---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 64

                            Headlines

2014 HEALTH: Thornton Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
ACCREDITED SURETY: Breaux Sues Over Bail Bond Price-rigging
ACE AMERICAN: Appeals Cal. Dist. Ct. Ruling in Sandbergen Action
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Suits Over Improper Fees Ongoing

AIR CANADA: Court Refuses to Certify Flight Passes Class Action
AIR METHODS CORP: Paramedics Claims Overtime for "Sleep-time" Hours
AIR METHODS: Removes Stone Case to District of Colorado
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Spencer Brings FDCPA Class Suit in New York
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.

ALLIED ACCOUNT: Sztillerman Sues Over FDCPA Violation
ALORICA AT HOME: Hicks Seeks Pay for Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
AMI LIVONIA: Nolan Sues over Abrupt Employment Termination
ANTHEM INC: Arnold's Bid to Include Suit Into MDL Denied as Moot
ANTHEM INC: Court Denies as Moot Arnold's Bid to Certify Class

APPLE INC: Brodsky Sues Over Device Authentication Process
APPLE INC: Davidson Moves to Certify Class of iPhone 6 Purchasers
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Antitrust Suit in Expert Discovery Phase
ASCENA RETAIL: Previously Stayed Pricing Suits Now Dismissed
ASSET RECOVERY: Weinberg Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

ASSOCIATION LAW GROUP: Cocciolone Disputes Collection Letter
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Still Pending
AVANOS MEDICAL: Jackson Class Action Still Ongoing
AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Suit With Prejudice
BANK OF AMERICA: Lincolnshire Fund Suit Alleges Antitrust Claims

BANKERS STANDARD: Settlement in Gunthert Suit Has Final Approval
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Boitnott ADA Suit in Minnesota
BENEFICIAL BANCORP: WSFS Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
BIOTIME INC: Putative Class Suit over Asterias Merger Underway
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Hunter Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy

BRIGHTON BEST: Houston Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
CAESARSTONE LTD: May 2019 Settlement Hearing Set in Israel Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Teen Rescue Files Civil Rights Class Action
CELGENE CORP: LR Trust Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Bristol-Myers
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: 2d Cir. Affirms Arbitration Judgment in Katz

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bennett Class Action Remains Stayed at Dec. 31
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Class Action Still Stayed at Dec. 31
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Naylor Farms Class Lawsuit Still Underway
CHARLES R  BLOSENSKI: Fails to Pay Drivers' Overtime, Kramlich Says
CHATTANOOGA, TN: To Settle Police Officers' Suit Over Pay Raises

CHICAGO, IL: Perez Moves to Certify Detainee & Arrestee Classes
CIRCLE K: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California
CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMENITY BANK: Gonzalez Suit Moved to E.D. California
COMENITY BANK: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California

COMMUNITY PROBATION: McNeil's Bid for Class Certification Denied
COMPASS LENDING: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Robocalls
D.J. BRONSON: Mindy Situ Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
D7 ROOFING SERVICES: Del Campo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DAUBERT LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

DBA DISTRIBUTION: Castellon Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
DC TRANSPORTATION: March 29 Bykov Suit Deal Prelim Approval Hearing
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Ciuffitelli Files Suit in C.D. California
DESOCIO & FUCCIO: Violates FDCPA, Midulla Suit Asserts
DETROIT, MI: Sanuk Moves to Certify Four Classes and 1 Sub-Class

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Mortimer Files Suit Over Misleading Reports
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Zimmerman Seeks to Certify Shareholders Class
DNA FOOTWEAR.COM: Traynor Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
DOW JONES: Horton Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
DREAM CENTER: Sacked School Staff Asserts WARN Act Violation

DRIVE SHACK: Class Suit over Wage-and-Hour Law Breaches Underway
DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Cusack-Acocella Moves to Certify Members Class
DYNASTY TAXI: Harrison Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EAGLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Nix Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EG DIXIE NARANJA: Fonseca Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Must Give Definitive Statement of Claims
ELITE FOLIAGE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Moreau Says
ENOVA FINANCIAL: Diaz Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
EQUINOR ASA: Suit, Injunction Bid on Petrobras' Sale Underway
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Canfield's TPMS Valve Stems Suit

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yelverton Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
FIDELITY: Faces State Probe Over Fund Fees Amid Class Action
FIVE POINT: Still Defends Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents
FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Briggs Suit Granted

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Stockholders' Suit
FRONTLINE ASSET:  Violates FDCPA, Scavone Suit Asserts
GASBI LLC: Ind. App. Affirms Dismissal of T. Sanders' Suit
GC SERVICES: Avina's Bid for Class Certification Denied
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Suit Underway

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Underway
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Houston Class Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Monroe Alleges Gas Anesthesia Machines Monopoly
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Class Action Underway in New York
GERMANY: New York Court Dismisses Amended Rukoro Suit

GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Court Okays Notice to Class Members
GREENOAK REAL ESTATE: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
HALCON ENERGY: Co-Exprise Appeals Judgment in Vodenichar Suit
HAMILTON LAW: Cesario Files FDCPA Suit in New York
HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Still Pending

HEALTH INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Securities Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Julian Keippel Putative Class Action Underway
HENDERSON KITCHEN: Tong Moves for Collective Action Certification
HILL'S PET: Johnson Suit Wants Tainted Pet Food Off the Shelves
HORIZON GLOBAL: Elston Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HSI FINANCIAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in Georgia
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Snider Files Product Liability Suit in Wash.
HYUNDAI: Snider Files Product Liability Suit in Wash.
IMMUNE DESIGN: Tullman Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Merck
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Choi Hits Share Drop from Failed Drug Bid

IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Timm" Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Any Appeal
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Batres' Purported Class Lawsuit vs. Unit Underway
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery Underway in Baker Class Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Nguyen, PAGA Claims Remain in Arbitration
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Riggin Lawsuit vs. Unit Underway

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial Court Favors Defendant in Marentes Class Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Unit Still Defends McNair Class Action in Calif.
INFINITY INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lowenthal Suit
INOGEN INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Faces Hawaii Workers Fund Antitrust Suit

J. CREW: 3d Cir Affirms Dismissal of A. Kamal's FACTA Suit
JJ TAPPER & CO: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
JONES FINANCIAL: April 18 Fairness Hearing in Retirement Plan Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Still Defends Anderson Securities Class Action
JONES FINANCIAL: Still Defends Bland Class Action in Illinois

JONES FINANCIAL: Still Faces Bland Discrimination Class Action
JONES FINANCIAL: White Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Interchange Suit Gets Initial Okay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Opt-Out Plaintiffs File Complaint in FX Settlement
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Extorted Funds From Mich. Prisoners, Kensu Says

KON TIKI RESORT: Honeywell Files ADA Class Suit in Florida
LA ESPERANZA: Fuentes Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal in Plains All American Suit Underway
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Status Bid Pending in Suit vs. Miller
LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Faces Class Suit vs. ARCP in S.D.N.Y.

LASER SPINE: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
LASER SPINE: Higdon Wants to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
LIFE STRATEGIES: Bailey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LOUISIANA: Court Allows Communications with Tellis Class Members
LTD FINANCIAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tarazon Class Suit

M.J. BROTHERS: Prelim Approval of Rodriguez Suit Deal Partly Okayed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces 1,487 Suits over Opioid Sales

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION: Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Intervene
MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL: Nouri et al. Suit Moved to D. Maryland
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Davis Suit to D. Maryland
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Fisher Suit to D. Maryland

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes King Suit to District of Maryland
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Mendez et al. Suit to D. Maryland
MASSE CONTRACTING: Failed to Pay OT Wages to Hourly Employees
MATTEL INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
MDL 2047: Claims in Chinese-Made Drywall Products Suit Narrowed

MDL 2492: Abdulrahman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Adams Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Campbell Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Caylor Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Federico Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Fontaine Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Fox Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Keck Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Merchant Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Pierce Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Udovich Action v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
MDL 2492: Watts Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Okayed
MDL 2672: ECF No. 3781 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Del. Chancery Denies Bid to Enjoin Merger

MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Putative Securities Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Voshall Suit
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing

METLIFE INC: Still Defends Owens Class Action in Georgia
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
METROPOLITAN TRANSPO: Court Dismisses 1st Amended DeJesus Suit
MIAMI AUTO MAX: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Vasconcelo Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Agneys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Arriolas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bryant Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Culbertson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kennedy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Manresa and Garcia Sue over Herbicide Sale
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ribar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanders Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tebays Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Welch Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

N.A.R. INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Lowery FDCPA Suit
NCC BUSINESS: Removed Peacock Case Moved to M.D. Florida
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE: Rule Change Bid in Long Partly Affirmed
NEW YORK & CO: Faces Childers Suit Alleging False Advertising
NEXTERA: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Wind Turbines

NISSAN NORTH: Court Consolidates Bashaw, Kerkorian Suits
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Investors Drop Suits over Tivity Merger
NYAA HOLDINGS: Sullivan Brings ADA Class Action in NY
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Phoenix Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Costas Suit
P&B CAPITAL GROUP: Kovarsky Files FDCPA in E.D.N.Y.

PARSEC INC: Hanks Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
PEKIN, IL: Responds to Disabled Residents' ADA Class Action
PESSCO LLC: Wants More Time to Respond to Valdez's Bid to Certify
PETER MANNING: Knowles Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
PLAYHOUSE LOUNGE: Robbins Sues Over Unlawful Wage, Tip Deductions

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Claims in Products Liability Suit Narrowed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arnold Sues Over Illegal Telephone Calls
RBS CITIZENS: 3rd Cir. Addresses Conflicting Evidence Issue
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Commission Scheme
REPUBLIC MARATHON: Honeywell Files ADA Class Action in Florida

REYNOLDS METALS: Cothern Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment Still Pending
SANTA CLARA, CA: Gaffney, et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Suit Remains Stayed
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settlement in Parmelee Granted Preliminary OK

SI-BONE INC: Chiropractor Sues over Faxed Dinner Event Invitations
SIENTRA INC: Records $0.4MM Settlement Payable for miraDry Suit
SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Over Pistol "Drop Fire" Issue
SOUTHEAST KANSAS: Files Joint Bid for Class Cert. in Hardridge Suit
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Miller Seeks Class Certification

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Quinn FDCPA Suit
SPREEMO INC: R. Mauthe Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 3rd Circuit
SSP AMERICA: Wilson-Davis Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Hill Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNTRUST BANK: Ga. App. Affirms Class Certification in Bickerstaff

SYNACOR INC: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Still Pending
TOUCHPOINT 360: Certification to Putative Supplement Class Sought
TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, MacMann Alleges
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Denied Mental Health Coverage, Court Finds
UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

UNITED STATES: Class Definition in Separation Suit Modified
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Y. Padilla Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Hit Cancellation of Protected Status
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Spinal Surgery Coverage Class Action
US OLYMPIC: Claims in Gilbert's Sexual Abuse Suit Narrowed

UTGR INC: Parties Seek Final Okay of Munsif Suit Settlement
VECTRUS INC: Settlement Payments Made in Employees' Class Suit
VEON LTD: Westway Alliance's Securities Suit Still Continues
VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris
VIRGIN AMERICA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bernstein Suit

VIRTU ITG: S.D.N.Y. Judge Enters Final OK on $18MM Settlement
VOX MEDIA: Class of Site Managers Certified in Bradley Suit
VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Appeals Ca. Dist. Ct. Decision in Rushing Suit
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Faces EarthLink Merger-Related Suits

WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter's Bid for Class Certification Stricken
ZARA USA INC: Gabriyelian Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
ZIP CAPITAL: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited, Prerecorded Calls
[*] Balch & Bingham Attorney Discusses Top Class Action Issues
[*] ILR Publishes Report on Broken Securities Class Action System

[*] New Class Action Bill Target Financial Companies

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 208 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 60 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Has Enough Insurance to Cover Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $130.2MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Had $1.6MM Reserves for Loss, LAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 10 Hearing for ComEd's Claims in Bankr. Ct.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $46.2MM Net A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bleyer Couple Sues AW Chesterton Over Asbestosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,598 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $805.3MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,417 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delaware Couple Sues 11 Companies Over Asbestosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidentiary Hearing in Varney Suit Set on April 15

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Has $1.2MM for Honeywell Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Bid to Stay Trial of Piccolino Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $4.0MM for Lawsuits in 2018

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lexington Couple Sues Over Husband's Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Has $8.30MM Litigation Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Plc Had 600 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 156 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues AGCO Over Husband's Asbestos Death


                            *********

2014 HEALTH: Thornton Sues over Use of Sensitive Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NICHOLAS THORNTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 2014 HEALTH LLC,
doing business as CHICAGO BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03302 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., March 13, 2019), seeks to put a stop to Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs and the putative
Class members' sensitive biometric data.

2014 Health requires its employees to scan their fingerprint in its
biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards.
While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking .

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740
ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies
that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.  Despite this law, 2014 Health disregards its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA, the lawsuit says.

2014 Health is a for-profit limited liability company that provides
specialized mental health and substance abuse treatment. It is
owned by two New York-based limited liability companies. one of
which is US Health Vest which owns mental health facilities
throughout the United States, including in Cook County.
Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  admin@fishlawfirm.com

ACCREDITED SURETY: Breaux Sues Over Bail Bond Price-rigging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Breaux, individually and on behalf of all other similar
situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. Accredited Surety and Casualty
Company, Aegis Security Insurance Company, Allegheny Casualty
Company, American Contractors Indemnity Company, American Surety
Company, Associated Bond  and Insurance Agency, Inc., Bankers
Agency, Inc., Bankers Insurance Company, Bond Safeguard Insurance
Company, Crum & Forster Indemnity Company, Danielson National
Insurance Company, Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., Harco
National Insurance Company, Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance
Company, International Fidelity Insurance Company, Lexington
National Insurance Corporation, Lexon Insurance Company, National
American Insurance Company, North River Insurance Company,
Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation, Safety First Insurance
Company, Seaview Insurance Company, Seneca Insurance Company,
Stillwater Property  and Casualty Insurance Company, Sun Surety
Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company, Universal
Fire & Insurance Company, Continental Heritage Insurance Company,
Williamsburg National Insurance Company, Two Jinn, Inc., American
Bail Coalition, Inc., California Bail Agents Association,  and
Golden State Bail Agents Association and Does 1-100, Defendants,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00717 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2019),
seeks exemplary damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
restitution and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the
Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Defendants are surety companies that are allegedly engaged in
collusive and anti-competitive pricing to keep bail bond premiums
at artificially inflated prices in California. Breaux claims to
have paid an inflated bail bond premium to post bail on behalf of
his mother who had been detained in Victorville City Jail. All
charges against his mother were subsequently dropped, yet no
portion of the premium was refunded.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      Byron Goldstein, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com

             - and -

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      Polina Brandler, Esq.
      Ari Cherniak, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW PC
      1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (310)601-6766
      Fax: (310)295-2385
      Email: jhammmond@hammondlawpc.com
             pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
             acherniak@hammondlaw.com


ACE AMERICAN: Appeals Cal. Dist. Ct. Ruling in Sandbergen Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ACE American Insurance Co. and Federal Insurance Co.
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mark
Sandbergen, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. ACE American Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co. and
Does 1 through 50, Case No. 3:18-cv-04567-SK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The Respondent is the District Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, redress for failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage
statements and all wages due upon separation of employment pursuant
to the Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The appellate case is captioned as ACE American Insurance Co., et
al. v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 19-70508, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest MARK SANDBERGEN, individually, on
behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, is represented by:

          Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
          Logan Todd Talbot, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., DBA Chubb Group
of Insurance Companies, and FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., DBA Chubb Group
of Insurance Companies, are represented by:

          Apalla Chopra, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: achopra@omm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: jhacker@omm.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP on March 6 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Activision Blizzard, Inc.  ("Activision") (NASDAQ:ATVI)
securities between August 2, 2018 and January 10, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Winckler v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No.
19-cv-02095.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Activision securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later March 19, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.
If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, you can
[click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the termination of Activision and Bungie's
partnership, giving Bungie full publishing rights and
responsibilities for the Destiny franchise, was imminent; (2) the
termination of the two companies' relationship would foreseeably
have a significant negative impact on Activision's revenues; and
(3) as a result, Activision's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 10, 2019, Activision and Bungie announced the end of
their business relationship. That same day, in an Securities and
Exchange Commission filing, Activision stated that Bungie "would
assume full publishing rights and responsibilities for the Destiny
franchise. Going forward, Bungie will own and develop the
franchise." Following these announcements, the Company's stock
price fell 9.37%, to close at $46.54 on January 11, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Activision securities during the
Class Period.

                  About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- https://www.johnsonfistel.com -- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Suits Over Improper Fees Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, 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 itself from several class action complaints
over improper assessment of fees.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit
Court of Macon County, Alabama.

Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida
and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama,
and in 2014 in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. In late
2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class action
suit was filed.

The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental
charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.

Advanced Disposal said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown
size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in
dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range
of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
is involved in the curbside collection of residential refuse from
small carts or containers into collection vehicles for transport to
a disposal/recycling site. The company was formerly known as ADS
Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Advanced Disposal
Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.
was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Ponte Vedra, Florida.


AIR CANADA: Court Refuses to Certify Flight Passes Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Martis -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- and Emma Romano --
eromano@lexcanada.com -- of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson
Blackburn LLP, in an article for Aviation Canada, report that the
Quebec Superior Court recently declined to certify a class action
based on the application of certain sections of the Consumer
Protection Act or its Alberta equivalent to the sale of flight
passes sold by Air Canada.

Facts

The representative plaintiff, Joseph Benamor, claimed that he had
purchased a flight pass from Air Canada for C$2,562 in March 2015,
equivalent to eight flights to and from Florida. It was valid for
one year.

This flight pass could be used by Benamor or a guest, whose
identity could be changed for a supplemental fee, which Benamor
claimed that he had paid.

In February 2016 Benamor alleged that Air Canada had required that
he pay an additional C$250 to extend the pass for three months.

Benamor claimed that the expiry date, the additional fees to add a
guest and the fee to extend the pass had violated Quebec's consumer
protection laws or their Albertan equivalent.

Benamor relied specifically on Sections 187.1 through 187.5 of
Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which relates to prepaid cards
and gift cards.

Class action certification

Benamor sought to certify a class action for:

all consumers worldwide (subsidiarily in Canada or in the province
of Quebec) who from August 16, 2013, purchased, received, and/or
acquired one or more Air Canada Consumer Flight Pass(es) with a
specified number of flight credits.

Quebec's class proceedings legislation requires a court to certify
a proceeding as a class proceeding if the following criteria are
met:

   -- The claims of the class members must raise identical, similar
or related issues of law or fact.

   -- The facts alleged must appear to justify the conclusions
sought.

   -- The class composition makes it difficult or impracticable to
apply the rules regarding other forms of representative actions or
consolidation of proceedings.

   -- The class member appointed as the representative plaintiff
must be in a position to properly represent the class members.

In this case, Air Canada challenged certification on the basis that
the facts alleged did not justify the conclusions sought (ie, there
was no reasonable cause of action). Air Canada also challenged
Benamor's ability to properly represent the class members.

Parties' position

The plaintiff (Benamor) took the position that the flight passes
were prepaid cards within the meaning of Sections 187.1 through
187.5 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. He argued that the
flight passes met the definition of a 'prepaid card' in the
legislation because:

   -- there was a payment in advance;
   -- it involved a card or other instrument of exchange; and
   -- it permitted the consumer to procure a service from Air
Canada.

Quebec's consumer protection legislation prohibits:

   -- prepaid cards from expiring; and
   -- additional charges for using prepaid cards.

Therefore, Benamor argued that Air Canada should be required to
provide compensation for the damages sustained as a result of
failing to abide by its obligations under the legislation.

The defendant (Air Canada) took the position that the flight passes
were more akin to public transit passes.

Air Canada's evidence was that the flight passes carried no
monetary value, but rather that they were comprised of a fixed
number of flight credits for one-way trips which could fluctuate in
value over time. Applicable taxes and fees were included in the
total cost of the flight pass.

Air Canada argued that when a consumer purchases a flight pass, Air
Canada also assumes the risk of fluctuations in ticket prices and
any governmental or airport fees associated with operating the
flights.

Air Canada also noted that it sold gift cards with a fixed monetary
value. For gift cards, the taxes and fees were not included in the
price. These cards did not expire.

Air Canada also argued that Benamor had no personal action because
he had bought the flight pass using a business credit card,
suffering no personal damages. Therefore, he could not properly
represent the class members.

Decision

The Quebec Superior Court declined to certify the proposed class
action, holding that the prepaid card provisions in the consumer
protection legislation did not apply to Air Canada's flight
passes.

The court also considered whether Benamor would qualify as an
adequate representative plaintiff. It held that he qualified at
this stage of the action.

Consumer Protection Act claim

In dealing with the first issue, the court considered the nature
and function of the flight passes.

It held that prepaid cards are generally a substitute for cash,
whereas flight passes do not represent a fixed amount of money.

In particular, the court noted the fact that taxes and fees are
included in the price of the flight passes, while taxes are
generally charged at the time of use for prepaid cards.

The court held that the flight passes could be understood as an
immediate purchase of a service to be rendered within a specified
territory and period of time.

The court held that the same reasoning applied to the Alberta
consumer protection legislation.

Adequacy of representative plaintiff

Although it was unnecessary to decide the second issue, the court
held that Benamor could not be disqualified as an adequate
representative plaintiff at this stage for two reasons:

   -- Although he had charged the flight pass in question to his
company credit card, there was inadequate evidence to decide
whether the damages alleged had been suffered solely by the
business, rather than Benamor personally.

   -- Benamor met the low threshold of having an interest in the
claim, being competent and having no conflict with the other class
members.
Comment

This decision is notable for carriers selling flight passes, as it
provides clarity on the types of transaction which are subject to
consumer protection laws.

Carriers that are selling gift cards representing a fixed monetary
value should be aware of their obligations under consumer
protection laws. [GN]


AIR METHODS CORP: Paramedics Claims Overtime for "Sleep-time" Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cooley, Jeremy Lemaster, Robert Needham, and Jamie Collins,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. Air Methods Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00850, (D. Ariz., February 8, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, related penalties
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Air Methods Corporation -- https://www.airmethods.com/ -- is a
helicopter operator whose air medical division provides emergency
medical services serves 48 states and Haiti. Cooley, Lemaster and
Needham worked as flight paramedics while Collins was a flight
nurse. They claim that they were not paid overtime wages for "sleep
time" hours which they claim is crucial to the performance of their
job. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq.
      Alan G. Crone, Esq.
      Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq.
      THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
      88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 737-7740
           (901) 474-7959
      Fax: (901) 474-7926
      Email: lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com
             acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
             bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com

             - and -

      J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      Mike Lingle, Esq.
      THOMAS, SOLOMON LAW FIRM
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 272-0540
      Fax: (585) 272-0574
      Email: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
             mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com


AIR METHODS: Removes Stone Case to District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
Air Methods Corp. and Tri-State Careflight, LLC remove case,
BENJAMIN STONE, DAYLE MORNINGSTAR, and LOREE CUTTS, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. AIR METHODS CORP. and TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018cv32140 (Filed Sept. 6, 2018), from the District Court
for Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on March 1, 2019. The District of Colorado
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00610 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for themselves and the putative class
for (1) alleged violations of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers
Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order; (2) alleged
violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act; (3) alleged violations
of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act; (4) compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees; and (5) statutory penalties.

Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to 70,000 to 100,000 patients every year, and serves 48
states and Haiti, and air medical continues to be its primary
business focus.[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiffs:

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          Ashley K. Boothby, Esq.
          THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
          600 Grant St., Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303.333.7751
          Facsimile: 303.333.7758
          E-mail: aboothby@laborlawdenver.com
                  aturner@laborlawdenver.com

               - and -

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn Redfield Ortiz, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, PC
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: 303.595.0008
          Facsimile: 602.626.3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          David G. Gartenberg, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: 303 629 6200
          Facsimile: 303 629 0200
          E-mail: jkirkpatrick@littler.com
                  dgartenberg@littler.com

ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Spencer Brings FDCPA Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldous & Associates,
PLLC. The case is styled as Alana Spencer individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldous &
Associates, PLLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01481 (E.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 14, 2019).

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

Aldous & Associates focuses on debt collection through voluntary
means and, if necessary, post judgement work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ralph Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allegheny Technologies,
Inc. and Strom Engineering Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
GD-19-001929 filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pa. on February 7, 2019, was removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on February
8, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00147.

