parties his sister lived there 10 years and he often
visited her.

On Nov. 7, defendants filed a motion for Judge Lopinot to recuse
himself or grant substitution for cause.

Judge Lopinot, about to retire anyway, granted substitution.

On Nov. 13, Judge Gleeson assigned Circuit Judge Christopher
Kolker.

On Dec. 13, Driscoll associate Gregory Pals filed notice that the
class certification hearing would resume in Judge Kolker's court on
Dec. 20.

On Dec. 19, defendant Symphony Monarch moved for substitution.

Any party in Illinois can substitute one judge without cause, if
the judge hasn't made a substantive ruling.

On Dec. 20, Gleeson assigned Associate Judge Julia Gomric.

She resumed the class certification hearing that day, over an
objection.

On Jan. 2, Symphony Sycamore moved to substitute her as a matter of
right.

Joseph Donado of Chicago wrote that the hearing proceeded despite a
request of counsel to confer with defendants as to their right of
substitution.

He wrote that Symphony Sycamore made the motion in its own right
and not on behalf of defendants who had not exercised the right to
substitute.

Judge Gomric held a hearing on Feb. 8, and granted substitution as
a matter of right.

The docket shows no assignment, but Judge Hoerner issued an order
on Feb. 19.

"The court will review the transcript of the previous argument
before Judge Gomric and rule on the motion considering argument
previously made," Judge Hoerner wrote.

He set a conference April 2, writing that the parties should notify
him if they desire oral argument.

The paraquat suit pairs class action veteran Stephen Tillery of St.
Louis with Belleville's Bob Sprague, Democratic Party chairman for
the county.

Mr. Sprague filed it on Sept. 15, 2017, for Thomas Hoffmann and
Diana Hoffmann of Clinton County.

He amended it three weeks later, adding Mary Rowan and Carroll
Rowan of St. Clair County as plaintiffs along with eight plaintiffs
from other counties.

He also added a second defendant, Chevron Phillips Chemical.

Two days later Thomas Hoffmann died.

Gleeson assigned Judge Lopinot, who denied motions to dismiss
defendants last July.

On Dec. 4, with Judge Lopinot leaving, Gleeson assigned himself.

On Dec. 13, Syngenta moved for substitution.

On Dec. 28, Syngenta and Chevron Phillips moved to transfer all
plaintiffs but the Rowans to their home counties.

Michael Nester of Belleville wrote for Syngenta that their claims
had no meaningful connection to St. Clair County.

For Chevron Phillips, Joseph Orlet of St. Louis called it blatant
forum shopping.

"It is fundamentally unfair to burden twelve residents of St. Clair
County with jury duty to determine the rights of an individual who
has no claim that he was injured in St. Clair County simply because
plaintiffs may perceive St. Clair County to be am more favorable
forum to its cause than the proper county," Orlet wrote.

Judge Gleeson granted Syngenta's substitution motion on Jan. 14,
and assigned Judge Kolker.

On Jan. 16, Chevron Phillips moved to substitute Kolker.

He granted it on Jan. 22.

On Feb. 13, Judge Gleeson assigned Judge Hoerner and set a status
conference March 26.

Circuit judges appointed Judge Hoerner as associate judge after he
fell short in a bid for Fifth District appellate court last
November. [GN]


SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Murakami Securities Class Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YUICHI MURAKAMI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD, GREGORY RUSH,
and JASON MEGGS, Case No. 3:19-cv-07377 (D.N.J., March 1, 2019),
alleges securities law violations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Syneos's
internal control over financial reporting was inadequate; (2)
concerns regarding Syneos's internal control over financial
reporting would result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and an SEC
investigation into the Company's revenue accounting policies,
internal controls and related matters; and (3) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about Syneos's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Syneos is incorporated in Delaware and maintains "substantial
facilities" in Princeton, New Jersey, and Somerset, New Jersey.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Syneos purports to operate as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 5 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Syneos Health, Inc. ("Syneos" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SYNH ) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between May 10, 2017
and February 27, 2019, inclusive (the ″Class Period″), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Syneos failed to maintain adequate
internal controls over financial reporting. Due to the Company's
poor controls, it became the target of an SEC investigation of its
revenue accounting policies and other related items. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Syneos, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]


TENET HEALTHCARE: Denial of Maderazo Class Cert. Bid Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in the case, Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio
Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., have taken an
appeal from the decision of the  district court to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including the
company's Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio
regional hospitals violated Section Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses.