Plaintiff seeks compensation for commuting time to the workplace
and files for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant cited minimum diversity as cause for removal stating the
fact that Smith is a resident of North Carolina while Allegheny and
Strom are Delaware and Pennsylvania corporations, respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      First & Market Building, Suite 650
      100 First Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 227-0763
      Fax: (412) 774-1994
      Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

             - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Michaela Wallin, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             mwallin@bm.net

             - and -

      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      KEHOE LAW FIRM
      1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 792-6676
      Facsimile: (215) 990-0701
      Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

Defendant is represented by:

      David J. Kolesar, Esq.
      Ali J. Parker, Esq.
      K&L GATES LLP
      K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-2613
      Tel: (412) 355-6500
      Fax: (412) 355-6501
      Email: david.kolesar@klgates.com
             ali.parker@klgates.com


ALLIED ACCOUNT: Sztillerman Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shimon Sztillerman on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Allied Account Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01501-LDH-SJB (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

Allied Account Services Inc is a debt collection agency located in
Bellmore, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ALORICA AT HOME: Hicks Seeks Pay for Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shaibrean Hicks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Alorica at Home, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00099,
(E.D. Ark., February 7, 2019) seeks monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant provides customer contact management services where Hicks
worked as an hourly-paid work-at-home agent. He claims compensation
for off-the-clock work including logging in to the computer system,
opening all operating systems and programs necessary to take
customer calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMI LIVONIA: Nolan Sues over Abrupt Employment Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
DALE NOLAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. AMI LIVONIA, LLC and AMI MANCHESTER, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10773-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., March 14,
2019), alleges that Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act by failing to give the Plaintiff and
the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants at least
60 days' advance written notice of termination.

The case is a class action for the recovery by Plaintiff and Other
Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants as a single employer
of damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits by
reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
WARN Act.

Although the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees
were nominally employed by AMI Livonia LLC, pursuant to the WARN
Act's single employer rule, AMI Manchester, LLC was also the
Plaintiff's and the Other Similarly Situated Employees "Employer"
until they were terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass
layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendants on or about
December 15, 2018-March 4, 2019 and thereafter.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly
Situated Employees their respective wages, salary, commissions,
bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days
following their respective terminations and failed to make 401(k)
contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and
other employee benefits, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          John C. Philo, Esq.
          Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR
          ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Ave., 2 nd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, Alabama 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

ANTHEM INC: Arnold's Bid to Include Suit Into MDL Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh issued an order in the multidistrict
litigation entitled IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, MDL
No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.), denying as moot a motion to
consolidate case and to certify class.

On November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff in Arnold v. Anthem Inc., Case
No. 18-CV-02981, filed the instant motion to consolidate Arnold v.
Anthem Inc. with the MDL, and to certify class.

On March 5, 2019, final judgment in favor of Anthem Inc. was
entered in Arnold v. Anthem Inc.; this case has been closed.
Therefore, the Court denied as moot the motion to consolidate case
and to certify class.[CC]


ANTHEM INC: Court Denies as Moot Arnold's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to
consolidate and for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
MARIE ARNOLD v. ANTHEM INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-02981-LHK (N.D.
Cal.).

On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff Marie Arnold moved to consolidate
the instant case with Case No. 15-MD-02617, and for class
certification.  On March 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendant
Anthem Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint with prejudice.  Thus, the Plaintiff no longer has a live
case.  Therefore, Judge Koh ruled, the Plaintiff's motion to
consolidate and for class certification is denied as moot.[CC]


APPLE INC: Brodsky Sues Over Device Authentication Process
----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Brodsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00712, (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2019), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief for violation of California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, Computer Crime Law and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Plaintiff brings this trespass class action lawsuit against Apple,
based on Apple's locking out Plaintiff from use of his personal
devices by a business policy requiring two-factor authentication
that cannot be disabled after a lapse of an initial 14 days. Said
two-factor authentication imposes a tedious logging-in procedure
that requires a user to both remember password and have access to
another device/phone number to receive an additional six-digit code
that needs to be entered at the time of logging in addition to the
user set password.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter R. Afrasiabi, Esq.
      Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
      ONE LLP
      4000 MacArthur Blvd., East Tower, Suite 500
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 502-2870
      Direct: (650) 600-1298
      Facsimile: (949) 258-5081
      Email: pafrasiabi@onellp.com
             dbrahmbhatt@onellp.com

             - and -

      John E. Lord, Esq.
      ONE LLP
      9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 866-5157
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2085
      Email: jlord@onellp.com


APPLE INC: Davidson Moves to Certify Class of iPhone 6 Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THOMAS DAVIDSON, TODD CLEARY,
ERIC SIEGAL, MICHAEL PAJARO, JOHN BORZYMOWSKI, BROOKE CORBETT,
TAYLOR BROWN, JUSTIN BAUER, HEIRLOOM ESTATE SERVICES, INC.,
KATHLEEN BAKER, MATT MUILENBURG, WILLIAM BON, and JASON PETTY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. APPLE,
INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-04942-LHK (N.D. Cal.), file with the Court
their second amended motion for an order certifying this class:

     Any person residing in Florida or Washington who purchased
     an Apple iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus from Apple or an Apple
     Authorized Service Provider (listed on
     https://locate.apple.com/) that was manufactured without
     underfill under the U2402 integrated circuit chip.  Excluded
     from the Class are governmental entities, Apple and its
     affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, current and former
     officers, director, agents, representatives, and members of
     this Court and its staff.

Plaintiffs John Borzymowski, William Bon, and Matt Muilenburg seek
class certification for these claims: violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiffs all seek to
serve as Class Representatives of their respective states: John
Borzymowski for Florida, and William Bon and Matt Muilenburg for
Washington.  The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of McCune
Wright Arevalo LLP as Class Counsel for all certified classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 2, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
          R.C. Harlan, Esq.
          Robert C. O'Brien, Esq.
          LARSON O'BRIEN LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 436-4888
          Facsimile: (213) 623-2000
          E-mail: slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com
                  rcharlan@larsonobrienlaw.com
                  robrien@larsonobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Greg Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

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


AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Antitrust Suit in Expert Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, that the expert discovery phase in the
antitrust litigation related to Indivior's Suboxone Sublingual Film
is scheduled to close May 30, 2019.

On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010.
After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a
multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

The Company said, "While we were not named as a defendant in the
original Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States
alleges that we participated in an antitrust conspiracy with
Indivior in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone
Sublingual Film and engaged in related conduct in violation of
federal and state antitrust law.  We moved to dismiss the States'
conspiracy claims, but by order dated October 30, 2017, the Court
denied our motion to dismiss.  We filed an answer denying the
States' claims on November 20, 2017.  The fact discovery period
closed July 27, 2018, but the parties agreed to conduct certain
fact depositions in August 2018.  The case is currently in the
expert discovery phase, which is scheduled to close May 30, 2019.
We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of
this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate, or range of
estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this
matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs.  The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally.  Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


ASCENA RETAIL: Previously Stayed Pricing Suits Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended February 2, 2019, that all of the pricing lawsuits previously
stayed have now been "formally dismissed."

The Company is a defendant in class action lawsuits that allege
that Justice's promotional practices violated state comparative
pricing and other laws.

On September 24, 2015, a formal settlement agreement was signed
with the plaintiffs in the Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis for the period of January 1, 2012 through February 28,
2015 for approximately US$51 million, including payments in the
form of cash and vouchers to members of the class and payment of
legal fees and expenses of settlement administration.  The
redemption period for all vouchers distributed to the class members
ended in October 2018, and the Company filed a motion at the end of
November 2018 seeking reimbursement for a limited portion of the
settlement fund attributable to vouchers redeemed by class members
that had been self-funded by the Company.  That motion was approved
by the Court in February 2019.

All of the pricing lawsuits previously stayed have now been
formally dismissed.  There is some possibility that additional
claims will be made based on purchases prior to the class period,
or by individual class members who excluded themselves from the
settlement, although the Company believes that the liability
associated with those claims would not be material.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for women and
tween girls in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The
company operates through four segments: Premium Fashion, Value
Fashion, Plus Fashion, and Kids Fashion. The company was formerly
known as Dress Barn, Inc. and changed its name to Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. in January 2011. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. was founded
in 1962 and is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ASSET RECOVERY: Weinberg Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Velocity Investments,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01484 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 14,
2019).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance. They offer a full range of solutions that
includes credit cards, student loans, consumer loan, automotive and
retail.

Velocity Investments, LLC is a debt collection company. They buy
debt from original lenders in bulk and take legal action against
consumers in an attempt to recover their investment and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSOCIATION LAW GROUP: Cocciolone Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Federica Cocciolone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Association Law Group, P.L,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-20509 (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2019),
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff allegedly owes Bonterra Community for home owner
association dues of which Association Law Group attempted to
collect using a collection letter. It allegedly charged "attorney
fees" with no bearing on the actual time of professional legal
services rendered or actual "costs" incurred on the file and
charged to the creditor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, 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 an appeal filed in
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., is still pending.

Avanos Medical said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for the
matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH
(C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014."

In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with the
company's marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350
million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3
million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100 million in punitive damages.

Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and
request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief.

On May 25, 2017, the company filed three post-trial motions: a
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; a motion to
decertify the class; and a motion for new trial, remittitur, or
amendment of the judgment. On March 30, 2018, the court ruled on
the post-trial motions. The court denied all three, except it
granted in part the motion to reduce the award of punitive damages
to a 5 to 1 ratio with compensatory damages.

On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark.

The judgment against the company is $0.3 million in compensatory
damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive
damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is $3.9 million in
compensatory damages, $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest and
$19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Avanos Medical said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
the Bahamas matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


AVANOS MEDICAL: Jackson Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, 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 itself from a class action suit entitled, Jackson v.
Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al.

The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016.

In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby
artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the
respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers
of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanos
securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the
alleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October
21, 2014 to April 29, 2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in the company's favor. On April 27, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave
to Amend.

Avanos Medical said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
this matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, dismissed with
prejudice the case, ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI and SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., Defendant, Case No.
17-22010-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.).

The matter was referred to the Hon. Lauren F. Louis, United States
Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, filed on Oct. 19, 2018.  The Magistrate Judge
filed a Report and Recommendation on Feb. 15, 2019.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the
Defendant, for charging an exit fee at the airport of $80 per
passenger, after Plaintiffs had paid the airfare price.  They
indicate that the ticket states that the price "includes all taxes
and fees" and as such, the $80 exit fee constitutes a breach of the
contract.  The Defendant moved to dismiss on various grounds and
the Magistrate Judge found the Airline Deregulation Act preempts
the Plaintiffs' claim.

It is the general rule that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts
common law claims if those claims relate to an air carrier's
"price, route, or service."  The Plaintiffs claim that the exit fee
at issue qualifies as a Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens exception.
More specifically, the Plaintiffs' objections argue that because
their claim is excepted from preemption because they are trying to
enforce their contract, and not a federal aviation regulation.

The Report and Recommendation examines the Wolens exception to
determine whether the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
satisfies the "related to" test, and if so, whether the breach of
contract claim arises from a "self-imposed" obligation, or whether
the Plaintiffs' claim seeks an enlargement or enhancement of that
obligation.  A claim satisfies the "related to" test if it has a
connection with, or reference to, airline' prices, routes or
services.

The only contractual provision that the Plaintiffs identify as
having been breached is the language included at the bottom of the
Plaintiffs' receipts, which states that the price includes fees and
taxes.  Judge Moreno agrees with the Report's conclusion that the
identified breach is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act,
because by its very terms the airline ticket receipt refers to the
price of the airline ticket.  Unlike in Wolens, where the Supreme
Court excepted the breach of contract stemming from the frequent
flier program, the express terms of the violated provision in the
case expressly relate to pricing, and the claim is therefore,
preempted.

The Plaintiffs would like the Court to read the preemption doctrine
narrowly as only applying when there is an attempt to enforce a
federal regulation, and not to contractual claims.  That reading is
inconsistent with the Act, which was enacted to foster competition
among airlines.  Because the Plaintiffs are unable to amend their
complaint in a manner that would avoid the application of the
preemption doctrine, Judge Moreno dismissed the case with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vdlzYM from Leagle.com.

Roberto Hung Cavalieri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Carson
Tackenberg -- btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- Crabtree & Auslander,
Brian Michael Torres -- btorres@briantorres.legal -- Brian M.
Torres, P.A., Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree & Auslander, John
Granville Crabtree -- jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com -- Crabtree &
Auslander, Jose-Luis Baloyra -- jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com -- BALOYRA
LAW, Milton Fuentes -- mf@mfuenteslaw.com -- M. FUENTES & CO.,
Nicolas Manosalva Jimenez, Brian Torres Legal & John Cody German --
cody.german@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott Kissane PA.

Sergio Enrique Isea, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Morris
Auslander, Crabtree & Auslander, John Granville Crabtree, Crabtree
& Auslander, Jose-Luis Baloyra, BALOYRA LAW, Milton Fuentes, M.
FUENTES & CO. & John Cody German, Cole Scott Kissane PA.

Avior Airlines C.A., a Venezuelen company, Defendant, represented
by Pedro Alejandro Gonzalez -- PGonzalez@SMGQLAW.com --
Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez, Quesada, Lage, et al..


BANK OF AMERICA: Lincolnshire Fund Suit Alleges Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK
PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; FIRST
TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; JPMORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02045 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019), is brought over
alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton
Act.

The Defendants, who are horizontal competitors and the dominant
dealers of financial instruments, conspired to fix prices and
restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by
the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, rather than maintain the
requisite transparency, the Plaintiff alleges.  These unsecured
bonds are unsecured issuances, and do not include mortgage-backed
securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bank of America, N.A., is an American global bank and financial
services company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, with operations in all 50 states.
Merrill Lynch is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Bank of
America Corporation and a corporate affiliate of BANA.  Merrill
Lynch is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of
business in New York City.

Barclays Bank PLC, operating under the trade name "Barclays
Investment Bank," is headquartered in London, England, and provides
investment banking advisory services, foreign exchange securities
lending, and loan syndication services through at least three
offices in the United States, including its New York Branch located
in this District.  Barclays Capital Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC, incorporated in the state of
Connecticut, with its headquarters in New York City.

Citigroup, Inc., is a global banking institution headquartered in
New York City.  Citigroup, Inc., is the ultimate parent of its
wholly-owned dealer-subsidiary, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  CGMI
is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in
New York City.

Credit Suisse AG is a multinational banking and financial services
company, which engages in banking, finance, consultancy, and
trading activities in the United States and worldwide.  Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Credit
Suisse AG, organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business in New York City.

Deutsche Bank AG is a multinational bank that provides services in
commercial banking, investment banking, and retail banking, as well
as wealth and asset management products to corporations,
governments, institutional investors, small and medium-sized
businesses, and private individuals.  Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., formerly known as Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown Inc. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., organized under New York Law with its principal
place of business in New York City.  Goldman Sachs Execution &
Clearing, L.P., was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. that offered trade execution and clearing services to
other subsidiaries within the Goldman Sachs brand.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, is a wholly-owned
"principal subsidiary" of JPMorgan Chase & Co., headquartered in
New York City.  JPMorgan Securities LLC, previously known as J.P.
Morgan Securities Inc., is a Delaware limited liability company
with its headquarters in New York.

UBS AG is a multinational banking and financial services
corporation which engages in banking, financial, advisory, and
trading service activities worldwide.  UBS AG is headquartered in
Basel, Switzerland.  UBS Securities LLC is an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG with its principal place of
business in New York City.

First Tennessee Bank, N.A., is a financial services company based
in Memphis, Tennessee.  First Tennessee Bank operates a large debt
capital markets division that focuses on public issuers, such as
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and on trading and selling debt
instruments to institutional investors, such as Plaintiff and
members of the Class.  FTN Financial Securities Corp. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Tennessee and operates as part of
First Tennessee's FTN Financial Capital Markets division.

BNP Paribas S.A. is one of the world's largest global banking
organizations.  BNP Paribas Securities Corp. is an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of BNPP SA, headquartered in New York
City.

Merrill Lynch, JPMS, FTN Financial, CGMI, CS Securities, BCI, DB
Securities, UBS Securities, Goldman Sachs, and BNP Securities are
approved dealers for debt securities issued by both Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
                  fisquith@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com


BANKERS STANDARD: Settlement in Gunthert Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARD R. GUNTHERT and ABBY B. GUNTHERT, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CA No.
5:16-cv-00021-MTT (M.D. Ga.), Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division,
granted the Parties' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
Agreement.

The Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated Oct. 2, 2018.
The Court entered an Order on Oct. 17, 2018, preliminarily
approving the Settlement, preliminarily certifying the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 23(b)(3), ordering that notice be disseminated to the
Settlement Class, scheduling a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing
for March 5, 2019, and providing Settlement Class Members with an
opportunity to opt-out of the Settlement Class and/or object to the
proposed Settlement or to Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs
and/or the Plaintiffs' service awards.

The Court held a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing on March 5,
2019.  Judge Treadwell contemporaneously issued a Judgment that,
among other things, certified the Settlement Class, approved the
Settlement Agreement, and dismissed the Settlement Class Members'
claims with prejudice as to Bankers Standard.

Now, the Judge fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to, and in the best interests of, the Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class.  The Settling Parties and their counsel are
directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms and provisions.  Having found that the terms
of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the Settlement Class, the Settling Parties, through the
Administrator, are directed to implement and administer the
Settlement in accordance with its terms and provisions.

He finds that an award of attorneys' fees and costs for the Class
Counsel in the amount of $450,000 is fair, reasonable and
appropriate, and directed the Administrator to pay such amount to
the Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge finds that a combined service award in the amount of
$10,000 for the Guntherts ($5,000 each) is fair, reasonable and
appropriate, and directed that Bankers Standard pay such amount to
the Class Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the payment of
such service awards is in addition to the benefits to the
Settlement Class and will be paid separately by Bankers Standard
and not from the Settlement Fund.

The claims by the Settling Parties and all other Settlement Class
Members are dismissed with prejudice as against Bankers Standard,
without fees or costs to Bankers Standard except as set forth in
Order or in the Settlement Agreement.

Because it is in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
that the settlement process be undertaken as soon as possible and
because the Settlement Agreement resolves all claims by the
Settlement Class Members, the Judge finds that there is no just
reason to delay the Judgment regarding the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, Judge Treadwell directed that the Judgment regarding
the Settlement Agreement be entered as to all parties and all
claims in the Actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fA2Ios from Leagle.com.

GERARD R GUNTHERT, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated & ABBY B GUNTHERT, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ADAM P.
PRINCENTHAL -- adam@princemay.com -- C. COOPER KNOWLES, Law Office
of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC, CLINTON W. SITTON, JAMES C. BRADLEY --
jbradley@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN -- NINA FIELDS BRITT &
RICHARD KOPELMAN.

BANKERS STANDARD FIRE AND MARINE COMPANY & BANKERS STANDARD
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, represented by HANNAH CHANOINE --
hchanoine@omm.com -- JANE E. WARRING -- jane.warring@clydeco.us --
RICHARD B. GOETZ -- rgoetz@omm.com -- W. ANDREW MILLER & ROBERT
WAYNE FISHER.


BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces Boitnott ADA Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bed Bath & Beyond,
Inc. The case is styled as Jerald Boitnott Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-00722-PJS-BRT (D. Minn.,
Mar. 15, 2019).

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

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise
retail stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, and
Mexico. Founded in 1971, the stores sell home goods primarily for
the bedroom and bathroom, as well as kitchen and dining room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad Throndset, Esq.
     Throndset Michenfelder, LLC
     One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
     St. Michael, MN 55376
     Phone: (763) 515-6110
     Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com


BENEFICIAL BANCORP: WSFS Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial Bancorp, 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 lawsuits over
a merger transaction are voluntarily dismissed.

On August 8, 2018, WSFS Financial Corporation ("WSFS") and the
Company issued a joint press release announcing that WSFS and the
Company have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
(the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which the Company will merge
with and into WSFS, with WSFS as the surviving entity (the
"Merger").  

On October 15, 2018, one purported Company stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Beneficial and the members of
the Company's Board of Directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Dappollone
v. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:18-cv-09395.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Company
stockholders, generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disclosing materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Merger to Company stockholders.
The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On October 19, 2018, another purported Company stockholder filed a
putative derivative and class action lawsuit against the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors and Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Beneficial
stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of Beneficial, captioned
Parshall v. Farnesi et al., Case No.  

The plaintiff generally alleged that the Beneficial board of
directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the terms
of the Merger, including allegedly inadequate merger consideration
and certain deal protection devices, and making materially
incomplete disclosures about the merger to Company stockholders.
The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On October 31, 2018, three other purported Company stockholders
filed separate lawsuits against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the District Court for the District
of Maryland, captioned Wolenter v. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. et al.
(Case No. 1:18-cv-03379-JKB), Karp v. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. et.
al. (Case No. 1:18-cv-03381-ELH), and Bushanksy v. Beneficial
Bancorp, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:18-cv-03382-DKC).

The plaintiffs each generally alleged that the registration
statement filed with the SEC on September 27, 2018 contained
materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiffs each sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On November 29, 2018, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) a Current Report on Form 8-K making
additional disclosures to supplement the disclosures in the
allegedly misleading proxy statement disclosures set forth in the
five complaints relating to the Merger. Each plaintiff agreed that
the Form 8-K mooted his or her disclosure claims, and accordingly
each of the five lawsuits related to the Merger was voluntarily
dismissed in January 2019.  

Beneficial Bancorp, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
consumer and commercial banking services to individuals,
businesses, and nonprofit organizations in Philadelphia and
Southern New Jersey area. The company was founded in 1853 and is
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As of March 1, 2019,
Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. was acquired by WSFS Financial Corporation
(NasdaqGS:WSFS).


BIOTIME INC: Putative Class Suit over Asterias Merger Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioTime, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit related to
its acquisition of Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. via merger,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On February 19, 2019, the putative class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of Asterias shareholders in the Superior Court of the
State of California in the County of Alameda against, among other
parties, Asterias, the members of Asterias' board of directors,
BioTime, Neal Bradsher, Broadwood Capital, Inc. and Broadwood
Capital Partners, L.P.

The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the
consideration Asterias shareholders are to receive in the merger is
unfair, the merger is the product of an unfair process, and the
joint proxy statement omits certain allegedly material information.
The complaint seeks, injunctive relief or rescissory damages and
an award of plaintiffs' expenses and attorneys' fees.

The defendants specifically deny all allegations in the litigation,
including that any additional disclosure was or is required and
intend to defend it vigorously.  To moot the disclosure claims in
the complaint, Asterias and BioTime made supplemental disclosures
to the joint proxy statement relating to the merger.

BioTime, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on
developing and commercializing therapies for the treatment of
degenerative diseases in the United States and internationally.
The Company has collaboration with Orbit Biomedical, Ltd. BioTime,
Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Alameda,
California.


BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Hunter Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah J. Hunter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation,
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, CACI
International, Inc., CACI Technologies LLC, and CACI Technologies
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00411 (S.D. Ohio, February 7,
2019), seeks damages and injunctive relief for unlawful restraint
of competition in the market for the services of skilled
professionals working at the Joint Intelligence Operations Center
Europe Analytic Center in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.

Defendants perform intelligence work at Joint Analytic Center in
Molesworth, England, where each has its own separate contract with
the federal government. After initially competing with one another
for skilled labor, Defendants agreed not to hire one another's
employees. Hunter was employed by Mission Essential from
approximately April 24, 2015, to September 24, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
      Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
      Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
      ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
      Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
      Columbus, OH 432015
      Telephone: (614) 221-2121
      Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
      Email: sjudge@isaacwiles.com
             mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
             gtravalio@isaacwiles.com

             - and -

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq.
      Steve N. Williams, Esq.
      Kevin Rayhill, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      601 California Street, Suite 1000
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      Emails: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
              nherrera@saverilawfirm.com
              krayhill@saverilawfirm.com


BRIGHTON BEST: Houston Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
---------------------------------------------------
Cortland Houston individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Plaintiff, Brighton Best International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019L000162 (Ill. Cir., February 8, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics; statutory damages together with costs; and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Brighton operates in the tool and fastener industry, distributing
such products as hand tools, socket products, nuts, washers,
screws, and other products. It operates from over 30 different
locations in 6 countries globally and has over 7,000 distributors
for its products throughout the world. Houston worked for Brighton
at its DuPage County facilities, required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. Houston
alleges that Brighton improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint
data without informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      Kim Hilton, Esq.
      Seth Matus, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             kunze@fishlawfirm.com
             smatus@fishlawfirm.com
             jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


CAESARSTONE LTD: May 2019 Settlement Hearing Set in Israel Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Court hearing to rule on a settlement agreement regarding a class
action claim in Israel against Caesarstone Ltd. is scheduled in May
2019, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company said, "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for
its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in the
Central District Court in Israel mainly claiming we did not provide
adequate warnings with respect to our products and that by our
wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's autonomy.