The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On January 23,
2019, the district court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Tenet Healthcare said, "We will continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations."

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.


TENNESSEE: Faces Harris et al. Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State of
Tennessee. The case is captioned as RICKY HARRIS; RANDY JONES;
RONNIE ARMSTRONG; JACK NUNLEY; RAYMOND TEAGUE; MICHAEL STEWART;
JOHN BOATFIELD; STACY RAMSEY; CHARLES MOSLEY; WILLIAM LEDFORD;
BRUCE SMILEY; LAMONT JOHNSON; ANDREW MANN; and EDDIE MURPHEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STATE OF TENNESSEE; TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE;
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; CANDICE WHISMAN, Director of
Sentence Management Information Services, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 22, 2019). The case is assigned to
District Judge Eli J. Richardson.

Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South. Its capital,
centrally located Nashville, is the heart of the country-music
scene, with the long-running Grand Ole Opry, the Country Music Hall
of Fame and Museum and a legendary stretch of honky-tonks and dance
halls. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are acting pro se.


TEREX CORP: Settlement Reached in Sheet Metal Workers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that parties have agreed in
principle to a settlement of the securities suit entitled, Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of
class action lawsuits as follows:

     * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court,
District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

     * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of
Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J.
Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang,
and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits, which generally cover the time period from February
2008 to February 2009, allege violations of federal securities laws
and Delaware law claiming, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company,
the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the Company's securities and that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares
in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales
by certain officers and directors.

The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a
range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative
complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate
governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory
damages from the individual defendants in its favor.

On March 31, 2018, the securities lawsuit was dismissed against all
of the named defendants except Mr. Riordan and the Company. In
addition, certain claims were also narrowed. However, as all claims
against Mr. Riordan were not dismissed, the case continued against
both Mr. Riordan and, as a result, the Company as well.

While the Company continues to believe that it has acted, and
continues to act, in compliance with all applicable laws, on
February 13, 2019, the plaintiffs and the Company advised the court
that the parties have agreed in principle to a settlement of the
securities lawsuit, subject to the court's approval, and are
beginning the process of drafting preliminary settlement papers for
the court's review and preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and notice process.

The proposed settlement amount would be covered by the Company's
insurance policies and will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial results. However, if the parties are not able
to reach a final settlement of the claims, or if the court were to
fail to approve a settlement, and the Company were to ultimately
receive an adverse judgment in excess of the Company's insurance
policies, it could result in the Company incurring significant
liabilities.  

Terex Corporation manufactures and sells aerial work platforms,
cranes, and materials processing machinery worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: Aerial Work Platforms (AWP),
Cranes, and Material Processing (MP). Terex Corporation was founded
in 1925 and is based in Westport, Connecticut.


TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Daskal Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrill Outsourcing
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Malky Daskal, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Terrill
Outsourcing Group, LLC doing business as: Superlative RM,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01419 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Terrill Outsourcing Group, LLC is a collections agency in Elk
Grove, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



TEXAS: Class Certification Bid in Burley Prisoners Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ron Clark of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Tyler Division, denied the motion for class certification
in the case, COREY A. BURLEY, #614081, v. LORIE DAVIS, ET AL, Civil
Action No. 6:17cv490 (E.D. Texas).

The Plaintiff in the lawsuit, as well as inmate Plaintiffs in four
separate lawsuits, filed a motion for certification as a class
action.  The lawsuit has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate
Judge, Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local
Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

On Dec. 11, 2018, Judge Mitchell issued a Report, recommending that
the motion for class certification be denied.  The docket
demonstrates that the Plaintiff received the Report on Dec. 18,
2018, and that the other Plaintiffs received it on or about the
same date.  However, to date, no objections to the Report have been
filed.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to file objections to Judge
Mitchell's Report, he is barred from de novo review by the District
Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and,
except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted and adopted by the district court.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in the cause and the Report of
the Magistrate Judge.  Upon such review, Judge Clark has determined
that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct.  Accordingly,
the Judge adopted the Report of the U.S. Magistrate Judge as the
opinion of the Court.  He denied the motion for class
certification.  He also denied the Movants' motions to intervene.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2vy40N from Leagle.com.