"The plaintiff alleged that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a
class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216
million (approximately US$56 million), calculated by claiming
damages of NIS 18,000 (US$4,668) for each individual who worked in
fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative
roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the
fabrication of our products.  The plaintiff claimed that there are
12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in
Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five
administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant
period.  In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in
compensation for special and general damages, such as medical
disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical
expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof
and quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action.  The plaintiff was seeking, among other things, to compel
us to notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group)
and each individual about the risks, recommending that they
undertake a medical examination and assert their rights.

"On January 4, 2018, we and the plaintiff submitted to the Israeli
District Court a settlement agreement.  If the settlement agreement
is approved by the Court, the claim will be dismissed and we will
make payments on a one-time basis, without any admission of
liability, in an aggregate amount of approximately NIS 9.0 million
(approximately US$2.4 million) to fund certain safety related
expenses at fabrication facilities in Israel, as well as
plaintiff's compensation and legal expenses.  As of the date of
this report, the settlement agreement remains subject to the
approval of the Court.  The Israeli State Attorney General and
other interested parties may notify the Court if they have any
objection to the proposed settlement.  While the Court extended the
period in which the Attorney General can submit its position, as of
the date of this report the position has not been submitted yet.  A
Court hearing is scheduled in May 2019 and we expect to receive a
ruling from the Court regarding the settlement agreement by the end
of 2019."

Caesarstone Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells engineered quartz surfaces under the Caesarstone brand in the
United States, Australia, Canada, Israel, Europe, and
internationally.  Its engineered quartz slabs are used as
countertops in residential kitchens, as well as serve the
renovation and remodeling market.  The Company's products are also
used in other applications, such as vanity tops, wall panels, back
splashes, floor tiles, stairs, and other interior surfaces that are
used in various residential and non-residential applications.  It
sells its products directly to fabricators, sub-distributors, and
resellers; and indirectly through a network of independent
distributors. The Company was formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot
Yam Ltd. and changed its name to Caesarstone Ltd. in June 2016.
Caesarstone Ltd. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in MP
Menashe, Israel.


CALIFORNIA: Teen Rescue Files Civil Rights Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Becerra, et al. The
case is styled as Teen Rescue, Carlton Williams as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of the State of California, in his official
capacity, William Lightbourne, Director of the State Department of
Social Services, in his official capacity, Butte County Department
of Childrens Services Division, Butte County Department of
Children's Services Division, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00457-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal., Mar. 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Xavier Becerra is an American politician and lawyer serving as the
33rd and current Attorney General of California since 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew B. McReynolds, Esq.
     Pacific Justice Institute
     9851 Horn Road Suite 115
     Sacramento, CA 95827
     Phone: (916) 857-6900
     Email: mattmcreynolds@pji.org

          - and -

     Kevin Trent Snider, Esq.
     Pacific Justice Institute
     P.O. Box 276600
     Sacramento, CA 95827
     Phone: (916) 857-6900
     Fax: (916) 857-6902
     Email: kevinsnider@pacificjustice.org


CELGENE CORP: LR Trust Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Bristol-Myers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LR TRUST, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES, RICHARD W. BARKER, HANS E.
BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL D. CASEY, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL
A. FRIEDMAN, JULIA A. HALLER, PATRICIA A. HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES J.
LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, and JOHN H. WEILAND, Case No.
1:19-cv-00459-UNA (D. Del., March 5, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Celgene will be
acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company through Burgundy Merger
Sub, Inc.

On January 3, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene issued a joint
press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated January 2, 2019, to sell Celgene to
Bristol-Myers Squibb.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
each Celgene stockholder will be entitled to receive $50 in cash,
one share of Bristol-Myers Squibb common stock and one contingent
value right ("CVR") for each share of Celgene common stock they
own.  Based on the closing price of Bristol-Myers Squibb common
stock on January 31, 2019, the cash and stock components of the
Merger Consideration, excluding the CVR, have an implied value of
$99.37 per Celgene share.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Celgene stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Celgene's and Bristol-Myers
Squibb's financial projections utilized by the Company's financial
advisors J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. in connection with their evaluation of the Proposed
Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan
and Citigroup in connection with the rendering of their fairness
opinions; and (iii) Celgene insiders' potential conflicts of
interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act as Celgene stockholders need such information in
order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.

Celgene is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Summit, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Incorporated in 1986, Celgene is an integrated global
biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery,
development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases through
next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-oncology,
epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in New York City.  Bristol-Myers Squibb
is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products on a
global basis.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Pazuniak, Esq.
          PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1201 Orange Street, 7th Floor, Suite 7114
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
          Telephone: (302) 478-4230
          E-mail: gp@del-iplaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: 2d Cir. Affirms Arbitration Judgment in Katz
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's arbitration judgment in the case, MICHAEL A. KATZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1436 (2d Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Katz brings the putative class action against
Defendant-Appellee Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon
Wireless, asserting claims under New York state law for breach of
contract and consumer fraud based on an administrative charge that
Verizon adds to the monthly bill of each of its subscribers.  Katz
was compelled to arbitrate the dispute and, dissatisfied with the
outcome, he sought vacatur and de novo review of the arbitrator's
legal conclusions in the District Court, arguing that the standard
of review imposed by the Federal Arbitration Act violates his due
process right to judicial review.  The District Court declined to
exercise de novo review and confirmed the arbitration decisions.
Katz appeals.

Katz entered into a customer agreement with Verizon in 2011.  The
agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring the parties "to
resolve disputes only by arbitration or in small claims court" and
prohibiting class arbitrations.  In December 2012, Katz sued
Verizon in federal court, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and consumer fraud related to the monthly administrative
charge under New York's General Business Law ("GBL") section 349.
He also sought a declaration that compelling arbitration on these
claims would violate Article III of the United States
Constitution.

On Dec. 12, 2013, the District Court entered an order compelling
arbitration and dismissing Katz's federal case.  As relevant, the
District Court rejected Katz's Article III claim because Katz could
not show state action in Verizon's inclusion of an arbitration
clause in its customer agreement or its acts to compel arbitration.
The Court affirmed the District Court's reasoning but vacated the
judgment and remanded in part with instructions to stay (instead of
dismiss) the proceedings pending arbitration.

Arbitration then ensued.  Between 2016 and 2017, the arbitrator
issued decisions collectively granting Verizon judgment on the
pleadings; ordering Verizon to pay Katz $1,500 that Verizon had
previously tendered to settle the dispute, as well as $500 in
attorney's fees; and denying Katz injunctive relief for himself and
a putative class.

Katz then returned to the District Court, moving to vacate the
arbitration decisions in substantial part and to renew his claims.
As relevant, Katz argued that the standard of review imposed by the
Federal Arbitration Act violates his Fifth Amendment due process
right to judicial review.  The District Court rejected Katz's
motions, ruling that its previous holding that Katz had not shown
state action in Verizon's signing and enforcement of the private
arbitration agreement is law of the case and therefore, that Katz
has no viable constitutional claim.  Accordingly, the court
confirmed the arbitration decisions in full.  Katz now appeals as
to his due process claim.

Even without recourse to the law of the case, the Court concludes
that Katz's claim fails on the merits.  To state a due process
claim under the Fifth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that: (1)
state action (2) deprived him or her of liberty or property (3)
without due process of law.  As courts have held repeatedly, a
private party's agreement to arbitration does not constitute state
action, and the enforcement of such an agreement cannot ordinarily
give rise to a due process claim.  Like NASD in Perpetual and
Desiderio, Verizon is a private concern, not a state actor, and its
enforcement of an arbitration agreement does not transform it into
an arm of the state.

The Court has considered the Appellant's remaining arguments and
concludes that they are without merit.  Accordingly, it affirmed
the District Court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/HydVwz from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM ROBERT WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- Bill@wweinsteinlaw.com -- White
Plains, N.Y., for Appellant.

LEIGH R. SCHACHTER, Verizon Communications, Basking Ridge, N.J.
(Joshua S. Turner -- jturner@wileyrein.com -- Jeremy J. Broggi, and
Bethany A. Corbin -- bcorbin@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP,
Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Appellee.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Bennett Class Action Remains Stayed at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the class action lawsuit styled,
Lacheverjuan Bennett et al. v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., et al., is
still stayed.

On March 26, 2018, a group of 27 individual plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahoma
against 23 named defendants, including the company and 25 unnamed
defendants.  Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of
Logan County, Oklahoma, and allege the defendants, all oil and gas
companies which have engaged in injection well operations, induced
earthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property,
and caused emotional damages.  Plaintiffs claim absolute liability
for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence,
public and private nuisance, and trespass, and ask for compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.

On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims asserted against the company for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  Jointly with other defendants,
the Company filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil Company, Inc.

Despite dismissal of the class allegations in the West case, the
stay has not been lifted.

The Company said, "When the stay is lifted, we will dispute the
plaintiffs' claims, dispute the remedies requested are available
under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Class Action Still Stayed at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that a stay has not been lifted in the case
styled James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C, et al.

On October 13, 2017, a group of 52 individual plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahoma
against 26 named defendants, including the company and 25 unnamed
defendants.  Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents of
Payne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activities
by the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposal
wells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real and
personal property, and emotional damages.  Plaintiffs claim
absolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence,
gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and ask
for compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 18, 2017, the Company moved the court to dismiss the
claims against the company.  Prior to plaintiffs responding to its
motion, a hearing on a motion to stay the Butler case was held on
January 4, 2018.  The judge granted the motion to stay proceedings,
ruling that the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or
denial of class certification in the Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil
Company, Inc. case, supra.

Despite the dismissal of the class allegations in the West case,
the stay has not been lifted. The Company's motion to dismiss will
not be considered until the stay is lifted, at which time, if
necessary, it will dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the
remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorously
defend the case.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Naylor Farms Class Lawsuit Still Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., remains ongoing, according to Chaparral
Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Trial Court") alleging that
we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to
plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the
petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of US$5.0 million,
the majority of which would be comprised of interest and may
increase with the passage of time.  The purported class includes
non-governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas
wells we operate in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs have alleged a number
of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of
leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class.  We
responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and
raised arguments and defenses.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in October 2015.  In addition, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for summary judgment asking the Naylor Trial Court to
determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not marketable
until it is in the condition and location to enter an interstate
pipeline.  On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court.  Subsequently, the
bankruptcy stay was lifted for the limited purpose of determining
the class certification issue."

"On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language.  The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify.  After
additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor
Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only
claims relating back to June 1, 2006.

"On May 1, 2017, we filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class
Certification Order with the Tenth Circuit, which was granted.
Oral arguments were held on March 20, 2018."

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

The Company also disclosed, "In addition to filing claims on behalf
of the named and putative plaintiffs, on August 15, 2016,
plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of the
putative class claiming damages in excess of US$150.0 million in
our Chapter 11 Cases.  The Company objected to treatment of the
claim on a class basis, asserting the claim should be addressed on
an individual basis.

"On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim
reducing the claim to an amount in excess of US$90.0 million
inclusive of actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and
attorney fees.

"On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company's
objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the
class.  This order did not establish liability or otherwise address
the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, to which we will also
object.

"On June 7, 2017 we appealed the Bankruptcy Court order to the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

"Pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, if the plaintiffs ultimately
prevail on the merits of their claims, any liability arising under
judgment or settlement of the unsecured claims would be satisfied
through the issuance of stock in the Company.  We continue to
dispute the plaintiffs' allegations, dispute the case meets the
requirements for class certification, and are objecting to the
claims both individually and on a class-wide basis."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHARLES R  BLOSENSKI: Fails to Pay Drivers' Overtime, Kramlich Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD KRAMLICH individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHARLES R. BLOSENSKI DISPOSAL COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
5:19-cv-00906-JFL (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant has improperly failed to pay overtime compensation to its
drivers, including the Plaintiff, pursuant to the requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

Charles R. Blosenski Disposal Company, LLC, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with place of business located in
Honey Brook, Pennsylvania.

The Company is a family-owned-and-operated business.  The Company
provides garbage collection for residential and commercial
buildings.  The Company collects household trash, bulk items, and
recyclable materials and takes it all to a federally approved
landfill and recycling center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


CHATTANOOGA, TN: To Settle Police Officers' Suit Over Pay Raises
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosana Hughes, writing for Times Free Press, reports that the
Chattanooga City Council voted unanimously on March 5 to approve a
resolution to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by current and
retired Chattanooga police officers who claimed they didn't receive
promised pay raises.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2016, was the second brought
against the city for the same reason.

In August 2016, a Hamilton County jury awarded more than $560,000
to 25 police officers because the city failed to give those
officers promised raises and failed to maintain fair conditions of
employment.

Both cases stemmed from a yearslong dispute about the police
department's pay policies. A training program let officers advance
through sub-ranks, from cadet to master patrol officer, earning a 6
percent raise for each promotion.

But because there was no career development program for captains,
lieutenants or sergeants, officers began earning equal or higher
salaries than their supervisors.

At the center of the original case was a one-page document that was
sent out to police personnel in 2010.

The document, signed by then-chief Bobby Dodd, laid out a salary
schedule by which sergeants, lieutenants and captains would earn
pay raises based on seniority.

The city contended that the document was only a one-time salary
adjustment. But the officers disagreed, saying the document
promised future raises, and the jury in the original lawsuit agreed
with police.

In the Aug. 25 verdict, the 25 officers were awarded back pay for
the time they worked without receiving the promised raises. Those
original officers each were awarded between $11,000 and $58,000 in
back pay.

The class-action lawsuit settled on March 5 raised the same issues
as the original case, with the exception of an age discrimination
claim. Officers alleged the city practiced age discrimination when
it implemented the officer training program. However, the jury
ruled against the officers on that claim.

An attorney representing the officers previously told the Times
Free Press the case was filed as a class-action suit because it
allows the attorneys to more easily include a large number of
plaintiffs in the case.

In the resolution, the city agreed to settle all back pay and
retirement claims, totaling $454,405, of the listed 31 police
officers, including now-Chief David Roddy.

Of the 31, only six officers will receive a settlement of more than
$25,000. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Perez Moves to Certify Detainee & Arrestee Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ANGEL PEREZ, individually,
JUANITA BERRY and CALVIN COFFEY on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. CITY OF CHICAGO, EDMUND
ZABLOCKI, Star #7505; JOSEPH WAGNER, Star #9812; HERBERT
BENTANCOURT, Star # 16976; MATHEW CLINE, Star #265; JOHN DOLAN,
Star #7722; JORGE L. LOPEZ, Star #20298; SCOTT KRAVITZ, Star #
6554; CARLOS IGLESIAS III, Star #7859, Case No. 1:13-cv-04531 (N.D.
Ill.), moves the Court for an order:

   (1) determining that this action may proceed as a class
       action;

   (2) approving Plaintiffs Berry and Coffee as Class
       Representatives; and

   (3) appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as
       Lead Class Counsel, and the Law Offices of Jason Epstein,
       Law Offices of Scott T. Kamin, and Law Office Of Phillip
       Brigham, LLC as Liason Counsel for the Class.

The two classes are defined as:

   * Class I (Detainee and Arrestee Class):

     All natural persons detained or arrested by a Chicago Police
     Officer where no public record of the detainment or arrest
     was created within a reasonable amount of time from the
     initial detainment (Plaintiffs suggest one hour from the
     initial detainment) and where no court order existed at the
     time of arrest or detainment sealing or otherwise making the
     detainment or arrest confidential, beginning May 7, 2011
     [two years prior to the filing of this Complaint-Filed
     5/7/13] to the present; and

   * Class II (Future Detainees and Arrestees Class):

     All persons who may in the future be subject to the secret
     arrests described in Class One.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Scott T. Kamin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT T. KAMIN
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 430
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322-0077
          E-mail: scotttkamin@aol.com

               - and -

          Jason Epstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JASON EPSTEIN
          190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 869-2603
          E-mail: krime@kriminaldefense.com


CIRCLE K: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Tiffany Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Circle K Stores Inc., a Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
RIC1901407, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division – Riverside) on March
14, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:19-cv-00469 to the proceeding. The suit alleges
employment discrimination.

Circle K Stores Inc. is a Canadian-owned American multinational
chain of convenience stores. Founded in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, the
company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1990 and went through
several owners, before being acquired by its current owner,
Alimentation Couche-Tard, in 2003.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Graham Michael Hoerauf, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizens of Humanity,
LLC. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Citizens of Humanity,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02311 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 14,
2019).

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

Citizens of Humanity, LLC designs, manufactures, and markets
apparel for women and men.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



COMENITY BANK: Gonzalez Suit Moved to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, Lori Ann Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Comenity Bank, the
Defendant, Case No. 19CECG00339, was removed from the Fresno
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Fresno) on March 14, 2019. The Eastern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00342-AWI-EPG. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. The suit
alleges violation of consumer credit laws.

Comenity Bank is a major credit card company that has 91 credit
programs for many top U.S. retail stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Weiss , Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS
          10576 Troon Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Telephone: (310) 558-0404

               - and -

          Tavy A. Dumont , Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAVY A. DUMONT
          101 Cooper Street #223
          Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4526
          Telephone: (831) 288-0714

Attorneys for Comenity Bank:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1010
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com

               - and -

          Robert Travis Campbell, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tcampbell@snllp.com

COMENITY BANK: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lori Ann Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Comenity Bank, the
Defendant, Case No. 19CECG00377, was removed from the Fresno
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Fresno) on March 14, 2019. The Eastern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00348-LJO-BAM. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. The suit
alleges violation of consumer credit laws.

Comenity Bank is a major credit card company that has 91 credit
programs for many top U.S. retail stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Weiss , Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS
          10576 Troon Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Telephone: (310) 558-0404

               - and -

          Tavy A. Dumont , Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAVY A. DUMONT
          101 Cooper Street #223
          Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4526
          Telephone: (831) 288-0714

Attorneys for Comenity Bank:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1010
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com

               - and -

          Robert Travis Campbell, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tcampbell@snllp.com

COMMUNITY PROBATION: McNeil's Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled
KAREN MCNEIL, et al. v. COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00033 (M.D. Tenn.).

In his Order of February 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Chip Frensley
granted the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for moving
to amend or add parties to April 1, 2019, in order to allow them to
substitute a class representative for Sandra Beard, who they
represent is now unavailable for medical reasons.

Given the possibility that the individuals, who seek to proceed as
class representatives may change if the Plaintiffs are permitted to
replace Ms. Beard, the Court concludes the pending Motion for Class
Certification should be denied, without prejudice to refiling after
the identity of class representatives has been finalized.

The Magistrate Judge shall set new deadlines for the filing of a
motion for class certification, as well as the Defendants'
responses, and the Plaintiffs' reply.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and PSI Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification are denied,
as moot.  The Defendants' Motions to hold the class certification
motion in abeyance until the initial case management conference are
also denied, as moot.

Plaintiff Hilfort's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Examination of
Probationers Beyond the Scope of Count 15 of Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint is also moot, as no witnesses were called at the
preliminary injunction hearing, the Court ruled.[CC]


COMPASS LENDING: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------
Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Compass Lending
Corp. D/B/A/ Compass Lending Group, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01736-JJT (D. Ariz., March 14, 2019), alleges that Compass
Lending violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
automated and pre-recorded call to a cellular telephone number of
Mr. Naiman for the purposes of advertising its goods and services
using an automated dialing system.

According to the complaint, month after month, unwanted robocalls
and texts, both telemarketing and informational, top the list of
consumer complaints received by the Federal Communications
Commission. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls,
which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because
telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even
millions of potential customers en masse, the the Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other
persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf
of the Defendant, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW
          3219 E Camelback Rd #588
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

               - and -

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

D.J. BRONSON: Mindy Situ Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
MINDY SITU, an individual, PATRICIA GONZALEZ, an individual, ROSE
LAZO, an individual, ELIZABETH DIZON, an individual, ELAINE DIZON,
an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. D.J. BRONSON, INC, a California
corporation, JUSTIN DING, an individual and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08870 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages timely, provide meal
and rest breaks, reimburse expenses, and pay overtime under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs that the company was
experiencing cash flow problems and that they would be paid later.
The Plaintiffs were terminated and wages owed to her, including
accrued vacation pay, were never paid.

The Defendant is engaged in the textile business.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
          DESJARDINS & PANITZ, LLP
          210 West Birch Street, Suite 202
          Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 265-2100
          Facsimile: (714) 494-8215
          E-mail: md@desiardinslaw.com

D7 ROOFING SERVICES: Del Campo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D7 Roofing Services
Inc. The case is styled as Carols Martin Del Campo, Jaime Arellano,
Plaintiff v. D7 Roofing Services Inc., Alpha Contracting Management
Inc., Does 1-50, General Commercial Contracting Ing., Williamson,
Jeffrey, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00252473-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Mar. 14, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment".

D7 Roofing Services, Inc. operates as a building sub-contractor.
The Company provides roofing, siding, re-roofing, sheet metal,
installation, and repair services. D7 Roofing Services serves
commercial buildings, apartments, medical facilities, and retail
structures in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justian Jusuf, Esq.
   Law Office of Justian Jusuf
   17011 Beach Blvd Ste 900
   Huntington Beach, CA 92647
   Phone: (714) 274-9815
   Fax: (714) 362-3148
   E-mail: jjusuf@jusuf-law.com


DAUBERT LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TIMOTHY ZALENSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DAUBERT LAW FIRM, LLC, PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI,
LLC, AND ASTA FUNDING, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00380-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order on March 14, 2019, certifying a class, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

DBA DISTRIBUTION: Castellon Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, YOSELIN DENISE CASTELLON, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DBA
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a DISTRIBUTION BY AIR, a New Jersey
corporation; RADIANT GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC., a Washington
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 19STCVQ8573 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 13, 2019), is a class
action on behalf of the plaintiff and all current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendants who worked at any of
Defendants' warehouse locations in the State of California at any
time within the period beginning on October 25, 2009, and ending at
the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were partly
written, partly oral, and partly implied. In perpetrating the
alleged acts and omissions, the Defendants acted pursuant to, and
in furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying
Plaintiff and Class Members all wages earned and due, through
methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing
to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods;
failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate
itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly
compensate for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or
suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the
California Labor Code.

DBA Distribution Services, Inc. provides domestic and international
air freight forwarding services.[BN]

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

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Julia Z. Wells, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

DC TRANSPORTATION: March 29 Bykov Suit Deal Prelim Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIY BYKOV, Plaintiff, v. DC TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-1691 DB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California continued the March 15, 2019 hearing
of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement to March 29, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.

Each of the parties in the captioned case has consented to proceed
before a United States Magistrate Judge.  Accordingly, the matter
has been reassigned to the Magistrate for all purposes.  

On Feb. 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.  The motion is noticed for
hearing before the Court on March 15, 2019.  On Feb. 25, 2019, the
Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition.

Magistrate Judge Barnes has some concerns with the Plaintiff's
proposed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Hearing
Date for Court Approval.  

Specifically:

     1. The Notice erroneously lists the case number for this
action as No. 2:18-cv-1691 TLN DB.  That was the case number in
this action before the matter was reassigned to the undersigned for
all purposes.  The correct case number is No. 2:18-cv-1691 DB.

     2. Section VI.C. of the Notice states Objections must be
mailed to [Insert Address] the Settlement Administrator by no later
than [Insert Deadline] for your objection to be considered.  It
seems to the Court that the Notice should direct class members who
wish to object to mail such written objections to the Court. Those
objections will be scanned, docketed, and made available to the
parties and the Court.

     3. The Notice should explain that the Court can only approve
or deny the settlement.  The Court cannot change the terms of the
settlement.

     4. Section VI.C. of the Notice also states that Objections
must be in writing and that objections that are not in writing may
not be considered by the Court.  The Notice should reflect that,
although objections should be submitted in writing, the Court will
hear all objections to the settlement at the Final Approval
hearing, regardless of whether those objections were previously
submitted in writing.

     5. The Notice should advise class members that they can view
the Court's calendar at
http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/daily-calendar/,
to confirm the hearing date for the Final Approval hearing.

     6. Section VI.D. the Notice states that Any attorney who
intends to represent an individual objecting to the Settlement must
file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve counsel for
all parties within 30 days of the mailing of the Notice.  It is
unclear to the Court why there is any need to set a deadline for
the appearance of counsel representing a class member objecting to
the Settlement, let alone a mere 30-day window allowing such an
appearance.

Finally, the Plaintiff has also submitted a proposed Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement which provides
certain dates and deadlines.  One such proposed deadline is that
the Plaintiff may file the motion for final approval of the
settlement "Not less than 10 calendar days before the Final
Approval hearing."  The Court would prefer the standard 28-day
briefing schedule set forth under Local Rule 230.