Corey A. Burley, Plaintiff, pro se.

Derwin Douglas, Movant, pro se.

Derrick D. Henderson, Movant, pro se.

Johnny Lee Walker, Movant, pro se.

Earl Charles Martin, Jr., Movant, pro se.

Carl Hunt, Movant, pro se.

Office of the Attorney General, Amicus, represented by Amy Lynn
Prasad, Office of The Attorney General.

Michael Shawn Sadler, Intervenor, pro se.


TICKETECH INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NYLL, Mak Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoi Man Mak, Gui Xiong Liang, Enrong Liang, Xian Wei, Shao Hui
Zhang, and Wei Chen, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Ticketech International Ltd, Joseph
Kasman, Isaac Seychett, Diego Cuenca, Nicholas Gaudio, Mauricio
Cotto, Giselle Seychett, and Enrique Wauters, Case No.
1:19-cv-01350 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiffs, the overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Ticketech International Ltd. is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and
maintains its principal place of business in Long Island City, New
York.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors
and/or managing agents of Ticketech.

Ticketech provides parking management system and customized parking
solutions.  According to its Web site, Ticketech integrates and
interfaces with multiple software platforms and third-party
vendors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TINLEY PARK: Sued by Metro for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
METRO CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS, LTD., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities v. TINLEY PARK APOTHECARY, LLC, dba TPA PHARMACY TINELY
PARK, IL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01508 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2019),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 by sending or transmitting an unsolicited
facsimile advertisement to the Plaintiff's fax machine.

Tinley Park is a domestic (Illinois) based corporation, with a
principal office located in Tinley Park, Illinois.  The Company
maintains a physical storefront in Tinley Park, Illinois, and
operates a webpage, https://www.tinleyparkrx.com/, which advertises
its storefront services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TOMMY'S REDHOTS: Garcia-Beltran Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Garcia-Beltran, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Tommy's Redhots, Inc.,
Tommy's/Lake in the Hills, Ltd., and Thomas Greico, Case No.
3:19-cv-50060 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
premium when they worked more than forty hours in individual
workweeks.

The Plaintiff Garcia-Beltran is a former employee of the
Defendants' Tommy's Redhots restaurant located at 500 S. Eastwood
Drive in Woodstock, Illinois. The Plaintiff worked as a cook and
food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant from approximately from
May 2016 through March 1, 2019.

The Defendant, Tommy's Redhots, Inc. is an Illinois corporation
that owns and operates the Tommy's Redhots restaurant in Woodstock,
Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and
beverages to customers for consumption on and off its premises.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 322-1100
      Fax: (312) 322-1106
      E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Class Action Plaintiff Files Defamation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marloff, writing for Austin Chronicle, reports that Mindy
Montford, the First Assistant District Attorney at the Travis
County D.A. office, has been accused of "possible defamation" in a
Rule 202 court petition filed Monday, March 4, in Nueces County
District Court.

Petitioner Emily Borchardt -- a plaintiff in the sexual assault
class action lawsuit against Austin, Travis County, local law
enforcement, and the D.A.'s office -- believes Ms. Montford made
"false and defamatory communications" to a third party regarding
Ms. Borchardt's sexual assault case that the D.A.'s office declined
to prosecute. Now, Ms. Borchardt is seeking depositions from Ms.
Montford, as well as her boss D.A. Margaret Moore, and assistant
district attorney Mona Shea.

Ms. Borchardt, who says she was strangled, kidnapped, violently
raped repeatedly over the course of several days in January 2018,
joined the class action suit in August. She is one of eight local
sexual assault survivors who have accused the defendants of failing
to provide equal protection for women survivors of rape and,
ultimately, violating their rights under the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments. In December, Federal Judge Lee Yeakel heard defendants'
motions to dismiss, but has not yet ruled on the case.

In May 2018, a detective with the Austin Police Department informed
Ms. Borchardt that Ms. Montford refused to proceed with her case
because the alleged rapists claimed the sex was consensual.
According to the March 4 filing, Ms. Borchardt was never
interviewed by Ms. Montford, nor had she been allowed to provide a
formal statement to APD -- though her rape kit was tested and
contained a positive DNA match to one of the accused men. (The kit
also documented multiple bruises and strangulation marks.) Ten days
after receiving this update, APD detective Dennis Goddard allowed
Ms. Borchardt to give a two hour formal statement, which was taped.
The filing insists Ms. Borchardt never once indicated the assault
was consensual and instead recounted that she said no, attempted to
fight back, and -- upon learning that one of the rapists had a
prison record for murder
-- lived in fear that she would be killed. (It also alleges APD
failed to collect security camera footage from the motel where she
was held and raped.)

Last July, Ms. Borchardt, for the second time, was told the D.A.'s
office would not proceed with her case. (The suit alleges her case
was declined because "her head contusion did not have 'bone
splintering or fracturing,' and the bruising from the
strangulation, which Goddard had previously called a 'hickey,' 'was
not big enough.'") In response, Ms. Borchardt's friends and family
members began reaching out to local officials including Ms.
Montford seeking answers. The March 4 filing then alleges that "on
or about" September 14, 2018, Ms. Montford returned a call to one
of Ms. Borchardt's family friends.

The call, according to the filing, lasted 38 minutes during which
Ms. Montford "repeatedly made knowing false statements" about Ms.
Borchardt. Allegedly, telling the friend that Ms. Borchardt
"admitted" the rapes were consensual; provided a written statement
to APD confirming the rapes were consensual; was relieved
prosecution was declined, and that she "did not want her family to
learn the 'truth' about the rapes."

Ms. Montford is also accused of violating Ms. Borchardt's privacy
and confidentiality rights as she allegedly provided intimate and
confidential -- "albeit, false" -- details about Ms. Borchardt's
case, including the location of the crimes, the number of rapists,
intimate details about the assaults, alleged statements made by the
rapists, alleged statements made by other witnesses, and alleged
statements made by Ms. Borchardt without her consent. The filing
also notes that Ms. Montford "repeatedly acknowledged" she wasn't
allowed to provide "such information about a rape victim to a third
party," but continued to do so.

However, none of the statements provided by Ms. Montford, according
to the filing, are "true and each of them is disproved by the
police file and the audio recording of Ms. Borchardt's formal
statement to the APD."

If the depositions from Ms. Montford, Ms. Moore, and Ms. Shea are
approved, the filing claims Ms. Borchardt, who currently resides in
Corpus Christi, will be able to fully investigate her potential
claims to determine whether Ms. Montford -- or others --- have
"knowingly and maliciously defamed her to third parties," and
"intentionally and knowingly" harmed her. Ultimately, it will help
her determine the proper parties for "any lawsuit and the scope of
her potential damages."

Along with the depositions, Ms. Borchardt has also requested the
court to require the D.A.'s office to produce phone logs for the
office and personal phones of Ms. Montford, Moore, and Shea from
January 19, 2018 to the present; any and all communications to or
from those three regarding Ms. Borchardt or her sexual assault
case, as well as any communications with third parties about any of
the plaintiffs from the lawsuit. Additionally, it asks for any
formal or informal policies, procedures, or protocols used or
maintained by the D.A.'s Office regarding communications to or from
APD -- and third parties -- about adult sexual assault cases and
adult survivors; policies, procedures, or protocols regarding
confidentiality obligations owed to adult survivors; any formal or
informal trainings provided by the DA's Office regarding
confidentiality obligations owed to adult victims of sexual assault
and/or communications with third parties regarding adult survivors.
Lastly, it also asks for documents reflecting any review of Ms.
Borchardt's case by any member of the D.A.'s Office. Ms. Borchardt
has also requested a hearing. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: PEEL CCI Reps Attends Class Action Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Burgess, writing for Mandurah Coastal Times, reports that PEEL
Chamber of Commerce and Industry president Donna Cocking and
general manager Andrew McKerrell, together with regional taxi and
hire car operators and licence owners from WA, attended a meeting
in Mandurah on March 1 aimed at joining a class action against Uber
for operating unlawfully in Australia.