Accordingly, (i) the March 15, 2019 hearing of the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is
continued to March 29, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.; and (i) on March 22,
2019, the Plaintiff may file a revised proposed Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval, and a
revised proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement addressing the issues noted above and/or a
supplemental brief, no longer than 10 pages, addressing the issues
noted.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FsE9Iy from Leagle.com.

Valeriy Bykov, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC & Jonathan
Melmed, Melmed Law Group P.C.

DC Transportation Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon
Reed McKelvey -- brandon@medinamckelvey.com -- Medina McKelvey LLP
& Timothy B. Nelson, Medina McKelvey LLP.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Ciuffitelli Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deloitte & Touche
LLP. The case is styled as Lawrence P. Ciuffitelli for himself and
as Trustee of Cuiffitelli Revocable Trust, Greg Julien, Angela
Julien, James MacDonald, Susan MacDonald as Co-Trustees of the
MacDonald Family Trust, R.F. MacDonald Co., Andrew Nowak for
himself and as Trustee of the Andrew Nowak Revocable Living Trust
U/A 2/20/2002, William Ramstein individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Greg Warrick, Susan Warrick as
Co-Trustees of the Warrick Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Deloitte &
Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., Integrity Bank & Trust, Duff & Phelps, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-mc-00034 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Deloitte & Touche LLP offers auditing, accounting, financial
advisory, risk management and tax services.

EisnerAmper LLP offers auditing, accounting, and business advisory
services to family offices, not-for-profit organizations, financial
institutions, entrepreneurial ventures, and global public
corporations.

Sidley Austin LLP provides legal advisory services.

Tonkon Torp LLP is an American law firm based in Portland in the
U.S. state of Oregon.

TD Ameritrade is a brokerage firm based in Omaha, Nebraska with
major trading centers in Southlake, Texas and St Louis, Missouri.

Integrity Bank & Trust offers personal and commercial banking
services.

Duff & Phelps, LLC is a boutique investment banking firm that
offers financial advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

DESOCIO & FUCCIO: Violates FDCPA, Midulla Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeSocio & Fuccio,
P.C. The case is styled as Dean Midulla individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DeSocio & Fuccio,
P.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01477 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 14,
2019).

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

DeSocio & Fuccio, P.C. offers representation in estates and estate
planning, real estate, condominium development, litigation,
corporate, matrimonial, family, elder law, negligence, and
collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DETROIT, MI: Sanuk Moves to Certify Four Classes and 1 Sub-Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SANUK INVESTMENT, LLC, SHARON
SCHEUTZE, and EAGER, LLC On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal Corporation,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11799-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to
certify these four Classes and one Sub-class:

   A) All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
      owned any parcel of real property located within the City
      of Detroit who has been denied a certificate of compliance
      for not receiving a "DAH BLIGHT CLEARANCE";

   B) All persons and entities that paid any additional rental
      registration or inspection fees to the City of Detroit at
      any time from 2012 through the date of final judgment under
      the City's unconstitutional certificate of compliance
      scheme that requires property owners to pay for a "DAH
      BLIGHT CLEARANCE" in order to obtain a certificate of
      compliance;

   C) All persons and entities forced to pay the City of Detroit
      to obtain a "DAH BLIGHT CLEARANCE" for judgments that had
      expired due to the statute of limitations; and

   D) All persons and entities who have paid any fine, fee, or
      judgment to the City of Detroit or its Agents in order to
      obtain a "DAH BLIGHT CLEARANCE" in order to receive a
      certificate of compliance under the City's Code; and

  D1) Sub-class:

      All persons and entities that were required to pay the City
      of Detroit or its agents for a "DAH BLIGHT CLEARANCE" for
      tickets or judgments not related to the property for which
      they were seeking a Certificate of Compliance from the City
      of Detroit.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          E-mail: Aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric B. Gaabo, Esq.
          CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT
          2 Woodward Ave., 5th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 237-3052
          E-mail: Gaabe@detroitmi.gov


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Mortimer Files Suit Over Misleading Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Mortimer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin,
Jeffrey Park, Joel Saban, and Atul Kavthekar, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01735 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2019) is a securities class
action brought on behalf of all purchasers of Diplomat publicly
traded securities between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under and pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 26, 2018, the Company announced its fourth quarter and
2017 year-end financial results. In the announcement, Defendant
Park commented that the Company's "strong performance for the
fourth quarter and full year reflects the successful execution of
our strategy, as well as the actions we took to position Diplomat
for long-term growth, including entering the PBM market and
bolstering our bench of talent".

However, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Diplomat was experiencing significant difficulty integrating and
growing its PBM business, which included LDI and NPS, companies
Diplomat acquired in late 2017; (2) Diplomat's PBM business was
significantly impaired, was experiencing material customer losses,
and would need to record a massive non-cash impairment charge
relating to its PBM business and the 2017 acquisitions; and (3) as
a result, the Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times during the
Class Period, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chase Mortimer purchased Diplomat common stock during the
Class Period and has been damaged thereby.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
     Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
     MILLER LAW LLC
     115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 332-3400
     Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
     Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
            lfanning@millerlawllc.com

          - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
     Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Zimmerman Seeks to Certify Shareholders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs David N. Zimmerman, William Kitsonas, and the
Government Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands move
the Court to certify the action entitled DAVID N. ZIMMERMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-14005-AC-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Class consists of:

     All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired shares of Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. ("Diplomat" or
     the "Company") common stock between February 29, 2016 and
     November 3, 2016, inclusive ("Class Period").  Excluded from
     the Class are Defendants, present or former executive
     officers of Diplomat and their immediate family members (as
     defined in 17 C.F.R. Section 229.404, Instructions
     (1)(a)(iii) and 1(b)(ii)).

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Matthew I. Alpert, Esq.
          Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
          Alexi H. Pfeffer-Gillett, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
                  Malpert@rgrdlaw.com
                  HStakem@rgrdlaw.com
                  agillett@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Joshua L. Crowell, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  JCrowell@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com
                  tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com


DNA FOOTWEAR.COM: Traynor Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNA Footwear.com of
Kings, Inc. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DNA
Footwear.com of Kings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02306
(S.D. N.Y., Mar. 14, 2019).

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

DNA Footwear.com of Kings, Inc. is an international brand that
offers retail and American-made footwear for men, women and
kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


DOW JONES: Horton Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Jeremy Horton filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order dated February 27, 2019, and judgment
dated February 28, 2019, entered in the lawsuit styled Horton v.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-4027, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The nature of suit is stated as torts property-fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Horton v. Dow Jones & Company,
Inc., Case No. 19-527, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com

Defendant-Appellee Dow Jones & Company, Inc., DBA The Wall Street
Journal, is represented by:

          Sandra Hauser, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 768-6700
          E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com


DREAM CENTER: Sacked School Staff Asserts WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Clemons, Miniru Cole, Latonya Parker and Scott D. Pongratz,
individually and as class representatives for all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Dream Center Education
Holdings, LLC and Argosy Education Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00151 (W.D. Pa., February 8, 2019), seeks recovery of
compensation and benefit plans, actual payroll checks for payment
of wages/salary, vacation benefits, deferred compensation and
bonuses, including incentive bonuses, severance and retention
bonuses as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Dream Center Education Holdings owned and operated private
institutions of higher education throughout the United States and
is a parent company of Argosy Education Group.

Plaintiffs were terminated by Defendants on or about January 22,
2019, pending the school's closure, and claim that they were not
provided the mandatory 60 days advance written notice of their
termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN). [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
      William A. Harvey, Esq.
      Sally E. Veghte, Esq.
      KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
      1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 569-4282
      Email: cercole@klehr.com


DRIVE SHACK: Class Suit over Wage-and-Hour Law Breaches Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Shack Inc. is facing a class action complaint related to
alleged violation of state wage and hour laws, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company said, "In 2019, a former employee filed a class action
complaint against the Company alleging that our Traditional Golf
properties in the State of New York did not comply with state wage
and hour laws.  The Company has not accrued additional losses in
connection with this legal dispute because management does not
believe there is a probable and reasonably estimable loss at this
time.  However, the ultimate outcome of the proceedings may have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position or
results of operations."

Drive Shack Inc. owns and operates golf-related leisure and
entertainment businesses.  The Company was formerly known as
Newcastle Investment Corp. and changed its name to Drive Shack Inc.
in December 2016.  Drive Shack Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in New York, New York.


DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Cusack-Acocella Moves to Certify Members Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KIMBERLY CUSACK-ACOCELLA, an
individual, SCOTT LANGER, an individual, MICHAEL HENRY, an
individual, JANICE SMOTHERS, an individual, and GRACE OUDIN, an
individual, KASSI NYE, an individual, and LISE STEPHENS, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER, INC., a
California corporation doing business as SOVEREIGN HEALTH, TONMOY
SHARMA, an individual, KEVIN GALLAGHER, an individual, DAVID
TESSERS, an individual, and ALLIED BENEFIT SYSTEMS, INC., an
Illinois corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-01009-AG-KES (C.D. Cal.),
moves for certification of class composed of:

     all participants in the 2017 Sovereign Health Employee
     Benefits Plan, except the individual defendants.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Sovereign and former
participants in the Plan.  Sovereign was required to fund the Plan
through a combination of Sovereign and employee contributions (made
through biweekly payroll deductions).  The Plaintiffs allege that
Sovereign made the payroll deductions from them, but kept the money
for itself and also failed to make the required employer
contributions to the Plan.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 8, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Friedenberg, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Eldredge, Esq.
          Adam M. Rapp, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210-2800
          Facsimile: (925) 945-1975
          E-mail: afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com
                  jeldredge@glynnfinley.com
                  arapp@glynnfinley.com

               - and -

          William B. Reilly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM REILLY
          86 Molino Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941-2621
          Telephone: (415) 225-6215
          Facsimile: (415) 225-6215
          E-mail: bill@williambreilly.com


DYNASTY TAXI: Harrison Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Sean Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Dynasty Taxi Service, LLC, Hog Taxi, LLC, Melissa
Reynolds and Timothy Reynolds, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05025,
(E.D. Ark., February 7, 2019) seeks monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendants operate a taxi service where Harrison worked as a taxi
driver. He claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours
per week throughout his tenure without the appropriate overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAGLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Nix Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nix and Sarah Nix, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eagle Environmental Solutions
Corporation, Chamba Services, LLC, and Roy White, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00738 (D. Colo., March 12, 2019) is an action against
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
by forcing Plaintiffs, and similarly situated workers to work a
substantial amount of overtime without properly and timely paying
all compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation
for their work that the Defendants are legally obligated to pay.

Plaintiffs were denied the timely overtime compensation they are
due under the FLSA. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current or former
environmental cleaners to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed
to them individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as environmental cleaners and were
damaged by Defendants' illegal policies or practices.

Eagle Environmental Solutions Corporation is an industrial
environmental cleaning company doing business in Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: 713-425-7100
     Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com


EG DIXIE NARANJA: Fonseca Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Fonseca, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. E.G.
Dixie Naranja, Corp., Gustavo Olmeta and Edu Olmeta, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-20505, (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2019),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests,
costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a gas station and convenience store where
Fonseca was employed as a store clerk. She worked approximately 55
hours per week without overtime wages, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

            - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Must Give Definitive Statement of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber denies with leave to re-file the
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit titled ANGELICA
MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
ELECTRIC BEACH TANNING SALON LTD.; V F V INC.; ULTRAMAX INDUSTRIES,
INC.; and MICHAEL A. VOJACK, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-07475
(N.D. Ill.).

The Court directs Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to provide a
more definite statement of her claims.

The Court declines to consider Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at the
present moment, and instead orders Plaintiff to amend her Complaint
to provide a more definite statement of her claims.  The
Plaintiff's Complaint suffers from several drafting issues that
render it imprecise and difficult to follow, Judge Leinenweber
says.  As it currently stands, the Complaint lacks specificity
regarding which claims are brought against which the Defendants,
Judge Leinenweber adds.

Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiff to amend her Complaint
to provide a more definite statement of her claims against the
Defendants.  At a minimum, the Plaintiff's amended complaint should
include a simple, concise statement of each claim, and clearly name
the Defendant(s) against which each claim is brought, Judge
Leinenweber rules.[CC]


ELITE FOLIAGE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Moreau Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Dean Crespo Moreau and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Elite Foliage, Inc. d/b/a Alton Road Nurseries and
Garden Center, Gustavo Gutierrez, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20956-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2019) is an action arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, asserts the complaint. It is believed that the Defendants have
employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff
(i.e. other interior design plant installers) who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years,
adds the complaint.

Plaintiff was a resident of Dade County, Florida and was employed
by the Defendants as an interior design plant installer.

Elite Foliage, Inc. d/b/a Alton Road Nurseries and Garden Center,
is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENOVA FINANCIAL: Diaz Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
--------------------------------------------------
Sandra Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Enova Financial Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2019CH01642 (Ill. Cir., February 7, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory
damages together with costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Diaz worked for Enova from 2007 to November 2018. She was required
to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned
fingerprints. She alleges that Enova improperly disclosed
employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUINOR ASA: Suit, Injunction Bid on Petrobras' Sale Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equinor ASA disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that requests for an annulment of Petrobras'
sale of the interest in BM-S-8 to Equinor are progressing through
the court system.

In March 2017, the Union of Workers of Oil Tankers of Sergipe
(Sindipetro) filed a class action suit against Petrobras, Equinor,
and ANP -- the Brazilian Regulatory Agency -- to seek annulment of
Petrobras' sale of the interest and operatorship in BM-S-8 to
Equinor, which was closed in November 2016 after approval by the
partners and authorities.  There was also an injunction request to
suspend the assignment which was granted in April 2017 by a federal
judge and was subsequently lifted by the Federal Regional Court.

The cases are progressing through the court system.

At the end of 2018, the acquired interest remains in Equinor's
balance sheet as intangible assets of the Exploration & Production
International (E&P International) segment.

Equinor ASA, an energy company, explores for, produces, transports,
refines, and markets petroleum and petroleum-derived products, and
other forms of energy in Norway and internationally.  The Company
operates through Development & Production Norway; Development &
Production Brazil; Development & Production International;
Marketing, Midstream & Processing; New Energy Solutions;
Technology, Projects & Drilling; Exploration; and Global Strategy &
Business Development segments.  The Company was formerly known as
Statoil ASA and changed its name to Equinor ASA in May 2018.
Equinor ASA was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Stavanger,
Norway.


FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Canfield's TPMS Valve Stems Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY CANFIELD, ANDREW CATTANO, JAMES LETT, DENNIS
PECK, STEVEN SPRATLEY, SUSAN STEBBINS, and YVETTE TAYLOR, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. FCA
US LLC, Defendants, C.A. No 17-1789 (MN) (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen
Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the putative class action First Amended Complaint.

On Oct. 12, 2017, the named Plaintiffs filed a class action
complaint against FCA in the Superior Court of Delaware.  On Dec.
12, 2017, FCA removed the case to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d)(2), 1441, and 1446, and subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on Jan. 18,
2018.  On Feb. 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended
Complaint.

The Amended Complaint alleges that 2010 Jeep Liberty, Chrysler Town
& Country, and Dodge Journey vehicles, manufactured by FCA3 after
June 10, 2009, are equipped with a defective component -- a
copper-bearing aluminum 2000 series metal alloy valve stem and nut
on vehicles equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system
("TPMS").  The Plaintiffs allege that this defective component is
subject to corrosion and valve stem failure when exposed to
corrosive elements like road salt.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint
asserts that when the valve stem fails, air can be rapidly released
from the tire without warning and at any speed, a condition akin to
a tire blow out.  The Plaintiffs allege that FCA actively concealed
and/or failed to notify the public of the existence and nature of
said defect or of the possible safety issues presented by the
defect.

On Feb. 15, 2018, FCA filed its current motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiffs opposed the motion and Magistrate
Judge Fallon heard oral argument on May 8, 2018.  Magistrate Judge
Fallon produced the Report and Recommendation on Jan. 8, 2019.

On Jan. 22, 2019, FCA filed objections to certain portions of the
Report.  The Report recommended granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action
First Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs timely submitted a
response to the Defendant's objections.  The Plaintiffs have not
objected to any of the recommendations in the Report.

The Report recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied as to
Count I because the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim for
the violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") under
the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b).  Judge Noreika finds that
the Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient factual support to show
out-of-pocket losses related to the alleged concealment of
deficiencies in the valve stems and have adequately pleaded a
plausible claim of a violation of the NJCFA by the Defendant.

The Report recommends that the Court denies the motion to dismiss
as it pertains to Plaintiff Canfield's Michigan law claims under
Counts IV and V, finding that the Plaintiffs have adequately stated
a claim under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA").  The
Judge finds that the Amended Complaint alleges that consumers could
not.  It would be improper, however, for the Court to consider the
question at this stage.  She need only determine whether the
Amended Complaint complies with pleading requirements.  Regardless
of whether the Court applies the Rule 8 or heightened Rule 9(b)
pleading standard, Plaintiff Canfield has set forth sufficient
factual support to plead a plausible MCPA claim against the
Defendant.

The Report recommends that the Court denies the motion to dismiss
as it relates to the implied warranty claims brought under Michigan
law by Canfield and Peck (Count VI) and under Massachusetts law by
Taylor (Count IX), finding that the claims were not barred by the
statute of limitations and sufficiently alleged a breach of
warranty.  

Having alleged affirmative actions that, taken as true, indicate
that the Defendant made efforts to actively conceal the failings of
the TPMS valve stems, the Judge finds, at the motion to dismiss
stage, that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient factual support
to plausibly plead fraudulent concealment, which would toll the
four-year statutes of limitations in Michigan and Massachusetts and
allow Counts VI and IX to proceed.

She also finds that regardless of the age of the cars, the
Plaintiffs allege that the defective TPMS valve stems could lead to
a tire air-out at any time, which would lead to a hazardous
situation for the driver.  This allegation, she says, supported by
facts in the Amended Complaint indicating that such air-outs did in
fact occur, are sufficient, at the motion to dismiss stage, to
plead that the vehicles were not merchantable due to the defective
TPMS valve stems.

The allegations in the Amended Complaint go beyond the simple
contention that the Defendant's knew of the problems with the TPMS
valve stem, and state that the Plaintiffs took affirmative steps
that would have informed Defendant of the issue.  At this stage,
the Judge makes no determination about whether the notice is
"reasonable," but, instead, finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded that the Defendant received pre-suit notice.

The Defendant states that it does not object to the Report's
recommendation that Count X (express warranty) be dismissed.
Absent objection, and finding no clear error in the Report's
analysis, the Judge adopts the Report, which recommends dismissed
Count X as time-barred.

The Report recommended that the Court grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss Counts II and III in their entirety and Counts IV and V
with respect to Plaintiff Peck, as time-barred.   It also
recommended denying Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to
Counts VII and VIII because the Plaintiffs have adequately stated a
claim under the Massachusetts CPA, and denying FCA US' motion to
dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief.  Neither party has objected to the Report's recommendations
regarding these counts or the request for injunctive relief.
Finding no clear error in the Report's analysis, the Judge adopts
the Report as to Counts II, III, IV (with respect to Plaintiff
Peck), V (with respect to Plaintiff Peck), VII, and VIII as well as
injunctive relief.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Noreika overruled the Defendant's
objections, adopted the Report, and granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  An appropriate order will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rNxDze from Leagle.com.

Timothy Canfield, Andrew Cattano, Dennis Peck, Steven Spratley,
Susan Stebbins, Yvette Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & James Lett, Plaintiffs, represented by
Peter Bradford DeLeeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal,
Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Jason S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com
-- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Goddess --
jgoddess@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.,
Jennifer S. Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson
& Mason LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas A. Migliaccio --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro hac
vice.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Ethan D.
Hatch, pro hac vice, Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac
vice, Kenneth Laurence Dorsney, Morris James LLP & Stephen A.
D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro
hac vice.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yelverton Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael Yelverton, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees,
Plaintiffs, v. Federal Express Corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02428 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 13, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01827.

Plaintiff Michael Yelverton filed this class action complaint in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on January 28,
2019. Yelverton brought the Complaint on behalf of a putative class
of operations managers FedEx classified as exempt employees in
California. Between January 2015 and the present, FedEx employed
595 operations managers in California. Thus, the number of
potential class members is 595, says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jane M. Flynn, Esq.
     FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
     2601 Main Street, Suite 340
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: (949) 862-4643
     Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
     Email: jane.flynn@fedex.com


FIDELITY: Faces State Probe Over Fund Fees Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Piper, writing for Citywire, reports that the firm has been
sent an inquiry from the Massachusetts Secretary of the
Commonwealth requesting more information on certain fees.

Fidelity is under more scrutiny over the fees it charges mutual
fund providers for access to its 401(k) plans.

The Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth sent an inquiry to
Fidelity requesting more information about so-called infrastructure
or supermarket fees, which the firm charges asset management
companies with funds on its FundsNetwork platform, to cover the
cost of maintenance.

The Secretary of the Commonwealth's office has requested the
information by the close of business on March 14.

"The securities division sent preliminary inquiry letters to
Fidelity and to certain funds on the Fidelity FundsNetwork platform
on February 27th," said a spokeswoman for the department, who added
the letter sent to Fidelity would not be made public at this time.

Boston-based Fidelity has been asked to identify the Massachusetts
pension and retirement plans that it serves as a fiduciary for and
which Fidelity units receive the fees.

The secretary has also asked the firm to detail the fees paid by
funds, describe the so-called infrastructure fee and report whether
these fees are disclosed to investors and, if so, how.

The inquiry, first reported by Bloomberg, is the latest development
in a growing controversy around these fees.

In late February, Citywire broke the news that a class-action
lawsuit, filed in the US District Court in Massachusetts by
plaintiff Andrew W. Wong on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc. 401(K)
Retirement Savings Plan and Trust, alleged the firm breached
fiduciary duty by not disclosing certain of these fees.

Several days later, the Wall Street Journal reported that Fidelity
was under scrutiny from the US Department of Labor regarding these
fees.

According to the class-action lawsuit, and an internal Fidelity
memo seen by the Wall Street Journal, these fees are charged at
Fidelity's discretion in the event that other revenue sharing fees,
such as 12b-1 fees, commissions, or sub-transfer agent fees, fall
below a certain level.

The WSJ cited an internal Fidelity document from 2017 that said
fund companies that did not pay the fees would 'be subject to a
very limited relationship' with the firm.

That document also said Fidelity's traditional business model was
broken and that these fees would help fix this, according to the
WSJ, a reference to the emergence of lower-fee share classes and
the decline of 12b-1s.

While the existence of these fees is disclosed by Fidelity, the
level they are set at is not. The class-action lawsuit alleged that
the size of these fees was not proportionate to the costs involved
of maintaining the platform.

According to the internal document seen by WSJ, the fee is
calculated as 0.15% of mutual fund firms' industry-wide assets, not
just those custodied with Fidelity.

The paper said that Fidelity may have avoided disclosing the fee by
labeling it as an infrastructure payment and not explaining how
much they were.

The class-action lawsuit alleged the firm breached its fiduciary
duty by not disclosing details of the fee. That lawsuit also
alleged that these fees were ultimately borne by investors as fund
groups passed them on via management and operating charges.

A spokesman for Fidelity said while the firm responds to all
inquiries from regulators, the firm does not comment on these
matters.

Regarding the initial class-action lawsuit, he told Citywire:
"Fidelity fully complies with all disclosure requirements in
connection with the fees that it charges." [GN]


FIVE POINT: Still Defends Class Suit by Bayview Hunters Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC continues to defend itself against a
putative class action suit filed by the residents of the Bayview
Hunters Point neighborhood, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood
filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court
naming Tetra Tech, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the
U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological
waste at The San Francisco Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar and the
Company as defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that, among other
things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and
remediation efforts.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages against
Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent Lennar and
the Company from undertaking any development activities at The San
Francisco Shipyard.

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. It sells residential
and commercial land sites to homebuilders, commercial developers,
and commercial buyers. The company was formerly known as Newhall
Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings,
LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and
is based in Aliso Viejo, California.


FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Fine Cars,
Inc. The case is styled as Mary Anne Emeric, Natalia Marie Rivera,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., a Florida profit corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20987 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 13, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Florida Fine Cars, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company provides a
wide variety of new and used cars, trucks, vans, and suvs. Florida
Fine Cars also offers parts, maintenance, and in house financing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lance August Harke, Esq.
     Harke Law LLP
     9699 NE Second Avenue
     Miami Shores, FL 33138
     Phone: (305) 536-8222
     Fax: (305) 536-8229
     Email: lharke@harkelaw.com


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Briggs Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BRIGGS et al., Plaintiffs, v. FREEPORT-McMORAN
COPPER & GOLD, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-13-1157-G
(W.D. Okla.), Judge Charles B. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of property owners to
recover for damages allegedly sustained as a result of pollutants
emitted by the Blackwell Zinc Smelter in Blackwell, Oklahoma.  he
parties agree that the claims at issue are identical to those
asserted in an earlier class action filed in the District Court of
Kay County, Oklahoma.