Ms Cocking said the Chamber was supportive of all moves to help the
taxi and hire car industry out of its current predicament.

"We understand the plight of our hard-working taxi and hire car
operators and will continue to support them and any avenues that
can help them overcome the impact of Uber's entry into the market,"
she said.

"This is only the beginning of the fight against the devastating
effects of the sharing economy.

"Illegal operators exploit existing business models gaining unfair
advantage over tax-paying, law-abiding businesses.

"Registered businesses comply with regulation, which results in
prejudicial additional costs and overheads.

"Government attempts to reform legislation to address unfair
competition has resulted in the further devaluing of businesses.

"The resultant downward pressure on livelihoods is hurting a lot of
families across Australia."

Julie Murray from Mandurah Taxis said regional drivers have been
hit particularly hard by Uber.

"We represent dozens of drivers and in just our small community the
impact on business and licence values would mean we have lost
upwards of $3 million.

"If our drivers can't stay on the roads, that will lead to problems
for those needing transport around regional areas."

Senior associate lawyer Elizabeth O'Shea from Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers said the claim would attempt to represent all taxi and hire
car operators, licence owners and drivers whose livelihoods had
been impacted by Uber's illegal entry to the market in Australia
from 2014 to 2016.

"It was Uber that came in and exploited people by operating outside
regulations, it was Uber's conduct that led to devastating losses
suffered by our group members and for those reasons it is the
multi-billion dollar company Uber and its associated entities we
are targeting in order to provide redress to those affected," she
said.

"We know from talking to drivers and licence plate holders in WA
that Uber's activities have had a devastating impact on their
businesses and livelihoods.

"We are hearing it on the ground at public meetings and on the
phones when we talk to people, and we know it has been particularly
tough for regional operators in Western Australia."

But an Uber spokesman said Uber had received no notification of any
class action.

The spokesman said more than 3.8 million Australians regularly used
Uber as a reliable choice to get from A to B and governments across
the country had recognised ride sharing as part of the transport
mix.

"We are focusing our efforts on delivering a great service to
riders and drivers in the cities where we operate," the spokesman
said.

"Despite a number of media stories to date, we have not received
any notification of a class action." [GN]


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Defends Prosthesis Coverage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that United
Healthcare Services Inc. defended itself from a class action by
more than 1,000 patients who say the insurer wrongly denied
coverage for their prosthetic devices.

The insurer's health plans give it "sole and exclusive discretion"
to make decisions about what to cover, United said in its March 4
motion for summary judgment. The coverage denials are therefore
subject to deference from the courts and can't be overturned unless
there's "no reasonable basis" for the decision, the insurer argued.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Canadians Sue SSA Over Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Dwight D. Dee, Esq. -- ddee@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that persons who have lived
and worked for extended periods of time in both Canada and the
United States can often be eligible to receive benefits under both
Canadian and U.S. government pension programs.   As an
administrative practice, however, the U.S. Social Security
Administration has reduced U.S. payments to such persons on the
basis that they also receive benefits under the Canadian pension
system.   A class action has recently been filed in the state of
Indiana against the U.S. Social Security Administration claiming
that a reduction of U.S. retirement and disability payments is
unlawful (the "Class Action").  Unlike in Canada and Quebec, the
U.S. Social Security Administration reduces the amount of U.S.
payments for eligible individuals who also receive Canadian
pensions though a reduction technique called the "Windfall
Elimination Provision" (the "WEP").  The heart of the issue is
whether the reduction of U.S. pension and disability benefits to
individuals who also receive the same benefits in Canada is
lawful.