The earlier lawsuit -- styled Bob Coffey, et al. v.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., et al., No. CJ-2008-68 -- was
resolved by settlement of the parties, which was converted to
judgment on March 26, 2012.  The parties agree that the Coffey
Judgment operates to bar the claims asserted in the instant lawsuit
with respect to any owners of real property in the Class Area who
were not excluded from the Coffey settlement class.  The parties
disagree, however, as to whether certain Plaintiffs -- namely,
Bradley Snow, Keyra Soto, and Sergio and Teresa Arteaga -- are
subject to that bar.

As for Mr. Snow and Ms. Soto, a class action judgment may preclude
a nonparty's subsequent civil claim when there is a substantive
legal relationship between a party and the nonparty, such as
preceding and succeeding owners of property.  Because Mr. Snow and
Ms. Soto each succeeded to property that was owned by a member of
the Coffey settlement class who was bound by the Coffey Judgment,
they are bound by the Coffey Judgment.  As for the Arteagas, they
are bound by the Coffey Judgment because the state court in Coffey
determined that they were members of the Coffey settlement class.
The Court has no authority to disturb that adjudication.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.  The Plaintiffs have responded in opposition, and the
Defendants have replied.

Judge Goodwin concludes that Mr. Snow and Ms. Soto acquired their
properties from individuals who undisputedly had notice of the
Coffey Litigation and declined to opt out.  By declining to opt
out, these individuals became members of the Coffey Settlement
Class and, as a result, were (and are) bound by the Coffey
Judgment.  As succeeding owners, Mr. Snow and Ms. Soto are likewise
bound.

Sergio and Teresa Arteaga -- though once treated as opt-outs --
were adjudicated by the state court to be members of the Coffey
Settlement Class when that the Court granted the Settlement
Administrator's motion to remove the Arteagas from the Final
Opt-Out List.  As such, they are bound by the Coffey Judgment as
well.

The parties agree that the Coffey Judgment otherwise satisfies the
elements of res judicata.  Accordingly, the Judge finds there is no
dispute as to any material fact, and the Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.  He granted the Defendants' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0uW4z4 from Leagle.com.

Helen Briggs, individually, Helen Briggs, as representative for
those similarly situated, Sergio Arteaga, individually, Teresa
Arteaga, individually, Michael Assidio, individually, Barbara
Baumann, individually, Jimmy Beard, individually, Mindy Beard,
individually, Bethesda of Blackwell, Donald Bevington,
individually, Majorie Bevington, individually, Daniel Bowling,
individually, Edna Bowling, individually, Dan Briggs, individually,
Jim Briggs, individually, Rosalie Briggs, individually, Sylvia
Bryant, individually, Teresa Caldwell, individually, Ruby Cassady,
individually, Cecil Day, individually, Beverly Day, individually,
Cary Denton, individually, Michael Denton, individually, James C
Dunn Revocable Living Trust, Lester Ebert, Jr, individually, Vicki
Ebert, individually, Ralph Epperly, Sr, individually, Ralph
Epperly, Jr, individually, Richard Gates, individually, Christopher
Glass, individually, Jamie Glass, individually, Jacob Glass,
individually, Kenneth Glass, individually, Michelle Glass,
individually, Pamela Goochey, individually, Cecil Greenfield,
individually, Elsa Greenfield, individually, Edward Gregory,
individually, Phyllis Gregory, individually, Ronald Hall,
individually, Annona Hall, individually, Alfredo C Handy & Hazel J
Handy Revocable Living Trust, Gary Haskins, individually, Ella
Haskins, individually, Linda Heilig, individually, Barbara Herr,
individually, Deborah Hetrick, individually, Meilissa Jenkins,
individually, Kimberly Jernigan, individually, Terry Littlefield,
individually, Sherri Littlefield, individually, James Lively,
individually, Glennis Lively, individually, Rhonda Loveall,
individually, Dorwin Lumly, individually, Theresa Marshall,
individually, Peggy Massey, individually, Douglas McCleary,
individually, Twila McCleary, individually, Susan McEarchern,
individually, Laquita Miller, individually, Monte McCleary, Joyce
Moore, individually, Randy Newman, individually, John McCleary,
Catherine North, individually, Johnnie Paige, individually, Cheryl
Paige, individually, Bo Pannell, individually, Christian Pannell,
individually, Jackie Pannell, individually, Joby Parr,
individually, Linda Parr, individually, Derick Payne, individually,
Karen Roberts, individually, Alexander Robles, individually, Diania
Robles, individually, Pershawnia Scrimsher-Atchley, individually,
Lawrence Self, individually, Julia Self, individually, Delbert
Shirley, individually, Darl Shope, individually, Jewel Shope,
individually, Sam Shorey, individually, Dolores Shorey,
individually, James Smith, individually, Lexia Smith, individually,
Keith Snow, individually, Marie Snow, individually, Russell
Sodowsky, individually, Denise Sodowsky, individually, Keyra Soto,
individually, Donald Spence, individually, Kathleen Spence,
individually, Ronald Spracklin, individually, Sherry Spracklin,
individually, Becky Stevens, individually, Cecil Stuever,
individually, Patricia Stuever, individually, Melvin Tannehill,
individually, Wallace Tattershall, individually, Vicky Thele,
individually, Dawn Thele, individually, Warren Ward, individually,
Jerry Webber, individually, Jennifer Weeden, individually, Rachel
Weeden-Kirk, individually, Rebekah Weeden-Wimer, individually,
Virginia Welch, individually, John West, individually, Diane West,
individually, Darlene Wieland, individually, Kathy Williamson,
individually, Marion Williamson, individually, James Wilson,
individually, Carolyn Wilson, individually, Peggy Wood,
individually, Barbara Jean Wynn, individually, Darin Wynn,
individually, Cindy Wynn, individually, Elmer Wynn, individually,
Thurra Wynn, individually, Jack Wynn, individually, Melinda Wynn,
individually, Mike Wynn, individually, Pamela McCleary, Shane
Douglas McCleary, Debra Payne, Mark Payne, David Cornwell, Patricia
Cornwell, Mitchell Newton, Reba Newton & Bradley Snow, Plaintiffs,
represented by Krystina E. Phillips, Aamodt Law Firm, Dallas L.
Dale Strimple, Indian and Environmental Law Group PLLC, Deanna L.
Hartley -- dhartley@ecok.edu -- Environmental Law Center, Jason B.
Aamodt, Aamodt Law Firm, Ryan J. Gray, LandownerFirm PLLC & Trae
Gray, LandownerFirm PLLC.

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc, Freeport-McMoran Corporation,
formerly known as Phelps Dodge Corporation, Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company & Blackwell Zinc Company Inc, Defendants, represented by
Kevin A. Gaynor -- kgaynor@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins, Lewis C.
Sutherland -- lsutherland@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins, Morgan L.
Copeland, Jr. -- MCOPELAND@COPELANDRICE.COM -- Copeland & Rice LLP,
pro hac vice, Reid E. Robison -- reid.robison@mcafeetaft.com --
McAfee & Taft, Robert M. Schick, Schick & Copeland LLP, pro hac
vice, Timothy J. Bomhoff -- tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee &
Taft & Tracey K. Rice -- TRICE@COPELANDRICE.COM -- Schick &
Copeland LLP, pro hac vice.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Stockholders' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case,
In re FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS, CORP. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:17-cv-1617 (VAB) (D. Conn.).

The lawsuit focuses on Frontier's planned acquisition of Verizon's
California, Texas, and Florida wireline operations ("CTF
Acquisition") and related efforts to raise capital in 2015-16.  The
Plaintiffs have sued three groups of the Defendants: (1) the
Frontier Defendants, (2) Additional Securities Act Defendants, and
(3) the Underwriter Defendants.

On April 30, 2018, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ("ATRS") and
Carlos Lagomarsino, filed an amended class action Complaint on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of Frontier between Feb. 6, 2015 and
Feb. 28, 2018, inclusive; and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise
acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred
Stock either in or traceable to the Company's offerings of common
and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8,
2015.

The Lead Plaintiffs are suing numerous Defendants for violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933;
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and Rule 10b-5 of The Securities and Exchange Commission.

They assert five claims for relief: (1) violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act, against the Frontier Defendants; (2)
violations of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against the
Individual Frontier Defendants; (3) violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act, against Frontier, the Securities Act Individual
Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants; (4) violations of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, against Frontier and the
Underwriter Defendants; and (5) violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act, against the Securities Act Individual Defendants.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the
Plaintiffs have failed to: (1) state a claim upon which relief can
be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2)
satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b), and 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o,
78t(a), 78u-4(b)(1)(A-B), 78u-4(b)(2)(A), 78u-4(b) (4); or (3) file
the lawsuit within the statute of limitations period imposed by 15
U.S.C. Section 77m and 28 U.S.C. Section 1658(b)(1).

In support of their motion, the Defendants provided six different
types of information: (1) information on Frontier's routinely
disappointing financial performance; (2) publicity regarding
problems with the West Virginia and Connecticut acquisitions; (3)
warnings that cost estimates were forward-looking projections; (4)
KPMG confirmation of Frontier's financials; (5) publicity regarding
cost overruns and technical problems with the CTF acquisition; and
(6) additional material in support of dismissal.

On Feb. 7, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the pending motion to
dismiss.

As to alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5, Judge Bolden dismisses the Plaintiffs' first claim
for relief in its entirety.  Among other things, he finds that (i)
given th public information and the Frontier Defendants' various
warnings, the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to allege plausibly that
reasonable investors attuned to the total mix of information would
have been duped or defrauded by Frontier Defendants' optimism or
puffery; (ii) the cost estimate is entitled to safe harbor; and
(iii)  the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled scienter.

As to alleged violations of Section 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for Section 11 or 12(a) liability for Offerings that
were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of
material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and concealed and failed adequately
to disclose material facts as described.  He further notes that,
since the CTF offerings were made in 2015, the Plaintiffs may not
meet the one-year statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. Section
77m.  He therefore dismisses the Plaintiffs' third and fourth
claims for relief in their entirety.

With respect to the alleged violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act, the Judge agrees with the Defendants' argument that
the Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim must be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a primary violation of a securities
law, and therefore any claim under Section 15 against control
persons must fail.  Because he has dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
for primary violations of a securities law, their derivative
Section 15 claim must also be dismissed.  The Judge therefore
dismisses the Plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend the Amended Class Complaint
to address the deficiencies identified in the ruling.  The Judge,
however, will grant leave to amend only if the Plaintiffs
demonstrate that their claims are not futile.  As a result, and
consistent with the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket
with a "view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of
cases," the Judge will deny a motion to amend if it does not cure
the deficiencies discussed.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Bolden granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act
claims and the Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims.  Should the
Plaintiffs choose to file an Amended Complaint to remedy any of the
deficiencies addressed in his Ruling and Order, the Plaintiffs must
seek leave to amend the Amended Complaint, along with a proposed
amended pleading, by May 10, 2019.  Otherwise, he will instruct the
Clerk of Court to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/trENDk from Leagle.com.

Chris Bray, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Gene R. Wills, Plaintiff, pro se.

Larisa Rosenberg, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman ,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Shannon L. Hopkins , Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP.

Lisa R. Morrow, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Larraine D. Segil, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Archis A.
Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Matthew D. Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro
hac vice, Niketa Patel -- npatel@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
pro hac vice & Susan S. Murphy -- smurphy2@goodwin.com -- Shipman &
Goodwin LLP.

St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, On
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated., Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Mathew P. Jasinski, Motley Rice LLC &
William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC.

Frontier Communications Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Matthew D. Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice, Niketa Patel -- npatel@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, pro hac vice & Susan S. Murphy -- smurphy2@goodwin.com
-- Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

Daniel J. McCarthy, Ralph Perley McBride, John M. Jureller, Donald
W. Daniels & Edward Fraioli, Defendants, represented by Archis A.
Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew D. Ingber,
Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Niketa Patel, Mayer Brown LLP, pro
hac vice, Ross H. Garber, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Susan S. Murphy,
Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

Barclays Capital Inc, Citigroup Global Markets Inc, Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner &
Smith, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC &
UBS Securities LLC, Consol Defendants, represented by Charles S.
Duggan, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP & Craig Cagney, Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP.

Leroy T. Barnes, Jr., Peter C.B. Bynoe, Diana S. Ferguson, John
Gianukakis, Pamela D.A. Reeve, Virginia P. Ruesterholz, Howard L.
Schrott, Mark Shapiro, Myron A. Wick, III, Mary Agnes Wilderotter,
Donald Daniels & Daniel McCarthy, Consol Defendants, represented by
Archis A. Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew D.
Ingber, Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Niketa Patel, Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice, Ross H. Garber, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Susan S.
Murphy, Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

John Dubois, Movant, represented by Brittany S. Cates & Joel Thomas
Faxon.

Richard Linke, Movant, represented by Nicole Anne Veno, Law Office
of Nicole A. Veno, LLC.

Raymond East, Jr., Movant, represented by Laurie Rubinow, Sheperd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP.

Michael Holub, Movant, represented by Neal Lewis Moskow, Ury &
Moskow.

Stephen Doo & Scott Bugbee, Movants, represented by Shannon L.
Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Mary Jane M. Demet, Francis L. Ingram, Russell Smith & Anthony
Lattarulo, Movants, represented by Joseph Bree Burns, Rome
McGuigan, P.C. & Nathan C. Favreau, Rome McGuigan, P.C.

ATM Four, LLC, Movant, represented by Brian P. Murray, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Sam Raff, Orah Raff, Danny Raff & Edward Hopkins, Movants,
represented by Gregory Michael Egleston, Egleston Law Firm.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System & Carlos Lagomarsino, Movants,
represented by Adam Hollander, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, LLP, Jesse Jensen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Kate W. Aufses, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP,
Katherine Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Mathew P. Jasinski, Motley Rice LLC & William H. Narwold, Motley
Rice LLC.


FRONTLINE ASSET:  Violates FDCPA, Scavone Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Louis J. Scavone
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01514 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies is a collection agency based out of
Minnesota. They deal in the collection of debt for various
industries including: auto, banking, education, mortgage, utilities
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GASBI LLC: Ind. App. Affirms Dismissal of T. Sanders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. Mark Bailey of the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed
the trial court's order denying Michiana's motion to dismiss the
case, Gasbi, LLC d/b/a Michiana Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat,
Appellant-Defendant, v. Tatiyana Sanders, et al.,
Appellees-Plaintiffs, Case No. 18A-PL-1865 (Ind. App.).

In the interlocutory appeal, Michiana challenges an order denying
Michiana's motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging
deceptive acts, brought by Sanders, Shalonda Vida, and Robert
Sheppard, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
Michiana presents the restated and consolidated issue of whether
Michiana was entitled to dismissal pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule
12(B)(6) because Consumers failed to state a claim that Michiana
committed a deceptive act within the meaning of the Indiana
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Code Section 24-5-0.5-1 et
seq.

On July 14, 2017, Consumers filed their First Amended Class Action
Complaint, seeking relief under the Act and alleging the following.
On April 25, 2016, Vida purchased a vehicle from Michiana, a
for-profit Indiana corporation located in Mishawaka.  On Aug. 12,
2016, Sheppard purchased a vehicle from Michiana.  On Jan. 28,
2017, Sanders purchased a vehicle from Michiana.  In each instance,
the consumer was charged a document preparation fee that had not
been "affirmatively disclosed" and "was not negotiated."  The
amount of the Doc Fee exceeded actual expenses incurred for
preparation of the documents.  The Complaint further alleged that
all persons purchasing a vehicle from Michiana in the prior two
years had been charged a Doc Fee.

The Complaint alleged that Michiana's charging of Doc Fees was an
unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or practice in
connection with a consumer transaction.  Although Consumers alleged
a violation of the Consumer Act, the Complaint described the
alleged unfair practice by quoting a statutory provision from the
Indiana Motor Vehicle Dealer Services Act, Indiana Code Section
9-32-13-7.

On Sept. 7, 2017, Michiana filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint,
asserting that Consumers had no private right of action under
Indiana Code Section 9-32-13-7, and had failed to state a claim for
relief pursuant to the Consumer Act, with its 37 enumerated
categories of deceptive acts.  The trial court conducted a hearing
on Oct. 31, 2017, at which argument of the counsel was heard.
Consumers conceded that they had no private cause of action under
Indiana Code Section 9-32-13-7 but argued that the reference to
that statute was merely descriptive of an unfair consumer practice
prohibited by the Consumer Act.  The trial court concluded that a
"catch-all" provision embodied in I.C. 24-5-0.5-3(a) permitted the
claim of non-disclosure, denied Michiana's motion to dismiss and
certified the order for interlocutory appeal.  Appealed Order at 3.
The Court accepted jurisdiction.

Judge Bailey finds that the general allegations of uncured and
incurable acts adequate to withstand dismissal.  The question
before the trial court was whether the complaint stated a claim as
opposed to whether the Plaintiffs would likely prevail on the
merits.  At the pleading stage, a party may assert alternative and
even inconsistent theories of recovery; it is sufficient to plead
the operative facts of the case so that the Defendant is put on
notice of the expected trial evidence.  The Complaint survives this
level of scrutiny.

He concludes that Consumers did not fail to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.  Hence, the trial court properly
denied Michiana's motion to dismiss the Complaint.  Accordingly,
Judge Bailey affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7xKWBz from Leagle.com.

James P. Buchholz, Dana K. Carlson, TOURKOW, CRELL, ROSENBLATT &
JOHNSTON, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.

Robert E. Duff -- robert@robertdufflaw.com -- INDIANA CONSUMER LAW
GROUP, THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF, Fishers, Indiana, Ryan R.
Frasher -- RFRASHER@FRASHERLAW.COM -- THE FRASHER LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Greenwood, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees.


GC SERVICES: Avina's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Fidela Avina, the Plaintiff, vs. GC
Services Limited Partnership, Defendant,  Case No. 1:17-cv-06474
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order on March 14,
2019, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendant's
motion for summary judgment, and Defendant's motion to strike.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 14, 2019,
in light of the notice of settlement, Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendant's
motion for summary judgment, and Defendant's motion to strike are
denied without prejudice to renewal if the settlement is not
consummated.[CC]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company is seeking dismissal of the Bezio  class
action lawsuit, the company 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.

In June 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York
state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k)
plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a
class action on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between
February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and
performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration
statement and documents incorporated therein by reference.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative
complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and
Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP.

In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation,
Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company 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
motion to dismiss the Hachem case is still pending.

Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions
under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and
certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the Hachem case).

In October 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a fourth amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for
long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of
shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and
January 23, 2018.

GE has filed a motion to dismiss, and briefing on that motion
concluded in October 2018.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation,
Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Houston Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company 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 is in
the process of negotiating an agreement to stay the Houston case
pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was
filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE
subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and
employees.

It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior
notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those
notes.

General Electric said, "We are in the process of negotiating an
agreement to stay this case pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Hachem case."

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation,
Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Monroe Alleges Gas Anesthesia Machines Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY d/b/a MONROE COUNTY HOSPITAL,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., GE HEALTHCARE INC.,
and DATEX-OHMEDA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10485 (D.
Mass., March 14, 2019), seeks to recover damages and obtain
injunctive relief for injuries caused by Defendants under the
Sherman Act.

GE competes with independent service organizations in providing
essential maintenance and servicing of GE gas anesthesia machines
to hospitals, clinics, physician groups, and other health care
providers who operate the machines. GE is the largest Servicing
Market provider in the United States.

In order to compete with GE in the Servicing Market, ISOs must have
timely and reliable access to two markets in which GE holds
monopoly power: (a) parts, tools, test equipment, service manuals,
and specifications required for servicing of GE gas anesthesia
machine parts; and (b) training necessary for servicing of GE gas
anesthesia machines. The Plaintiff and members of the Class benefit
from healthy competition between GE and ISOs, as ISOs with access
to the necessary GE parts and GE training have almost always
offered maintenance and servicing at a substantially lower price
than GE.

Beginning in April 2011 and through the present, GE has implemented
policies restricting ISOs' access to the Parts Market and the
Training Market, effectively crippling ISOs' ability to offer
servicing for GE gas anesthesia machines and compete with GE in the
Servicing Market. Absent competition by ISOs, GE has been able to
charge supracompetitive prices for servicing of GE gas anesthesia
machines to Plaintiff and members of the Class.

GE currently enjoys almost complete monopoly power in the Parts
Market and the Training Market, controlling almost 100 percent of
both markets. But, prior to 2011, for nearly two decades, GE
profitably sold GE parts and GE training courses to competitor
ISOs.

In April 2011, GE began its ongoing policy of refusing to sell GE
parts directly to ISOs and appointed Alpha Source, Inc. as its
exclusive distributor of GE parts to ISOs. Alpha Source did not
keep a full inventory of necessary GE parts and charged
significantly higher prices for those it did sell to ISOs, thereby
increasing ISOs' operating costs and making it more difficult for
them to compete with GE in the Servicing Market.

In October 2014, GE began its ongoing policy of denying GE training
courses to its ISOs. GE has shut out ISOs from all but one of its
training facilities and continuously denies ISOs' applications for
enrollment in the one remaining facility.Furthermore, GE has
demanded that ISOs seeking to enroll in training courses must
undergo a burdensome process that requires them to disclose
competitively sensitive information. As a result, ISOs have been
effectively denied the necessary training for servicing GE gas
anesthesia machines.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq.
          Eric G. Penley, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          60 State Street, Suite 1100
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 226-3800
          Facsimile: (617) 226-3801
          E-mail: dsonneborn@preti.com
                  epenley@preti.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com
                  kgarvey@labaton.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          Facsimile: (615) 726-0573
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                  baaron@nealharwell.com

               - and -

          Robert C. King, Esq.
          THE KING LAW FIRM, P.C.
          36 W. Claiborne Street
          Monroeville, AL 36460
          Telephone: (251) 575-3434
          Facsimile: (251) 575-3003
          E-mail: rcking@frontiernet.net

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Class Action Underway in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company 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 the Varga class suit before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.  

In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.

It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through
January 19, 2018 or later.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation,
Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GERMANY: New York Court Dismisses Amended Rukoro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, VEKUII RUKORO et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY, Defendant, Case No. 17 CV 62-LTS (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Laura taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (i) granted Germany's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint ("AC"); and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a supplemental declaration or a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").

Plaintiffs Rukoro, Johannes Isaack, The Association of the
Ovaherero Genocide in the USA Inc., and Barnabas Veraa Katuuo bring
the putative class action on behalf of members and descendants of
the Ovaherero and Nama indigenous peoples against the Federal
Republic of Germany for damages, declaratory, and other equitable
relief arising from the genocide of thousands of Ovaherero and Nama
people in German South West Africa, now modern day Namibia, from
1885 to 1909.

The Plaintiffs are U.S. and non-U.S. citizens who are members, or
direct descendants of members, of the Ovaherero and Nama indigenous
peoples.  From approximately 1884 to 1903, German colonial
authorities arrived in what was then known as German South West
Africa and began to occupy and seize Ovaherero and Nama land,
livestock, personal property, and natural resources using violence
and coercion.  Through various decrees and ordinances, German
authorities forced the relocation of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples
and seized multiple tracts of ancestral land.  Deprived of their
homes and livelihoods, many Ovaherero and Nama people were forced
into debt and slavery.

In 1904, the German Empire began a violent campaign to exterminate
the Ovaherero and Nama peoples.  Under the leadership of German
military commander Adrien Dietrich Lothar von Trotha, German troops
captured and lynched countless Ovaherero men, women, and children.
In one particularly gruesome incident, German troops massacred
thousands of unarmed and vulnerable Ovaherero members who had
gathered in the town of Waterberg for the purpose of surrendering
to German forces.  Those who survived or managed to escape the
German forces were driven to the Omaheke Desert to die of
starvation and thirst.  German troops carried out a similar
campaign against the Nama people, calling for members to surrender
on pain of death.

In 1905, the German imperial government ordered all surviving
Ovaherero and Nama peoples to report to shelters from which they
were transported to concentration camps.  At these camps, Ovaherero
and Nama people were treated as property, rented out as laborers
and, ultimately, worked to death.   Women and children in the camps
were raped and sexually abused.  At a concentration camp located on
Shark Island, the Plaintiffs allege, hundreds of Ovaherero and Nama
bodies were dissected for medical research, and hundreds more men,
women, and children were brutally murdered and decapitated so that
their remains could be studied by researchers who believed in the
superiority of the white race.

In 1985, the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission
on Human Rights issued a report classifying the events described in
the AC as a genocide.  In recent years, Germany has begun
negotiations with the government of Namibia regarding the events
described in the AC.  The Plaintiffs have not been invited to
participate in those negotiations.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for the genocide pursuant to the Alien
Tort Statute, federal common law, and the law of nations, damages
for conversion of various property rights, damages for unjust
enrichment, an accounting, the establishment of a constructive
trust, and declaratory relief recognizing the Plaintiffs as the
legitimate successors to sovereign nations and declaring that the
exclusion of the Plaintiffs from negotiations between Germany and
Namibia constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under
international law, including the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive
relief prohibiting Germany from continuing to exclude them from its
negotiations with Namibia.

In aid of their argument that jurisdiction exists pursuant to one
or more of the enumerated exceptions under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act ("FSIA"), the Plaintiffs allege that many of the
Ovaherero and Nama skulls and body parts used for medical
experiments remain in Germany's possession, and that certain human
remains have been transported to the American Museum of Natural
History ("AMNH") in New York City.  In addition to the AMNH
Remains, the Plaintiffs allege that one of the few surviving copies
of the "Blue Book," a record of the genocide prepared in 1918, is
located at the New York Public Library, and that New York has
become one of the leading research and conference centers for the
study of the Ovaherero/Nama genocide.

The Plaintiffs also allege that land, livestock, and other personal
property seized by German colonial authorities was either sold or
leased to settlers or other private parties, and that all proceeds
from those transactions were deposited into the German treasury.
They aver that Germany further profited from these seizures by
imposing and collecting fees, customs, tariffs and taxes on
exports, mining operations, railway construction, and other
ventures in German South West Africa.

The AC alleges that upon realization of the benefits achieved by
its takings of Ovaherero and Nama property, Germany commingled
these fungible values within its general Imperial treasury and
departmental treasuries of various Imperial ministries, agencies,
and instrumentalities.  The Plaintiffs contend that portions of
these commingled funds were used to purchase four real estate
properties in New York City: (1) a townhouse located at 119 East
65th Street, (2) a building located at 871 First Avenue, (3) a
condominium located at 346 East 49th Street, and (4) a building
located at 1014 Fifth Avenue.  The AC alleges that each of the New
York Properties is used in connection with Germany's commercial
activities including, among other things, the performance and
existence of contractual obligations related to the housing of
German officials and employees, the performance and existence of
contractual obligations related to contracts for maintenance,
restoration, cleaning, and other services provided by contractors
located in New York City, and cultural propagation, German-language
programs, and other programs to develop American interest in the
German people, language, culture, and country with the ultimate
goal of commercial growth through cultural growth.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion, pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2), to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' AC for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction
under the FSIA.  Germany also moves to dismiss the AC for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under the political question doctrine
and, in the alternative, argues that the Court should decline to
exercise both subject matter and personal jurisdiction pursuant to
the doctrines of forum non conveniens and prudential exhaustion.

On Oct. 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental declaration or, in the alternative, to file a SAC.

Because the Plaintiffs' causes of action are based primarily upon
the extermination of the Ovaherero and Nama people and the
expropriation of their property, and because they have failed to
allege facts sufficient to support their allegation that Germany's
acts of expropriation caused a direct effect in the United States,
Judge Swain finds that the Court cannot exercise subject matter
jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to FSIA's
commercial activity exception.  Accordingly, she proceeds to
consider whether the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the FSIA's
takings exception.

Assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
under Helmerich that rights in property were taken in violation of
international law, the Judge nonetheless concludes that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs' claims.  Even though
the Plaintiffs allege sufficiently that the expropriated property,
or property exchanged for the expropriated property, is present in
the United States, the AC fails to allege that the expropriated
property is present in connection with a commercial activity
carried on by Germany.  In light of her conclusion that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA commercial
activity and takings exceptions, she declines to address Germany's
remaining arguments in favor of dismissal.

Finally, while the facts proffered in the Plaintiffs' supplemental
declaration and proposed SAC now suggest that Germany's bone trade
activities bore some relationship to the United States in the early
20th century, they do not sufficiently demonstrate that Germany's
ongoing bone trade activities in the form of repatriation efforts
entail substantial, commercial contact with the United States or
share a substantive or causal connection to the AMNH Remains, nor
do they provide any basis from which the Court can conclude that
the activities of the German entities engaged in these repatriation
efforts can all fairly be considered activities of the German
state.  In this context, the Judge finds that allegations regarding
the recent repatriation of certain Hawaiian and Alaskan remains
from Germany are insufficient to demonstrate that the AMNH Remains
are "present in the United States in connection with" a German
commercial activity having substantial contact with the United
States.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
supplemental declaration or, in the alternative, to file a SAC is
denied.


For the foregoing reasons, Judge Swain (i) granted Germany's motion
to dismiss the AC; and (ii) denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a supplemental declaration or a SAC.  The Clerk of Court is
requested to enter judgment dismissing the AC for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and to close the case.  The Opinion and Order
resolves docket entry nos. 42 and 61.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/vkHJed from Leagle.com.

Vekuii Rukoro, Paramount Chief of the Ovaherero People and
Representative of the Ovaherero Traditional Authority, The
Association of The Ovaherero Genocide in the USA, Inc. & Barnabas
Veraa Katuuo, Individually and as an Officer of The Association of
the Ovaherero Genocide in the USA, Inc., on behalf of themselves
and all other Ovaherero and Nama indigenous peoples, Plaintiffs,
represented by Thomas Alan Holman, Holman Law Office, Yechezkel
Rodal , Rodal Law, P.A. & Kenneth Foard McCallion, McCallion &
Associates, LLP.

Johannes Isaack, Chief and Chairman of the Nama Traditional
Authorities Association, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Foard
McCallion, McCallion & Associates, LLP.

Federal Republic of Germany, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Harris, Rubin Winston Diercks, Harris & Cooke, LLP.

The Institute for Peace and Justice, Counsel: Kissinger N. Sibanda
Esq, Interested Party, represented by Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda,
Kissinger N. Sibanda Attorney At Law.


GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Court Okays Notice to Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ARIELLE WALSH, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GILBERT
ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a CLUB FANTASIES, and FRANCIS DELUCA, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00472-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge
William E. Smith entered an order on March 14, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for notice to be issued
      to similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 u.s.c.
      section 216(b); and

   2. passing as moot Plaintiff's original motion for conditional
      FLSA certification.

The class is defined as:

   "all individuals who have worked as exotic dancers at Club
   Fantasies at any time since November 6, 2012."s

The Court held that the Defendants should provide Plaintiff with
the names and addresses of all entertainers who have worked at the
Club since October 3, 2013. Notice shall be issued by First Class
mail only, unless the Plaintiff demonstrates to the Court that the
contact information provided by Defendant is inadequate to reach
potential plaintiffs. In such circumstance, the Court may require
Defendant to disclose the phone numbers to potential plaintiffs for
the limited purpose of obtaining updated mailing addresses for
those individuals. There shall be a sixty-day opt-in period.

This is one of four cases brought on behalf of "exotic dancers" at
various Rhode Island night clubs since 2015. The cases involve
substantially similar allegations and  identical causes of action,
namely, the allegation that women who worked as dancers at these
clubs were misclassified as independent contractors instead of
employees.[CC]

GREENOAK REAL ESTATE: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GreenOak Real Estate
US LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GreenOak Real Estate US LLC, Slate Property Group LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02328 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 14, 2019).

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

GreenOak Real Estate US LLC provides brokerage services. The
Company offers real estate brokerage, corporate advisory, and
mergers and acquisitions services.

Slate Property Group LLC operates as an integrated owner, operator,
and developer of residential and commercial real estate in the New
York metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Vodenichar, J., et al. v. Halcon
Energy Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 347 WDA 2019, in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant-Appellant Morascyzk & Polochak is represented by:

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


HAMILTON LAW: Cesario Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Law Group,
PC. The case is styled as Jason G. Cesario individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hamilton Law
Group, PC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02314 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 14,
2019).

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

Hamilton Law Group, PC is a law firm located at Post Office Box
90301, Allentown, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger, Inc. disclosed in its the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, that a petition for panel rehearing and a
petition for rehearing en banc in the case entitled, City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., are
currently pending.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a securities class action
complaint, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
Hanger, et al., C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against us in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The complaint named us and certain of our current and former
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding, inter alia, our financial statements, RAC
audit success rate, the implementation of new financial systems,
same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of our internal processes
and controls.  The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.

"On April 1, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  On
July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On September
15, 2016, we and certain of the individual defendants filed motions
to dismiss the lawsuit.  On January 26, 2017, the court granted the
defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against
all defendants for failure to state a claim.  On February 24, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Appellate briefing was completed on
August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals held oral argument for the
appeal on March 5, 2018.  On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals
affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the case against individual defendants
Vinit Asar, our current President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Thomas Kirk, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, but
reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, our
former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc.

"On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a
petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc
with the Court of Appeals.  On September 10, 2018, the Court of
Appeals asked plaintiffs to file a response to the petition for
rehearing en banc, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
petition for rehearing en banc on September 17, 2018.  Both
petitions are pending with the Court of Appeals.  We believe the
remaining claims are without merit, and intend to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims."

Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and
distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and
provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute,
post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. The
company was formerly known as Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. and
changed its name to Hanger, Inc. in June 2012. Hanger, Inc. was
founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint filed in In re Health Insurance Innovations
Securities Litigation, remains pending.

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers.  The cases were styled Cioe Investments
Inc.  v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael Hershberger, Case No.  1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
September 11, 2017; Michael Vigorito v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No.  1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 13, 2017; and Shilpi
Kavra v.  Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Patrick McNamee,
Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.

All three of the Securities Actions contained substantially similar
allegations to those raised in the short-seller report alleging
that the Company made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly
regarding the Company's application for a third-party administrator
license in the State of Florida, which was issued by the State on
February 14, 2018.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018.  The consolidated
complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a defendant and added
Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets forth the same
factual allegations as the initially filed Securities Actions filed
in September 2017 and added allegations relating to alleged
materially false statements and omissions relating to the
regulatory proceeding previously initiated against the Company by
the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance
(the "CSI") which proceeding was dismissed on October 31, 2017.

The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger.  The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs in the
action are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of
individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock on periods ending September 11, 2017.

The Company and co-defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims
set forth in the complaint, and the motion has been fully briefed.
The case is awaiting the court's decision on the motions.

The Company said that at this time, it cannot predict the probable
outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been
accrued in its consolidated financial statements for this action.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Julian Keippel Putative Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is facing a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Julian Keippel in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 14, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The lawsuit, styled Julian Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations,
Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael D. Hershberger, Case No.
8:19-cv-00421, was filed on February 18, 2019, against the Company,
its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking
an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities
that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the
period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions during the
purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with
third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health
Plans and affiliates.  The complaint alleges that, among other
things, the Company failed to disclose to investors that a
substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from
third parties who allegedly used deceptive tactics to sell the
Company's products and that regulatory scrutiny of such third
parties would materially impact the Company's operations.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act.  The Company has not yet been served in
the action and intends to vigorously defend against the claims if
and when the Company is served.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HENDERSON KITCHEN: Tong Moves for Collective Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RUI TONG, WEIJIAN TANG,
YA-TANG CHI a/k/a Tom Chi, CHUAN GENG, KUN YANG, and JUNYI XIE, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HENDERSON
KITCHEN INC. d/b/a Pinwei Restaurant; CHAO HSIUNG KUO a/k/a Gary
Kuo, and YENG-LUNG KUO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01073-CFK (E.D. Pa.), move
the Court for an Order:

   (1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

   (2) ordering the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
       containing first and last name, last known address with
       apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
       numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
       and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
       location, dates of employment and position of:

       ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
       employees employed at any time from March 10, 2014 to the
       present by HENDERSON KITCHEN INC. d/b/a Pinwei Restaurant
       at 314 South Henderson Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406
       within 21 days of the entry of the order;

   (3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
       any relevant language, via mail, e-mail, text message, or
       social media messages or chats, to all members of the
       putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
       and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from
       Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from
       existing employment records;

   (4) ordering the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
       Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
       unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
       employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
       remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
       workplace;

   (5) ordering the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
       in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
       Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
       newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete
       Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
       undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published
       in English, and Chinese; and

   (6) ordering the equitable tolling on the statute of
       limitation on this suit be tolled for 120 days until the
       expiration of the Opt-in Period.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip A. Downey, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 1021
          Unionville, PA 19375
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          E-mail: downeyjustice@gmail.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


HILL'S PET: Johnson Suit Wants Tainted Pet Food Off the Shelves
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA JOHNSON and CLIFF PALIFRONE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case
No. 2:19-cv-02118 (D. Kan., March 4, 2019), seeks an order
requiring the Defendant to take action to ensure that all of
Defendant's potentially affected products are identified on its Web
site and removed from shelves and that the public is adequately
notified that they should not purchase and should immediately stop
using the tainted food, and their dogs should be taken to a
veterinarian for testing and whatever treatment is necessary.

Pets were sickened by Hill's food due to toxic amounts of Vitamin
D, the Plaintiffs allege.  Despite this, Hill's did not institute a
recall of dozens of its tainted brands until January 31, 2019,
which was expanded on February 7, 2019.  The Plaintiffs add that it
is still not clear that all tainted products have been identified
and are off the market, as complaints continue to be made.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in in Topeka, Kansas.  The
Company manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and
sells pet food under the brand names Hill's PrescriptionDiet and
Hill's ScienceDiet, among others, throughout the United States.

Hill's in one of the largest pet food companies in the nation.  The
Company is a subsidiary of New York's Colgate Palmolive Company.
Hill's is reported to have domestic and international revenues of
well over $2 billion a year, from products marketed under brand
names such as Hill's Prescription Diet(R) and Hill's Science
Diet(R).  The Company claims its products are superior, and charges
a premium price for them, much higher than many other brands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
          MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
          300 North Mead, Suite 200
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 262-2671
          Facsimile: (316) 262-6226
          E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
          208 East 51st Street, Suite 280
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 685-0969
          E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

               - and -

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE, PC
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 788-5199
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com


HORIZON GLOBAL: Elston Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Elston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Horizon Global Americas, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02070, (D. Kan., February 7, 2019) seeks
to recover unpaid straight time and overtime compensation for all
working hours, liquidated and/or other damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Horizon is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor of a wide
variety of custom-engineered towing, trailering, cargo management
and other related accessory products in North America, Australia,
and Europe. Elston worked at Horizon's warehouse located in
Edgerton, KS as a non-exempt hourly employee. Horizon failed to pay
Elston the proper amount of overtime compensation due, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
     Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
     OSMAN & SMAY LLP
     8500 W. 110th St., Ste. 330
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Tel: (913) 667-9243
     Fax: (866) 470-9243
     Email: krickley@workerwagerights.com
            mosman@workerwagerights.com


HSI FINANCIAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSI Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Sha'data Williams individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSI
Financial Services, LLC, John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01183-CAP-CCB (N.D. Ga., Mar. 13, 2019).

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

HSI Financial Services, LLC (HSI) is a subsidiary of Phoenix Health
Care Management Services, Inc., and was created in 1983 as members'
first sharedservices initiative. Offering a full range of revenue
cycle management solutions, HSI strives to provide superior service
and financial value for its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
     Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
     1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 920-8040
     Fax: (404) 920-8039
     Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Snider Files Product Liability Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Elizabeth Snider, James Twigger
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., Hyundai Motor Company,
Kia Motors America, Inc., Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00371 (W.D. Wash., Mar. 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. sells new and used cars. The company
provides sedans, crossovers/SUVs, premium/luxury cars, and fuel
efficient vehicles. It offers its products through dealers
throughout the United States.

Kia Motors America, Inc. markets and distributes vehicles. It
offers mid-size and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans, compact
vehicles, hybrid and electric vehicles, special edition vehicles,
and concept cars. The company offers vehicles through dealers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
     1201 3RD AVE., STE 3200
     SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com


HYUNDAI: Snider Files Product Liability Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Elizabeth Snider, James Twigger
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., Hyundai Motor Company,
Kia Motors America, Inc., Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05193-TLF (W.D. Wash., Mar. 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. sells new and used cars. The company
provides sedans, crossovers/SUVs, premium/luxury cars, and fuel
efficient vehicles. It offers its products through dealers
throughout the United States.

Kia Motors America, Inc. markets and distributes vehicles. It
offers mid-size and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans, compact
vehicles, hybrid and electric vehicles, special edition vehicles,
and concept cars. The company offers vehicles through dealers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
     1201 3RD AVE., STE 3200
     SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com


IMMUNE DESIGN: Tullman Files Securities Suit Over Sale to Merck
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Tullman, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Immune Design Corp., Ed Penhoet, David
Baltimore, Franklin M. Berger, Lewis Coleman, Susan L. Kelley,
Carlos Paya, and William R. Ringo, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00350 (W.D. Wash., March 11, 2019) is a stockholder class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other
public stockholders of Immune Design Corp. against Immune Design
and the members of Immune Design's Board of Directors  for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to enjoin the
expiration of a tender offer on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Immune Design will be acquired by Merck & Co., Inc. through
its subsidiary, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Parent's wholly owned
subsidiary Cascade Merger Sub Inc. ("Purchaser").

On February 21, 2019, defendants issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated February 20, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, on March 5, 2019, Purchaser commenced the Tender Offer
to purchase all outstanding shares of Immune Design for $5.85 per
share of Immune Design common stock.

On March 5, 2019, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). The Recommendation Statement, which recommends
that Immune Design stockholders tender their shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Immune Design management's
financial projections utilized by the Company's financial advisor
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC in its financial analyses; (ii) the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support
the fairness opinion provided by Lazard; and (iii) potential
conflicts of interest faced by Company insiders.

The failure to disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act as Immune Design stockholders need
such information in order to make a fully informed decision whether
to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or
seek appraisal, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Immune Design.

Immune Design is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 1616 Eastlake Ave. E., Suite 310,
Seattle, WA 98102.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: (206) 652-8660
     Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Choi Hits Share Drop from Failed Drug Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chongho Choi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Immunomedics, Inc., Michael Pehl, Michael
R. Garone and Usama Malik, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05151, (D.
N.J., February 8, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer and other serious diseases. Its priority drug
is sacituzumab govitecan, a treatment for breast cancer. However,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised issues related to its
Biologics License Application and pointed out certain chemistry,
manufacturing and control concerns. Following this news, the
company's stock price fell drastically, from $18.09 at close on
January 17, 2019 to $13.31 at close on January 18, 2019, a drop of
approximately 26%.

Choi acquired Immunomedics securities and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Timm" Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Any Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from the court's
decision the purported class action lawsuit styled Timm, v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. remains pending.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al.  alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders.  The action also seeks punitive damages and legal
expenses.

On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgment Order whereby it (1)
declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment); and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, US$1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).  The Court declined to
certify any class pending the outcome of appeals and certified its
Judgment Order for immediate appeal.

On August 6, 2018, the Company filed its notice of appeal and on
September 7, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to stay
the election of two directors pending conclusion of any appeals.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Batres' Purported Class Lawsuit vs. Unit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a purported
class action styled Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On December 27, 2018, the purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County.  The plaintiff
contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported
class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest
breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.  The action seeks
damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all
other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery Underway in Baker Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the "Baker" putative class action in
Missouri is "currently proceeding through discovery."

In 2001, Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a putative
class action against the Company, Century Financial, and others
claiming violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act.
Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the
putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of
all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind
all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance
charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the
principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Nguyen, PAGA Claims Remain in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et
al., has been in arbitration following a court order in August
2018.

On April 20, 2017, the class action was filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California.  The plaintiffs
contend the defendants did not pay purported class members overtime
compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as required by law.
The action seeks to invalidate any waiver signed by a purported
class member of their right to bring a class action and seeks
damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees, interest, and an
injunction against unfair, deceptive, and unlawful activities.

On August 23, 2018, the court (1) granted the defendants motion to
compel arbitration as to all claims, except for the plaintiffs'
claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); (2)
ordered the plaintiffs to submit their claims (other than PAGA
claims) to arbitration on an individual, non-class, non-collective,
and non-representative basis; (3) dismissed all class and
collective claims with prejudice to the plaintiffs and without
prejudice to putative class members; and (4) stayed all claims that
were compelled to arbitration, as well as the PAGA claims.

No further updates were provided in Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2019, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The claims have been stayed by a court order in August 2018.
Litigation has been terminated following the issuance of the court
order.

Specifically, Judge David O. Carter dismissed all claims brought in
the first amended complaint with prejudice as to the plaintiff and
without prejudice to the putative class members.  The court
directed the defendants to file an update on arbitration
proceedings every four months, and within 14 days of the conclusion
of all of the plaintiffs' individual  arbitration proceedings.

The first Status report was filed by the defendants on Dec.  28.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Riggin Lawsuit vs. Unit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a purported
class action styled Riggin v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On November 2, 2018, the purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County.  The plaintiff
contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported
class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest
breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.  The action seeks
damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all
other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief.
The Company has filed a motion to compel individual arbitration of
the claims.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services,
and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial Court Favors Defendant in Marentes Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the trial court has determined
that the plaintiffs in the "Marentes" class action were unable to
prove their case and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of
the defendant.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012,
the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without
prejudice.  On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that
the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Unit Still Defends McNair Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the purported class action
styled McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage remains
pending.

On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.  The plaintiff contends
the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported class members
overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest breaks, or
provide accurate wage statements.  The action seeks damages,
restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all other
appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


INFINITY INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lowenthal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian M. Lowenthal, on Feb 26, 2016, took an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Lowenthal v. Infinity
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-R-JPR filed U.S. District
Court for Central California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Lowenthal v. Infinity
Insurance Company, Case No. 19-55253, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, other appeals
have been filed from rulings in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

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

   -- Appellant Brian M Lowenthal's opening brief is due on
      May 3, 2019;

   -- Appellee Infinity Insurance Company's answering brief is
      due on June 3, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN M LOWENTHAL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Montie S. Day, Esq.
          DAY LAW OFFICES
          59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B-482
          Reno, NV 89521
          Telephone: (208) 280-3766
          E-mail: msdayesq@aol.com

          Charles Andrew Danaher, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 633-6548
          E-mail: cdanaher@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Theona Zhordania-Taat, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: tzhordania@sheppardmullin.com


INOGEN INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Inogen, Inc.
(NASDAQ:INGN) common stock during the period between November 8,
2017 and February 26, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the Central District of California and is captioned Fabbri
v. Inogen, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1643.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Inogen common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March
6, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/inogen/.

The complaint charges Inogen and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Inogen is a
medical technology company that primarily develops, manufactures
and markets portable oxygen concentrators used to deliver
supplemental long-term oxygen therapy to patients suffering from
chronic respiratory conditions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Inogen's business metrics and financial
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market
("TAM") for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the
basis for its calculation of the TAM; (ii) Inogen had falsely
attributed its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its
salesforce, when in reality it was due in large part to sales
tactics designed to deceive its elderly customer base; (iii) the
growth in Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to home
medical equipment ("HME") providers was inflated, unsustainable and
was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) very little of
Inogen's business was actually coming from the more stable Medicare
market. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, the price of Inogen common stock was artificially inflated
to more than $282 per share during the Class Period.

On November 6, 2018, Inogen announced its third quarter 2018
financial results and, while the quarterly financial results were
in line with expectations, defendants revealed that the growth in
domestic business-to-business sales to HME providers had slowed and
reduced Inogen's guidance for fiscal 2018 adjusted EBITDA. As a
result of this news, the price of Inogen common stock fell over
19%, or $37.44 per share, to close at $155.86 per share. Then,
following the publication of detailed investigative reports by
stock analysts on February 8, 2019 and February 12, 2019, which
challenged, among other things, the size of Inogen's actual TAM,
the basis for its prior TAM claims, and the source of its Class
Period sales growth, the price of Inogen common stock declined
further to close at $138.05 per share on February 12, 2019.