The Plaintiffs in the Class Action are claiming that the
application of the WEP to U.S. benefits payments is unlawful and
presents a violation of the plain meaning of the U.S. Social
Security Act, U.S. Social Security Act Regulations and the Social
Security Agreement (1983-1984) between United States and Canada
(the "Social Security Agreement").  Generally, the Plaintiffs argue
that the wording in the U.S. Social Security Act  specifies that
employment or self-employment benefits are not to be subject to the
WEP for citizens or residents of countries with which the United
States entered into social security agreements. The services of
persons who worked in both countries and contributed to both
countries' social systems are recognized as equivalent to
employment paid work in either country and should be exempt from
the application of the WEP.  Further, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are based on
earnings and residence and are of general application, therefore
they should be excluded from the application of the WEP. An
additional basis of the Plaintiffs' claim is that the Social
Security Agreement has an equal treatment clause that is violated
by the United States applying deductions to retirement benefit
payments, whereas Canada and Quebec do not apply the same deduction
to those receiving both Canadian and U.S. retirement benefits.

The Plaintiffs seek retroactive payment of the amounts deducted
through the application of the WEP as well as a cessation of the
application of the WEP going forward.  As of late February 2019,
the U.S. federal court has certified a class of all persons
affected by this practice and has motions before it for summary
judgment which will decide the merits of the claim at the trial
court level.

If you are interested in learning more about this Class Action you
may contact your Miller Thomson Private Client Services lawyer who
will direct you to the U.S. firms involved in the matter. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Electrical Welfare Fund Files Class Suit in COFC
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA in the United
States Court of Federal Claims on March 8, 2019. The case is styled
as Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, Operating Engineers Trust Fund of
Washington, D.C. and Stone & Marble Masons of Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00353-NBF.

The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for
influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Howard Meltzer, Esq.
   Kessler, Topaz, et al., LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com


UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Arukala Files Suit Over Danfoss Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Ravichandar Arukala, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UQM Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00650
(D. Colo., March 5, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 21, 2019, UQM issued a press release announcing UQM and
Danfoss had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
January 21, 2019 to sell UQM to Danfoss. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, each UQM stockholder will receive $1.71 in cash
for each share of UQM they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued
at approximately $100 million, including the assumption of UQM's
debt.

On February 11, 2019, UQM filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
UQM stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
and misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) UQM management's financial projections; and (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by UQM's financial advisor Duff &
Phelps, LLC.

The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of UQM common stock.

The Defendant UQM is a Colorado corporation with its principal
place of business located at 4120 Specialty Place, Longmont,
Colorado 80504. UQM's common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "UQM." UQM develops, manufactures
and sells power dense, high efficiency electric motors, generators,
power electronic controllers and fuel cell compressors for the
commercial truck, bus, automotive, marine, and industrial markets.

The Individual Defendants are members of UQM's board of directors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VBI VACCINES: Class Certification Sought in Case vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Scivac Ltd., a company's
subsidiary, is defending itself in an action in the District Court
of the Central District in Israel, that is seeking approval of
class status.

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac Ltd. as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($501,467).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac Ltd. believes these matters to be without merit and intends
to oppose the motion and otherwise defend the claims vigorously.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend the Wolther consolidated class action.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

The defendants filed a demurrer on January 10, 2019, asking the
court to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim. The demurrer is scheduled to be heard by the court on March
15, 2019.

Veeco believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously contest this matter.

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Faces IPO-Related Securities Class Suit in Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Venator Materials PLC,
et al., Case No. DC-19-03170 (D. Tex., March 4, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Venator ordinary shares in or traceable to
the Company's August 4, 2017 initial public offering and in its
December 1, 2017 secondary offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the public offerings.

The Plaintiff purchased Venator shares in or traceable to the IPO
and the SPO.

The Defendant Venator Materials PLC is the issuer of the ordinary
shares sold in the IPO and the SPO. The Company is a manufacturer
and marketer of chemical products, in particular Titanium Dioxide
or "TiO2." TiO2 is used to enhance whiteness, opacity, and
brightness in manufactured items. Venator may be served at Titanium
House, Hanzard Drive, Wynyard Park, Stockton-On-Tees, TS22 5FD
United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. Gilmore, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 744-3000
      Fax: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jgilmore@kendalllawgroup.com


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colo. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voya 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 the company continues
to defend litigation over cost of insurance entitled, Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver.

The cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015.

Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

On August 28, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint
with affirmative defenses.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on March 5 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Weight Watchers International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: WTW) securities between May 4, 2018 and February 26,
2019 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until May 3, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Weight Watchers' business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
failed to disclose that Weight Watchers was experiencing diminished
subscriber demand attributable to the onslaught of new competing
smartphone fitness apps, meal-delivery services, and other tech
advances that were driving down Weight Watchers' new subscriber
growth and its subscriber retention rates; that diminished
subscriber growth, when coupled with a much larger number of fourth
quarter subscription lapses than Weight Watchers typically
experienced, made it highly unlikely that the company would retain
four million subscribers by the end of 2018; that Weight Watchers
was not on track to grow its subscriber count to five million or to
drive annual revenues to more than $2 billion by the end of 2020;
and that a decreased subscriber count would result in decreased
revenues and profits.

If you purchased Weight Watchers securities during the Class Period
or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.  For additional information concerning the Weight
Watchers lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/wtw/.  [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Consolidates Kang, Moses Labor Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES C. KANG, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-06220-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the parties' Amended Joint Motion Stipulating to Amended of
Complaint, Certification of Plaintiff's Rest Break Claims, and Stay
of Action Pending Decision in Ibarra Matter.

Pursuant to the Joint Motion Stipulating to Class Notice, and for
good cause shown, Judge Freeman consolidated the claims pleaded in
the separate class action, Michael Moses v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 3:18 cv 6679, into the instant action.  She entered the
amended consolidated complaint, which will proceed under the Kang
case number following consolidation of the Moses action, which will
be closed.

The Judge modified the Kang class certification order to include as
a certified claim the rest period claim currently asserted in
Moses.  Thus, the parties agreed, and Judge Freeman granted, that:

     a. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the certification the Court ordered on Feb. 6, 2016 is
amended to certify rest period, vacation pay, and minimum wage
claims, and a derivative waiting time penalties claim on behalf of
the following class and subclasses:

          i. Overall Class: All non-exempt employees for Wells
Fargo who at any time during the period from Oct. 27, 2013 to the
date class notice is mailed, worked for Wells Fargo in California
in the job titles of Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage
Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or Private Mortgage
Banker, Jr. and were subject to the Home Mortgage Consultant or
Private Mortgage Banker compensation plans in effect within this
time period.  HMCs who were hired or rehired on or after Dec. 11,
2015 are excluded from the Class.

          ii. Minimum Wage Subclass: All class members who assert
they performed non-productive work tasks for which they received no
compensation under the applicable compensation plans in effect
within the class period.

          iii. Vacation Pay Subclass: All class members who
utilized paid time off during the class period and whose employment
with Wells Fargo terminated during that same class period.

          iv. Rest Period Subclass: All class members who, during
the period from Aug. 2, 2017 to March 31, 2018, worked a shift of
at least 3.5 hours in a HMC position.

          v. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All class members
whose employment with Wells Fargo terminated on or after Oct. 27,
2014.

     b. The Court finds that James Kang and Michael Moses are
members of the Class and the proposed subclasses and they can
adequately represent the class on the certified claims.

     c. The Court finds there are no issues of adequacy of class
counsel or the class representative that would preclude the class
certification agreed to herein (should the Court require additional
information as to Class Counsel's experience and qualifications,
declarations of Joshua H. Haffner and Paul D. Stevens will be
provided).

     d. The Court finds that, with the approval of the stipulation,
they will meet and confer on class notice, and will submit to the
Court a stipulated class notice within 30 days of the date the
Court approves the stipulation.  In the unlikely event the Parties
cannot agree to the specific language of the proposed class notice,
they will submit competing proposed class notices to the Court.
The Plaintiff will pay the cost associated with issuing class
notice but the cost will be treated as a recoverable cost available
to the class to recover if judgment is entered in favor of the
class.

Judge Freeman stayed the action until a final ruling is obtained in
the action Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No.
2:17-cv-4344 PA(ASx).

Because a decision in the Ibarra action is not expected until late
2019 or early 2020, the Judge vacated the current trial date, but
will set a new trial date pursuant to a Case Management Conference
the Court will set after the stay in the action is lifted.