Then, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Inogen
announced disappointing fourth quarter and fiscal year 2018
financial results and significantly reduced its previously provided
fiscal 2019 net income guidance. Inogen's CEO also backtracked on
the Company's prior TAM estimate of 2.5 to 3 million patients, and
blamed Inogen's poor domestic business-to-business sales on order
activity that slowed from one national homecare provider. On this
news, the price of Inogen common stock fell an additional $33.77
per share, or more than 24%, from a close of $140.06 per share on
February 26, 2019, to a close of $106.28 per share on February 27,
2019.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive
years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in
its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both
the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class
action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate
governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for
investors worldwide. [GN]


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Faces Hawaii Workers Fund Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HAWAII SHEET METAL WORKERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, HAWAII SHEET
METAL WORKERS TRAINING FUND, HAWAII SHEET METAL WORKERS ANNUITY
FUND, and HAWAII SHEET METAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. INTERCONTINENTAL
EXCHANGE, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC., ICE
BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATION LIMITED (f/k/a NYSE EURONEXT RATE
ADMINISTRATION LIMITED), ICE DATA SERVICES, INC., ICE PRICING AND
REFERENCE DATA LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA
N.A., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., CITIGROUP INC.,
CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS
SA, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES
(USA) INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS SECURITIES INC.,
MUFG BANK, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., MITSUBISHI
UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., THE
NORINCHUKIN BANK, COOPERATIEVE RABOBANK U.A., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, ROYAL
BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC, NATWEST
MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (f//k/a RBS SECURITIES, INC.), SOCIETE
GENERALE S.A., SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING
CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC., SUMITOMO MITSUI
BANKING CORPORATION EUROPE LTD., SMBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., UBS
GROUP AG, UBS AG and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02002
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2019), is brought over claims under the Sherman
Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, and state law, for the
Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of ICE LIBOR from
February 1, 2014, through the present.

This case concerns the financial benchmark ICE LIBOR(R) ("ICE
LIBOR"), which from February 1, 2014, through the present, has been
"the world's most widely used benchmark for short term bank
borrowing rates," and which, since that date, has been collusively
set at artificially low levels by the Defendants, to the detriment
of investors in financial instruments indexed to the benchmark,
such as the Plaintiffs and members of the Class, according to the
complaint.

ICE LIBOR benchmark rates are set jointly and published each
business day based on daily submissions by a group of multinational
banks (the "Panel Bank Defendants").  The Panel Bank Defendants
are: Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Barclays, BNP Paribas,
BTMU, Credit Agricole, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Lloyds,
Norinchukin, Rabobank, RBC, RBS, Societe Generale, Sumitomo, and
UBS.

The Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. ("ICE"), which owns and
operates the New York Stock Exchange, is the "administrator" of ICE
LIBOR.  As administrator, ICE is charged with collecting and
validating the Panel Bank Defendants' submissions, calculating and
publishing the benchmark rates derived from those submissions, and
implementing the rules and procedures governing the rate-setting
process to safeguard it from manipulation.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in in Atlanta, Georgia.
Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
registered to do business in New York with its principal place of
business also located in Atlanta.

ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (f/k/a NYSE Euronext Rate
Administration Limited) is a UK company with a registered address
in London, United Kingdom.  NYSE Euronext Rate Administration
Limited was renamed ICE Benchmark Administration Limited after
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.'s acquisition of NYSE Euronext in
2013.

ICE Data Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to do
business in New York with a principal place of business located in
New York City.  ICE Pricing and Reference Data LLC is a Delaware
company registered to do business in New York with a principal
place of business located in New York City.

During the Class Period, all Panel Bank Defendants, both foreign
and domestic, engaged in conduct within the United States related
to the Plaintiffs' allegations, the Plaintiffs contend.  The
Plaintiffs add that the Panel Bank Defendants transacted in USD ICE
LIBOR Financial Instruments with United States residents while
conspiring to manipulate ICE LIBOR to garner supracompetitive
profits.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                  dweintraub@scott-scott.com
                  pbarile@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Steve Jodlowski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 693-1058
          Facsimile: (212) 693-7423
          E-mail: randib@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com
                  sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                  gkozen@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          David B. Rochelson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  drochelson@robinskaplan.com


J. CREW: 3d Cir Affirms Dismissal of A. Kamal's FACTA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AHMED KAMAL, on behalf of himself and the putative
class, Appellant in No. 17-2345, v. J. CREW GROUP, INC.; J CREW
INC.; J. CREW INTERMEDIATE LLC; J CREW INTERNATIONAL, INC.; J. CREW
OPERATING CORP; J. CREW SERVICES, INC.; CHINOS ACQUISITION CORP;
CHINOS HOLDINGS, INC., Appellants in No. 17-2453, Case Nos.
17-2345, 17-2453 (3d Cir.), Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (i) affirmed the District
Court's judgment that Kamal lacks standing; but (ii) vacated and
remanded for the District Court to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint without prejudice.

Enacted to combat credit card and identity theft, the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") prohibits anyone
who accepts credit or debit cards as payment from printing more
than the last five digits of a customer's credit card number on the
receipt.  Plaintiff-Appellant Kamal brought the suit after
receiving three receipts from Defendants-Appellees J. Crew Group,
Inc. (and related entities) that included both the first six and
last four digits of his credit card number.  Kamal sought statutory
and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees.

J. Crew filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing its violations had not been willful.
Kamal filed an Amended Complaint, and J. Crew again moved to
dismiss on the same grounds.  The District Court denied the motion,
concluding Kamal plausibly alleged a willful violation.  Following
the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct.
1540 (2016), J. Crew moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), contending Kamal lacked standing
because he did not suffer a "concrete" injury.  The District Court
agreed that Kamal had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury
and thus lacked standing under Article III.  It granted J. Crew's
motion without prejudice and allowed Kamal to file another amended
complaint.

Kamal filed his Second Amended Complaint -- the operative complaint
in the matter.  In an effort to address the deficiencies leading to
the dismissal of his Amended Complaint, Kamal alleges two
"concrete" harms: the printing of the prohibited information itself
and the harm caused by such printing increasing the risk of
identity theft.

Notwithstanding these additional allegations, J. Crew again moved
to dismiss on standing grounds.  The District Court noted the two
injuries alleged in the Second Amended Complaint -- the printing of
the prohibited information and the increased risk of identity theft
-- and rejected both in turn.

The court first held the printing of the information on the receipt
was not itself a concrete injury.  J. Crew's conduct in giving
Kamal a receipt that included his credit card's first six digits
did not implicate traditional common law privacy interests because
J. Crew did not 'disclose' Kamal's personal information and the
card's first six digits do not pertain to the customer's individual
bank account.  It next evaluated whether Kamal's alleged increased
risk of identity theft constituted a concrete injury.  The court
was unable to reasonably infer that printing the first six and last
four digits of Kamal's credit card materially increased the risk of
future harm.

Accordingly, because Kamal had alleged only a technical violation
of FACTA and not a concrete injury, the District Court held Kamal
lacked standing and granted J. Crew's motion, dismissing without
prejudice the Second Amended Complaint.  The District Court gave
Kamal leave to file another amended complaint.

Kamal moved for reconsideration, or alternatively, for amendment of
the court's order "so as to redenominate it final and appealable,"
as Kamal intended to stand on the Second Amended Complaint to
establish his Article III standing.  The District Court denied the
motion for reconsideration but amended its order to provide for a
dismissal with prejudice based on Kamal's intent to stand on his
complaint.  

Kamal appealed.  He pleaded an injury which no doubt involves a
technical violation of FACTA's ban on printing more than the last
five digits of a consumer's credit card number.  J. Crew filed a
cross-appeal challenging the District Court's denial of its motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly plead a
willful violation.

Kamal has pleaded two allegedly "concrete" injuries: "the printing
of the prohibited information itself," i.e., a violation of FACTA's
plain text, and the "increased risk of identity theft" resulting
from that printing.  But the procedural violation is not itself an
injury in fact, and Kamal has not otherwise alleged a risk of harm
that satisfies the requirement of concreteness.

Judge Scirica finds that Kamal's injury does not have the requisite
"close relationship" with these actions because he does not allege
disclosure of his information to a third party.  Instead, he pleads
only that he "received" a FACTA non-compliant receipt after each
transaction.  As Spokeo reminds the courts, because comparison to
"historical practice" helps them understand the type of harm that
meets Article III's case-or-controversy threshold, it is important
that the relationship be "close."  Absent disclosure to a third
party, Kamal's injury is unlike the harms recognized by traditional
causes of action.  Accordingly, historical practice does not weigh
in favor of finding a concrete injury on the facts pleaded.

Next, he finds that absent a sufficient degree of risk, J. Crew's
alleged violation of FACTA is "a bare procedural violation" that
does not create Article III standing.  This result falls within the
Supreme Court's admonition that when Congress adopts procedures
designed to decrease the risk of harm to a concrete interest, a
violation of one of those procedural requirements may result in no
harm.

Because Kamal lacks standing, the Judge holds he must vacate the
District Court's order dismissing the case with prejudice and
remand for the District Court to dismiss without prejudice.  The
District Court initially dismissed this case without prejudice.
After Kamal stated his intention to stand on his Second Amended
Complaint and asked the court to amend the disposition to designate
it as final, the District Court amended the judgment to dismiss the
case with prejudice.  Nonetheless, the case should be dismissed
without prejudice because the District Court lacked jurisdiction.
Accordingly, he will remand for this limited purpose.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Scirica affirmed the District
Court's judgment that Kamal lacks standing.  But he vacated and
remanded for the District Court to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint without prejudice.  In light of his decision, the Judge
need not reach J. Crew's cross-appeal, and dismissed it as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/6y9yXA from Leagle.com.

Marvin L. Frank -- mfrank@frankllp.com -- [ARGUED], Suite 1706,
370, Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Peter Y. Lee, Suite
1101, 60, East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10165, Counsel for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee Ahmed Kamal.

Andrew O. Bunn -- andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- [ARGUED], Steven R.
Marino, DLA Piper, 51, John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120, Short
Hills, NJ 07078, Keara M. Gordon, DLA Piper, 1251, Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10020, Counsel for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants J. Crew Group, Inc., J Crew Inc., J.
Crew Intermediate LLC, J Crew International, Inc., J. Crew,
Operating Corp, J. Crew Services, Inc., Chinos Acquisition, Corp;
Chinos Holdings, Inc.


JJ TAPPER & CO: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adan Molina and Roberto Molina, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J.J. Tapper & Co., Inc.,
d/b/a The Garden; John A. Tapper, Individually, United T LLC d/b/a
The Garden; The Epicurean Garden d/b/a The Garden, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01425 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2019) seeks the recovery of
unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and
overtime hours worked, while employed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs
seek these damages under the applicable provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Throughout the course of Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants
failed to compensate its non-exempt employees with overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents of New York State and were employed as
grocery store employees for the Defendants from 2003 through July
2018.

The Garden is a New York corporation and operates a supermarket
located at 921 Manhattan Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11222.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     39 Broadway, Suite 1530
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Fax: 212-344-0301


JONES FINANCIAL: April 18 Fairness Hearing in Retirement Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a fairness hearing in a
retirement plan litigation is scheduled for April 18, 2019, at
which time the court will determine whether the class action is
dismissed with prejudice.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under ERISA, by a
participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan
participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and
monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in
part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in part as to all
other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court.  The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated
complaint on April 28, 2017.  On December 13, 2018, the court
entered a preliminary approval order of the class action settlement
agreement.  A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 18, 2019 at
which time the court will determine whether the class action is
dismissed with prejudice.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Still Defends Anderson Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. continues to face the
securities class action styled Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones
& Co., L.P., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as
well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned clients from commission-based accounts
to fee-based programs.  The plaintiffs have requested declaratory,
equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages.  Edward
Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Still Defends Bland Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. still defends itself
against the wage-and-hour class action styled Bland, et. al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al., according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in
this purported collective and class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four
former financial advisors.  The lawsuit was brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as Missouri and Illinois law and
alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training
costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all
overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.  JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Still Faces Bland Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. continues to defend itself
against the discrimination class action styled Bland v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in
the putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial
advisor.  An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018,
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants
discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial
advisor trainees on the basis of race.  On November 26, 2018, the
plantiffs filed a second amended complaint adding an allegation of
discrimination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The
lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  Edward Jones and JFC deny the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in
Des
Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: White Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that dismissal with prejudice
of the class action lawsuit styled White v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P. was effective on December 20, 2018.

On September 22, 2017, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
purported collective and class action lawsuit (White v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio by a former branch office administrator.
The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Ohio law and alleges that Edward Jones underpaid overtime
compensation to branch office administrators.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid wages as well as
liquidated damages in an equal amount.  On April 24, 2018, the
court approved the parties' settlement and issued its final order
of dismissal, without prejudice.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The company provides investment advisory services;
shareholder accounting services, including maintaining client
account information and other administrative services for the
mutual funds; insurance contract services to insurance companies;
and custodial and other account services. The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Des
Peres, Missouri.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accord in Interchange Suit Gets Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 an amended settlement
agreement in a class action over interchange fees has been
preliminarily approved by the District Court.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees and enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws.

The parties settled the cases for a cash payment, a temporary
reduction of credit card interchange, and modifications to certain
credit card network rules. In December 2013, the District Court
granted final approval of the settlement.

A number of merchants appealed the settlement to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016,
vacated the District Court's certification of the class action and
reversed the approval of the class settlement. In March 2017, the
U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings consistent with the
appellate decision.

The original class action was divided into two separate actions,
one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking
primarily injunctive relief. In September 2018, the parties to the
class action seeking monetary relief finalized an agreement which
amends and supersedes the prior settlement agreement, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
modified settlement.

This settlement provides for the defendants to contribute an
additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion currently
held in escrow from the original settlement.

In January 2019, the amended agreement was preliminarily approved
by the District Court, and formal notice of the class settlement
will proceed in accordance with the District Court's order.  About
$600 million of the additional amount will be funded from the
litigation escrow account established under the Visa defendants'
Retrospective Responsibility Plan, and $300 million will be paid by
Mastercard and certain banks in accordance with an agreement among
themselves regarding their respective shares.

In June 2018, Visa deposited an additional $600 million into its
litigation escrow account, which in turn led to a corresponding
change in the conversion rate of Visa Class B to Class A shares. Of
the Mastercard-related portion, the Firm's share is approximately
$36 million. The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief
continues separately.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as
against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are proceeding.


JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Opt-Out Plaintiffs File Complaint in FX Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 certain members of
the settlement class have filed a complaint against the Firm and a
number of other foreign exchange dealers in November 2018 (the
"opt-out action").    

The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government
authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and
trading activities and controls related to those activities.
FX-related investigations and inquiries by government authorities,
including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is
cooperating with and working to resolve those matters.

In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of
federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the Firm was sentenced,
with judgment entered thereafter and a term of probation ending in
January 2020. The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a
five-year exemption of disqualification that allows the Firm and
its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional
Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") until January 2023. The Firm will need to
reapply in due course for a further exemption to cover the
remainder of the ten-year disqualification period.

Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition
Commission referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other
banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal, which is conducting
civil proceedings concerning that matter.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers named
as defendants in a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange
rates (the "U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA
actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the
"indirect purchaser action").

Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including
the exchange-based actions. The Court granted final approval of
that settlement agreement in August 2018.

Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court
to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a
complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange
dealers in November 2018 (the "opt-out action").

The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that
dismissal in July 2018. The second ERISA action was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice in November 2018. The indirect purchaser
action, the consumer action and the opt-out action remain pending
in the District Court.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


KEEFE COMMISSARY: Extorted Funds From Mich. Prisoners, Kensu Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEMUJIN KENSU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. D/B/A ACCESS
CORRECTIONS, Case No. 2:19-cv-10651-AC-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 5,
2019), alleges that the Defendant conspired to induce the Plaintiff
and the Class to make millions of dollars' worth of purchases
through the MP3 Program, while simultaneously engaging in
misconduct for the purpose of defrauding, deceiving, and extorting
funds from them.

This class action arises from the alleged deceptive practices,
methods, solicitations, advertisements, promises, extortions, and
representations contrived by the Defendant, whereby it engaged
between 25,000 and 50,000 Michigan prisoners, including the
Plaintiffs and Class, to participate in the SecureMedia MP3
Program, ("MP3 Program"), a digital music service program initiated
to provide prisoners with the ability to purchase MP3 music players
and MP3 music files through the Defendant.

Keefe Commissary Network, L.L.C., is a Missouri corporation with
its principal place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri.
The Company operates in Michigan under the assumed name Access
Corrections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Altman, Esq.
          Solomon M. Radner, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
          26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
          Southfield, MI 48033
          Telephone: (866) 939-2656
          E-mail: kaltman@excololaw.com
                  sradner@excololaw.com


KON TIKI RESORT: Honeywell Files ADA Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kon Tiki Resort, Inc.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Kon Tiki Resort, Inc. a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-10039-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

Kon Tiki is a resort centrally located in Islamorada, on the
bayside.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


LA ESPERANZA: Fuentes Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fermin Fuentes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. La Esperanza Meat Market, Inc., La
Esperanza Meat Market-Tihara, Inc., Guillermo Orozco, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00103, (D. N.M., February 7, 2019) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendants operate retail grocery store locations in Hobbs, New
Mexico where Fuentes worked as a non-exempt employee from September
2015 until September 2016. He claims to be misclassified as
"exempt" from the overtime privileges and have regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal in Plains All American Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the Court-dismissed complaint against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. remains pending, according to Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors.  The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in
the aggregate raised approximately US$2,900,000,000 as defendants
to the purported class action.  Ladenburg was one of the
underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on representations concerning the
maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the defendants.

In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal order.  If the plaintiffs' appeal is successful,
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States. Its
Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory
and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor
managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable
and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to
stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising
insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit
trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and
related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was
founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Status Bid Pending in Suit vs. Miller
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated class action filed against Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. currently in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to remand the case to state court remain pending,
according to Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
("Miller"), officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that
underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, which
offerings raised approximately US$151,000,000.  Ladenburg was one
of the underwriters of two of the offerings.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated
valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in November
2016, the cases were consolidated.  In August 2017, the court
granted in part and denied in part the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to remand the case to state court are pending.

Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States. Its
Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory
and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor
managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable
and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to
stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising
insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit
trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and
related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was
founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Faces Class Suit vs. ARCP in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. remains a defendant in a
consolidated class action suit filed against American Realty
Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"), according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"),
certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm,
and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 US$1,656,000,000 common
stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings.  The complaints have been consolidated.

Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the
May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July
2013 offering of US$300,000,000 in convertible notes.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering materials
were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses,
improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including
statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.

In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss
the complaint.  In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

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

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States. Its
Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory
and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor
managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable
and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to
stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising
insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit
trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and
related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was
founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida.


LASER SPINE: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Marino, writing for WFLA, reports that several former
employees are suing the Laser Spine Institute. On March 1, more
than 500 people in Tampa, Cincinnati, Scottsdale, and Saint Louis
learned the company was shutting down.

Some former employees have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming
the Laser Spine Institute violated the Federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN Act- by not providing
60-days notice of their termination. Now, former employees are left
without work and uncertain futures.

The former employees involved in the lawsuits are asking for
compensation and benefits for 60 days.

Former employee Marty Snee is not one of the employees involved in
the lawsuits, but told 8 On Your Side that employees did notice
some red flags. He maintains few saw the end coming as suddenly as
it did.

"It could have been presented differently, or things could have
been changed at the end, but when it all comes down to it, some of
our bosses or VPs or higher up that we thought, they're in on it,
they were just as surprised as us," Mr. Snee said.

The attorneys involved have posted a form on their website for
other employees interested in filing a lawsuit.

Four former LSI employees not impacted by the closure have come
together to organize a career fair for impacted employees. [GN]


LASER SPINE: Higdon Wants to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE HIGDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC, LSI HOLDCO, LLC and LSI
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00547 (M.D. Fla., March
4, 2019), is a civil action for collection of alleged unpaid wages
and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiff, and the class of similarly situated employees, were
terminated as part of, or as a result of, a shutdown or mass layoff
ordered by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff contends that he and
other similarly situated employees are entitled under the WARN Act
to recover from the Defendants 60 days' wages and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act benefits, none of which have been
paid.

Laser Spine Institute, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company,
authorized and doing business in this judicial district.  LSI
HOLDCO, LLC, is Foreign Limited Liability Company, authorized and
doing business in this judicial district.  LSI Management Company,
LLC, is Florida Limited Liability Company, authorized and doing
business in this judicial district.

The Defendants owned, leased, operated, and/or maintained a
facility located at 5332 Avion Park Drive, in Tampa, Florida, where
the class members worked until their terminations on March 1, 2019,
or within a 30-day period thereof.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Scott L. Terry, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  scott@fgbolaw.com


LIFE STRATEGIES: Bailey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Horace Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Life Strategies Counseling, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00106, (E.D. Ark., February 8, 2019) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant provides counseling services to children, adolescents,
adults, couples and group psychotherapy at approximately twelve
locations throughout Arkansas where Bailey worked as a Mental
Health Professional. Bailey claims to have regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week throughout his tenure without the
appropriate overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Court Allows Communications with Tellis Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL., v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-0541 (W.D. La.), Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Shreveport Division, (i) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for
a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; and (ii)
granted the Defendants' motion to approve communication with
members of the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction allowing the Plaintiffs' counsel to interview the named
Plaintiffs as well as other inmates at David Wade Correctional
Center ("DWCC").  Although the parties have reported to the Court
that they have resolved their dispute regarding the ten inmates
whose interviews were the subject of the Motion, the parties have
also alerted the Court that they continue to dispute the access the
Plaintiffs' counsel may have to members of the proposed class.

At the outset, the Judge Foote observes that a preliminary
injunction is not the ideal procedural vehicle for the relief the
Plaintiffs seek.  Several unique features of the litigation support
the Court's conclusion.  First, inmates in the proposed class have
a First Amendment right to a reasonable opportunity to seek and
receive the assistance of attorneys.  Second, the Magistrate Judge
has granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add
the Advocacy Center as a Plaintiff.  Finally, the Plaintiffs
represent that in-person attorney visits have been conducted at
DWCC for nearly two years without incident. [Id.]. Defendants do
not dispute that, until recently, they have been providing the
access that they are now denying.

Therefore, the Judge directed the Defendants to allow the
Plaintiffs' counsel reasonable access to confidential interviews
with members of the proposed class.  In light of this order, the
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.
If the requests for interviews become unreasonable in number,
duration, or frequency, the Defendants may raise that issue in a
subsequent motion.

The Defendants have moved for permission to communicate with
unrepresented members of the proposed class.  The parties have
represented to the Court that the Plaintiffs' counsel claims to
have an attorney-client relationship with 310 DWCC inmates.

The Judge explains that Rule 4.2 of the Louisiana Rules of
Professional Conduct provides that an attorney may not speak with a
person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the
matter.  In accord with the spirit of Rule 4.2, the Judge concludes
that teh defense counsel may not speak with members of the proposed
class with whom the Advocacy Center currently has an
attorney-client relationship.

Thus, to allow the Defendants and their counsel to exercise their
right to communicate with members of the proposed class, they must
have some way to determine who is currently represented.
Therefore, the Judge ordered that by March 15, 2019, the
Plaintiffs' counsel provide the defense counsel with a list of
inmates with whom a present (not prospective) attorney-client
relationship exists.  The Judge is also concerned that inmates may
have some difficulty understanding precisely who defense counsel
represents.  The counsel from Kantrow Spaht are not state employees
and are not the attorneys typically representing DWCC and its
officials.

Therefore, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to approve
class communication.  The defense counsel may interview
unrepresented members of the proposed class. However, to lessen the
risk of coerced communications, the following requirements are put
in place: (1) Defense counsel may not interview members of the
proposed class who appear on the list of currently represented
persons that the Plaintiffs' counsel will provide by March 15,
2019; (2) before any interview with an unrepresented member of the
proposed class, the defense counsel must inform the inmate of the
following: (a) That counsel represents DWCC and each of the
Defendants; (b) That the inmate may decline to speak with defense
counsel; (c) That the inmate cannot be punished for refusing to
speak with defense counsel; (d) That the inmate cannot be rewarded
for choosing to speak with defense counsel.  The defense counsel
are to ensure that the Defendants and their agents do not give
members of the proposed class any impression that is contrary to
guarantees (b), (c), and (d).

In light of the foregoing discussion, Judge Foote ordered the
Defendants to allow the Plaintiffs' counsel reasonable access to
confidential interviews with members of the proposed class.  In
light of this order, she denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://is.gd/XBSxjw from Leagle.com.

Anthony Tellis, on behalf of themselves and all other smimilarly
situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center & Bruce
Charles, on behalf of themselves and all other smimilarly situated
prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Cameron Trunnell --
advocacycenter@advocacyla.org -- Advocacy Center, Bruce W.
Hamilton, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA,
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of LA, Melanie Ann Bray -- mbray@advocacyla.org --
Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato, Advocacy Center &
Sarah H. Voigt, Advocacy Center.

Advocacy Center of Louisiana, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Cameron Trunnell, Advocacy Center, Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Melanie Ann Bray,
Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato, Advocacy Center &
Sarah H. Voigt, Advocacy Center.