Nothing in the Order should be read as a waiver of Wells Fargo's
arguments concerning res judicata which it intends to assert in the
event that the stay is lifted in the action following the
completion of the Ibarra litigation.

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

James C Kang, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Daniel Stevens --
pstevens@stevenslc.com -- Stevens LC & Joshua H. Haffner --
jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law PC.

Michael Moses, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Daniel Stevens,
Stevens LC, Graham Gordon Lambert, Haffner Law PC & Joshua H.
Haffner, Haffner Law PC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jason Patrick
Brown, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Paul Berkowitz --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton
LLP & Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Accused by Traynor Class Suit of Violating ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a SANDISK, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02118 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site of its
goods and services to the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people is a violation of their rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc., doing business as Sandisk, is a
Delaware Corporation doing business in New York.

The Defendant is a data storage manufacturer and retailer, and
operates the Web site.  The Defendant operates and distributes its
products throughout the United States, including New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dov Mittelman, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


WESTERN UNION: Removes Minasyan Labor Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled TAMARA MINASYAN, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., a Colorado Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 19STCCV02545, was removed on March 1, 2019, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01516 to the
proceeding.

Tamara Minasyan filed her unverified complaint on January 25, 2019.
The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for alleged
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified its Compliance
Officers as exempt and, thus, failed to pay them for all time
worked and failed to pay them meal and rest break premiums.  As a
result of the alleged violations, the Plaintiff also alleges
derivative claims for failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and failure to timely pay employees compensation upon
termination.[BN]

Defendant Western Union Financial Services, Inc., is represented
by:

          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Telephone: (916) 447-9200
          Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
          E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Gail Lee, Esq.
          Annie H. Chen, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: stephanie.lee@orrick.com
                  annie.chen@orrick.com


XEROX CORP: Appeal in Firefighters Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal from the
decision in the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn
A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater
and Mary Scanlon, has been fully briefed.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel
(collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees.

Other, similar lawsuits may follow. On December 28, 2016, the Court
entered a stipulated order setting out a schedule for amendment of
the complaint and for defendants' response to that complaint
following the Court's appointment of lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On February 28, 2017, the
Court issued an opinion and order appointing the Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System ("APERS") as lead plaintiff.

On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging
substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar
relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants. On
June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint,
and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017.

On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of
dismissal and closed the case.

On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully
briefed as of November 28, 2018.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter.

Xerox said, "At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment
or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Bid to Amend Court's Order Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's request asking the court to amend its prior order on a
motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal remains
pending.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, one of its officers and
two of its now former officers as defendants.  

On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of the company's Board of
Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in
connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock
by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without
prejudice.  

On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and
former officers and Board members previously named, certain former
stockholders of the company's who sold shares of our common stock
in secondary public offerings in 2016.  

The company and its current and former officers and Board members
named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Zimmer Biomet Defendant group".  

The former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the
company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are
sometimes referred to as the "Private Equity Fund Defendant group".


The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions about the company's compliance with FDA regulations and
the company's ability to continue to accelerate its organic revenue
growth rate in the second half of 2016.  

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017.  Plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018.  The defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the
court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group's motion to dismiss
in its entirety.

The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion
to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer
Biomet Defendant group filed a motion to amend the court's order on
the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and a
motion to stay proceedings pending appeal. That motion remains
pending.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.  

Zimmer Biomet said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously."

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw,
Indiana.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Gregory Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that the company continues to defend a civil class action lawsuit
entitled, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation.

A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, was brought against the company in the United
States District Court in Utah in January 2019. This case was filed
on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc. alleging that the
company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud perpetrated by Rust
Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.

This case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission against Rust Rare Coin and its principal Gaylen Rust.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that the company continues to defend a civil class action lawsuit
entitled, Evans v. CB&T.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf
of a class of up to 50 investors in International Manufacturing
Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the company liable for losses of
class members arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that
the company conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its
principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi Scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate briefing
process has been completed with a ruling anticipated in 2019.

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.



                            *********

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 ***