James M LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade
Correctional Center, Lonnie Nail, Col, Deborah Dauzat, Assistant
Warden & Johnie Adkins, Defendants, represented by Margaret Annette
C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey --
connell@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes --
george@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al, Keith Joseph Fernandez --
keith@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow
Spaht et al.

Gregory Seal, Dr & Aerial Robinson, Defendants, represented by
Margaret Annette C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey,
Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes, Kantrow Spaht et al &
Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al.

Steve Hayden, Defendant, represented by George Prentiss Holmes,
Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al.

LA Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Margaret Annette C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey,
Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes, Kantrow Spaht et al,
Jonathan Ray Vining, LA Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, Keith
Joseph Fernandez, Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow
Spaht et al.


LTD FINANCIAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Tarazon Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jose L. Tarazon filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Jose Tarazon v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., et
al., Case No. 7:18-CV-60, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, McAllen.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Tarazon v. LTD Financial
Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 19-40183, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSE L. TARAZON, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON, L.L.P.
          150 Morris Avenue
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Appellee LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., is represented
by:

          Sondra K. Jurica, Esq.
          LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES L.L.P.
          3200 Wilcrest
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 414-2100


M.J. BROTHERS: Prelim Approval of Rodriguez Suit Deal Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. M.J.
BROTHERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00252-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
motion for 1) preliminary approval of the class action settlement;
2) provisional class certification and appointment of the class
counsel; 3) approval of form and method of class notice; 4) the
scheduling of a final fairness hearing be granted granted in part
and denied in part

On Feb. 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated against the Defendants
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
labor law.  On April 27, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint.  

The Defendant is a California company doing business in Tulare,
California.  It is co-owned and managed by Defendants Eduardo
Martin, Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin, and Ronald Martin.  The
Defendant provides machinery and personnel to client dairies at
their premises to harvest, transport, and weigh wheat and corn that
is used as animal feed.  The Martins oversee the company's
operations and make decisions regarding scheduling, working
conditions, and hiring and terminating employees. They visit and
oversee operations at the numerous customer worksites and handle
administration of many of the company's affairs.

Four groups of workers are employed by the Defendants: 1) shop
workers who service trucks and service and clean agricultural
equipment at the Defendant's shop; 2) farm equipment operators who
work at harvesting and pruners; 3) truck drivers who transport
wheat and corn from the field to the dairy; and 4) weighers who
weigh the wheat and corn for purposes of billing clients
("weighers").

The shop workers are paid at an overtime rate only after having
worked more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week.  They are
not provided with a second meal period after working more than 10
hours per day and until recently were not provided with rest
periods.

The operators handle farm machinery to harvest corn or wheat at the
client's fields.  Pruners worked briefly as agricultural workers
pruning cherries and pistachios.  Operators worked more than 12
hours per day and were not provided with meal and rest periods
until recently.  Pruners worked more than 8 hours per day and were
not provided with all their meal and rest periods.

Truck drivers transport the wheat and corn from the client's fields
to their dairies.  They're paid at an overtime rate after having
worked more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week.  Until
recently truck drivers were not provided with meal and rest
periods.  They typically worked more than 10 hours per day and had
to eat in their vehicles.  Truck drivers were required to report to
work on days for which they were not selected to work or worked
less than 4 hours and were not compensated for all their reporting
time.

Weighers work at the client's premises weighing and recording the
wheat and corn brought by truck drivers.   They're paid at an
overtime rate after having worked more than 10 hours per day or 60
hours per week.  They typically work more than 12 hours per day and
until recently were not provided with meal and rest periods.
Weighers must report to work on days for which they were not
selected to work or worked less than four hours and were not
compensated for all their reporting time. (FAC ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed as truck driver from May 2008 to
May 2016.  Plaintiff Valdez was employed as a truck driver from
2010 to May 2016.  Plaintiff Esparza was employed as an operator
and shop worker from 2008 to December 2016.  Plaintiff Banda was
employed as a truck driver and shop worker for over 15 years until
May 2017.

The Plaintiffs bring this action alleging failure to pay overtime
in violation of the FLSA; failure to pay meal and rest periods in
violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code section 226(A); failure to pay for reporting time in violation
of Industrial Wage Orders 4, 9, and 14; failure to pay waiting time
penalties in violation of California Labor Code section 201, 202,
and 203; unfair business practices in violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and are seeking
civil penalties under the California Private Attorney's General Act
("PAGA").

On May 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the
production of certain discovery and staying the action so they
could participate in mediation.  On May 11, 2018, the Defendants
filed an amended answer.

A scheduling order issued on Oct. 2, 2018.  On Dec. 4, 2018, the
parties filed a notice of settlement of the class and collective
actions.  On Feb. 4, 2019, a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement and a stipulation to file a first amended
complaint was filed.  The first amended complaint was filed on Feb.
5, 2019.

The settlement agreement provides for a settlement fund of $525,000
to resolve all claims of the settlement class for the alleged
failure to provide meal and rest breaks and pay wages, penalties,
and attorney fees and costs.  The Defendants will pay the
employer's share of the payroll taxes separately.  Prior to payment
of settlement awards, the common fund will be reduced by service
awards to the named Plaintiffs, award of attorney fees and costs to
the class counsel, all costs of settlement administration, and a
PAGA payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA").  The remaining funds constitute the net settlement
fund.  The class period is defined as "any time between Feb. 16,
2014 and May 27, 2018.

The settlement fund will be funded by six separate installments
with the first payment of $87,500 to be made within 180 days from
the date of final approval of the settlement.  The following
payments will be made six months after the previous payment. (Id.)
In the event that a payment is not made the entire amount will be
immediately due and payable.  Notice of default will be given by
mail and fax and no other action will occur until after 10 days
have lapsed during which time Defendants have the right to cure any
default.

The settlement fund will be distributed in three installments.  The
first installment will be distributed within 30 days of receipt of
the first payment from the Defendants.  This installment will be
distributed to pay the named Plaintiff's incentive awards, costs of
claims administration, the PAGA payment to the LWDA, and the
attorney's costs in the action.  The second distribution is to be
made within 30 days after the claims administrator receives the
third payment fromthe Defendants.  This payment will be used to
begin paying settlement awards to the class.  The third
distribution will be made within 30 days after the sixth
installment payment is received.  This distribution will pay the
remaining settlement awards to the class in proportionate shares
and the class counsel's attorney fees.  Any undistributed funds
from checks that are not cashed will escheat to the California
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of Unpaid Wages Fund to be
held in the name of and for the benefit of the class member.

The claims administrator will pay from the common fund attorney
fees in the amount of $131,250; costs of $12,500, and $5,000 to
each of the named Plaintiffs.  The net settlement fund is to be
allocated in the following manner: 20% to unpaid wage claims; 80%
to statutory penalties and interest; and $10,000 to PAGA penalties.
The settlement administrator will pay the LWDA $7,500 in PAGA
penalties.

The net settlement fund will be distributed to the members of the
settlement class and FLSA class.  The funds will be distributed
based upon the number of payroll periods that the class member
worked.  Each class member will be paid the amount after applicable
state and federal taxes are withheld.  The settlement administrator
will issue a W-2 for the payment of unpaid wages and a Form 1099
for the portion that is allocated to statutory penalties and
interest.

The Defendants agree not to oppose the application for attorney
fees or costs by the class counsel.

The Court heard oral argument on March 6, 2019.

As the settlement is currently structured, Magistrate Boone finds
that a conflict of interests exists between the named and unnamed
class members that precludes certification of the Rule 23 class in
the matter.  Based on the foregoing, he recommended that the motion
for 1) preliminary approval of the class action settlement; 2)
provisional class certification and appointment of the class
counsel; 3) approval of form and method of class notice; 4) the
scheduling of a final fairness hearing be granted granted in part
and denied in part as follows:

      1. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
the collective action be granted; and

      2. All other aspects of the motion be denied without
prejudice.

The findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge
assigned to the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B)
and the Court's Local Rule 304.  Within 14 days of service of the
recommendation, any party may file written objections to the
findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties.  Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."  The district
judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C).  The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Findings and
Recommendations is available at https://is.gd/gWpi5s from
Leagle.com.

Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Estreberto Valdez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Miguel Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Francisco Banda, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Edward Hill, Law Offices Of John E. Hill, A
Professional Corporation & Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E.
Hill.

M.J. Brothers, Inc., a California Corporation, Eduardo Martin,
Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin & Ronald Martin, Defendants,
represented by Faith Lisle Driscoll --
fdriscoll@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian & Moody, Patrick
Moody -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian and Moody &
Ronald H. Barsamian -- ronbarsamian@aol.com -- Barsamian & Moody.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt 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 the company continues to
defend itself from a putative class action suit entitled, City of
Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and UBC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint was subsequently
amended, most recently on December 8, 2017, to include an
additional named plaintiff and additional defendants.

As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the
present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC
and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling H.P. Acthar Gel
through an exclusive distributor; and committed fraud on consumers
by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar Gel's active
ingredient on package inserts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt 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 the company continues to
defend against a putative class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery
Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
case is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: all
Medicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S.
who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel
pursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii)
Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with
certain exclusions.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.

The complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade
practice laws.

Pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt 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 the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan Securities Litigation is still stayed pending the
resolution of the case, Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), filed
a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C.
Trudeau ("CEO"), its former Chief Financial Officer Matthew K.
Harbaugh ("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current
and former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs. In the
alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same
purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the putative class action securities litigation.

Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March
1, 2018. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4,
2018 having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. On
July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces 1,487 Suits over Opioid Sales
-----------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt 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 28, 2018, that as of February 26, 2019,
that the Company is aware of approximately 1,487 cases related to
Opioid sales.

Since 2017, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed lawsuits
against certain Mallinckrodt entities, as well as various other
manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers,
individual doctors and/or others, asserting claims relating to
defendants' alleged sales, marketing, distribution, reimbursement,
prescribing, dispensing and/or other practices with respect to
prescription opioid medications, including certain of the Company's
products.

As of February 26, 2019, the cases of which the Company is aware
include, but are not limited to, approximately 1,487 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 104 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers; approximately 15 cases filed by
individuals and 6 cases filed by the Attorneys General for New
Mexico, Kentucky, Rhode Island. Georgia, Florida, and Alaska.
Certain of the lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions.

Many of the lawsuits have been coordinated in a federal
multi-district litigation ("MDL") pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The MDL court has issued a
series of case management orders permitting motion practice
addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases, allowing
discovery and setting a trial date in October 2019 for two cases
originally filed in the Northern District of Ohio.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some
jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and Texas, certain state court cases have been
coordinated for pretrial proceedings before a single court within
their respective state court systems. State cases are generally at
the pleading and/or discovery stage.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt 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 the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic
exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The
lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading
statements related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's stock.

In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of
H.P. Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same
period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts
claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO
and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth
in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. Lead plaintiff was
designated by the court on March 9, 2018.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018,
alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the
Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President,
Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar claims, but
further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement
restrictions for H.P. Acthar Gel. On August 30, 2018, the lead
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against Mr. O'Neill
without prejudice.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION: Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Intervene
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana affirmed the Magistrate Judge Wilkinson's
Jan. 16, 2019 order denying the Petitioner's motion to intervene,
and declining to lift the stay, in the case, IN RE: IN THE MATTER
OF MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC, ET AL, Civil Action No.
18-9749 (E.D. La.).

Before the Court is a Motion to Appeal Magistrate's Decision filed
by the Petitioners in Intervention -- Kenneth Fredric,
Donaldsonville Glass & Body Works, Inc., Nolan Guillot, Jr., and
First & Last Chance, et al., a class of litigants who filed a class
action in the 23rd Judicial District Court for Parish of St. James,
Louisiana for their economic losses resulting from closure of the
Sunshine Bridge.  Marquette filed an opposition, and the
Petitioners filed a reply.

The Petitioners contend the Magistrate's Jan. 16, 2019 order
contains three separate errors: (1) the order incorrectly applies a
procedural rule to deny a substantive right created by saving to
suitors clause; (2) the order incorrectly applies a literal
interpretation of Fed. R. Civil Proc. Supp. R. F(5), by holding the
rule requires anyone opposing the limitation to file a claim; and
(3) the order incorrectly denied the petitioners' request to lift
the stay because the stay is overbroad.  The Petitioners raise
these first and third issues for the first time in their appeal,
and these arguments might therefore be considered waived.  

Judge Barbier considers the Petitioner's second argument, that the
Magistrate misapplied RuleF(5), first.  He finds that the crux of
the Petitioner's position is that they should be allowed to
intervene and lift the stay because they are asserting only state
law claims.  They say that because they are not "claimants" under
federal law, they are not required to file a claim in order to
contest Marquette's "right to limitation of liability," as is
clearly contemplated by Rule F.  As the Petitioners candidly admit,
by framing their claim in such a way, they seek to side-step the
clearly established maritime rule that denies a plaintiff recovery
for economic loss if that loss resulted from physical damage to
property in which he had no proprietary interest.

Magistrate Judge Wilkinson held that the Petitioners must file a
claim in accordance with Rule F(5), before they could raise their
arguments.  In so doing, the Magistrate relied on a decision from
the Eighth Circuit, In re American River Transportation. Co.  In
American River, the Eight Circuit held that Rule F(5) creates
statutory standing requirements for challenging limitation actions.
To Judge Barbier's knowledge, the Fifth Circuit has made no ruling
on this issue and in the absence of such contrary binding
precedent, the Magistrate's decision is not "clearly erroneous" or
"contrary to law.  The Supplemental Rules provide the proper
procedure for challenging the limitation action -- the process does
not require intervention, and it was not error to deny intervention
in the proceeding.

The Petitioners also argue the saving to suitors clause, prohibits
the Magistrate's order that the Petitioners file a claim in
accordance with Rule F.  However, the Magistrate implicitly
considered the clause when he applied the law of Texaco, Inc. v.
Williams, a case which examined the recurring and inherent conflict
between the exclusive jurisdiction vested in admiralty courts by
the Limitation of Liability Act and the common law remedies
embodied in the saving to suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. Section
1333.

The Judge holds that the Magistrate correctly applied Texaco in
denying the Petitioners' motion to lift the stay because the
requirements set out for allowing a state court proceeding were not
met: all possible claimants did not stipulate that the federal
court has exclusive jurisdiction or that the claimants will not
pursue enforcement of a judgment in excess of the value of the ship
and its freight until the Court determines the shipowner's right to
limit liability.  Finally, finding that the order denying
intervention and declining to lift the stay was not erroneous, the
Judge declines to consider the scope of the stay in this posture.
This issue should be determined in the proper course of the
proceeding.

Accordingly, Judge Barbier denied the Motion to Appeal Magistrate's
Decision.  He affirmed the Magistrate's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/t6z1ru from Leagle.com.

Marquette Transportation Company, LLC, As Owner and Operator of the
Tow Boat Kristin Alexis, Petitioning for Exoneration From and/or
Limitation of Liability & Marquette Transportation Company
Gulf-Inland, LLC, As Owner and Operator of the Tow Boat Kristin
Alexis, Petitioning for Exoneration From and/or Limitation of
Liability, Petitioners, represented by David Latham Reisman --
dreisman@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Alexander J. Baynham --
ajbaynham@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Brett D. Wise --
bdwise@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Raymond T. Waid --
rwaid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.

Kenneth J Fredric, Donaldsonville Glass & Body Works, Inc, Nolan W.
Guillot, Jr., also known as Billy Guillot & First & Last Chance,
Movants, represented by Marvin Gros, Law Office of Marvin Gros,
Kelley Randley Dick, Jr. -- kelley@mansfieldmelancon.com --
Mansfield, Melancon, Cranmer, & Dick, LLC, Martin K. Maley, Sr. --
mkmaley@eatel.net -- Maley Law Firm, Stacey Barnes Stephens --
sstephens@stephenslawofficesllc.com -- Law Offices of Marvin Gros &
Stephen M. Irving, Steve Irving, LLC.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL: Nouri et al. Suit Moved to D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CINA NOURI; and RICARDO ZEPEDA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL INC.; and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10234, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, 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-00500-PWG to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Nouri 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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Davis Suit to D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RANDALL DAVIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00841, 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-00560-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Davis 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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Fisher Suit to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JEROME FISHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20354, 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-00560-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Fisher 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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes King Suit to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DIANNE KING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10173, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, 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-00560-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The King 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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Removes Mendez et al. Suit to D. Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL MENDEZ; and TOBIAS HINSCH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-25292, 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-00520-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is
assigned to the Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Mendez 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 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


MASSE CONTRACTING: Failed to Pay OT Wages to Hourly Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON OGLESBY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MASSE CONTRACTING, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02360 (E.D. La., March 14, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to properly compensate its employees
knowingly, willfully or in reckless disregard in carrying out its
illegal pattern or practice.

According to the complaint, the decision by Defendant to not
properly pay overtime compensation to its hourly employees was
neither reasonable nor done in good faith. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff and all those who are similarly situated are entitled to
wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to one and one-half times
their rate of pay, plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Numerous employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice
and policy, which are in willful violation of the FLSA. Many of
these employees have worked with Plaintiff and have reported that
they were paid in the same manner and were not properly compensated
for all hours worked as required by the FLSA. Thus, from his
observations and discussions with these employees, the Plaintiff is
aware that the illegal practices and/or policies of Defendant have
been imposed on the Putative Class Members.

The Putative Class Members are all employees who regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. These employees are victims of
Defendant’s unlawful compensation practices and or similarly
situated to Plaintiff in terms of job duties, pay provisions and
employment practices, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          C. Arlen Braud, II, Esq.
          Michelle O. Gallagher, Esq.
          Steven D. Jackson, Esq.
          BRAUD & GALLAGHER, L.L.C.
          111 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 201
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 778-0771
          Facsimile: (985) 231-4663
          E-mail: arlenb@braudandgallagher.com
                  michelleg@braudandgallagher.com
                  stevenj@braudandgallagher.com

MATTEL INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP  ("GPM") on March 6 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Wyatt v.
Mattel, Inc. et al., (Case No. 2:19-cv-01646), on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mattel, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MAT ) ("Mattel" or the "Company") securities between
February 7, 2019 and February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from March 7,
2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

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

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

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

If you purchased Mattel securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from March 7, 2019, the date
of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


MDL 2047: Claims in Chinese-Made Drywall Products Suit Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL BROOKE CASES, SECTION L
(5), Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted in part and denied in part BNBM Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Brooke omnibus complaint, filed Jan. 15, 2016.

From 2004 through 2006, a housing boom in parts of the United
States and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina in the Gulf South led to a shortage of construction
materials, including drywall.  As a result, drywall manufactured in
China was brought into the United States and used to construct and
refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf
and East Coasts.  Sometime after the Chinese drywall was installed,
homeowners began to complain of foul-smelling odors, the corrosion
and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the
breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes.
Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical
afflictions believed to have been caused by the Chinese drywall.

These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and
federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers,
realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors,
and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall.
Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, this
litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant
to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on June 15, 2009, all federal
cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court.

The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities.
The litigation has focused on these two entities and their
downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different
tracks for the claims against each group.  

Relevant to the Order are the Chinese Defendants.  These Defendants
include the principal Chinese-based Defendant, Taishan, namely,
Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. ("TG") and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd. ("TTP") ("Taishan" or "Taishan
Entities").  Other Chinese-based Defendants include China New
Building Materials Group ("CNBM Group"), China New Building
Materials Co. ("CNBM"), CNBMIT Co. Ltd., CNBM USA Corp., and United
Suntech Craft, Inc. ("United Suntech") ("CNBM Entities"), as well
as the Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Company
("BNBM") and Beijing New Building Material Group ("BNBMG") ("BNBM
Entities").

The Court's initial inquiry regarding Taishan involved four cases
in the MDL: (1) Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Co. (Case No. 09-6687);
(2) The Mitchell Co. v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-4115); (3) Gross
v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-6690); and (4) Wiltz v. Beijing New
Building Materials Public Ltd. (Case No. 10-361).

The first issues involving Taishan arose when Taishan failed to
timely answer or otherwise enter an appearance in Mitchell and
Germano, despite the fact that it had been properly served in each
case.  Thus, after an extended period of time, the Court entered
preliminary defaults against Taishan in both cases.  Thereafter,
the Court moved forward with an evidentiary hearing in furtherance
of the preliminary default in Germano on the Plaintiffs' claimed
damages.  At the hearing, the PSC presented evidence specific to
seven individual properties, which served as bellwether cases.
Thereafter, on Feb. 19 and 20, 2010, the Court issued detailed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On May 11, 2010, the
Court issued a Default Judgment against Taishan in Germano and in
favor of the Plaintiffs.

On June 10, 2010, the last day to timely appeal the Default
Judgment against them, Taishan filed a Notice of Appeal in Germano
and entered its appearance in Germano and Mitchell.  After Taishan
entered its appearance in the MDL, it quickly sought to have the
Default Judgment in Germano and the Preliminary Default in Mitchell
vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Because this was the
first time Defendants raised jurisdictional issues, the Fifth
Circuit remanded the case to this Court to determine whether this
Court indeed has jurisdiction over Taishan.

In the fall of 2010, the Court directed the parties to commence the
personal jurisdiction discovery necessary to resolve Taishan's
motions to vacate.  Sometime after the initial discovery, the
parties agreed to expand the discovery beyond the Germano and
Mitchell cases to other cases in which Taishan had been served,
including Gross and Wiltz.

Formal personal jurisdiction discovery of Taishan began in October
2010.  Discovery included the production of both written and
electronic documents as well as depositions of Taishan's corporate
representatives, with each type of discovery proceeding in a
parallel fashion.  This discovery was highly contentious, requiring
close supervision by the Court.  The Court presided over
regularly-scheduled status conferences, conducted hearings, and
issued rulings to resolve numerous discovery-related disputes.

In June 2011, the PSC filed identical complaints in Federal
district courts in Florida, Virginia, and Louisiana ("Amorin
complaints").  The Amorin complaints include all the Plaintiffs
named in the Wiltz, Gross, Abel, and Haya actions.  The Florida and
Virginia actions were transferred by the JPML to the MDL; the PSC
filed the Louisiana omnibus complaint directly into the MDL.  It is
undisputed that the allegations and the Plaintiffs named in the
Amoin complaints are identical.  According to the PSC, these
identical complaints were filed "out of an abundance of caution,"
because there existed a colorable question regarding the
application of the jurisdictional tests known as the 'stream-of
commerce' test and the 'stream-of-commerce-plus' test reflected in
the plurality opinions in McIntyre and Asahi, as well as Justice
Brennan's concurring opinion in Asahi.

In April 2012, Taishan filed various motions, including motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On June 29, 2012, over
three years since the creation of the MDL and after a
year-and-a-half of personal jurisdiction discovery on Taishan, the
Court presided over a hearing on Taishan's motions.  The Court
coordinated its hearing with the Hon. Joseph Farina of the Florida
state court, who had a similar motion involving Taishan's challenge
to personal jurisdiction.

On Sept. 4, 2012, the Court issued a 142-page Order regarding
Taishan's motions in Germano, Mitchell, Gross, and Wiltz, in which
the Court denied the motions to dismiss and held that it maintained
personal jurisdiction over Taishan.  It also ruled that Taishan was
operating as the alter ego of TG and TTP.  The Court certified an
interlocutory appeal, and the Fifth Circuit granted permission to
appeal. In January and May of 2014, two different panels of the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling and held that the Court
maintained personal jurisdiction over Taishan, TG, and TTP.  The
time for writ of certiorari passed, and the issue of personal
jurisdiction over Taishan became firmly and finally settled.
Nevertheless, Taishan refused to voluntarily participate in the
suit.

On June 20, 2014, the Court ordered Taishan to appear in open court
on July 17, 2014 to be examined as a judgment debtor.  Taishan
failed to appear for the July 17, 2014 Judgment Debtor Examination,
and the Court held Taishan in contempt, ordering that Taishan pay
$15,000 in attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel and $40,000as
a penalty for contempt; Taishan and any of its affiliates or
subsidiaries be enjoined from conducting any business in the United
States until or unless it participates in the judicial process; and
if Taishan violates the injunction, it must pay a further penalty
of twenty-five percent of the profits earned by the Company or its
affiliate who violate the Order for the year of the violation.

On July 23, 2014, the PSC filed their Omnibus Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).  Taishan did not appear
and, on Sept. 26, 2014, the Court certified a class of all owners
of real properties in the United States, who are named Plaintiffs
on the complaints in Amorin, Germano, Gross, and/or Wiltz (i.e.,
not an absent class member), asserting claims for remediated
damages arising from, or otherwise related to Chinese Drywall
manufactured, sold, distributed, supplied, marketed, inspected,
imported or delivered by the Taishan Defendants.

Taishan finally entered an appearance with the Court in February
2015, and, to satisfy the contempt, Taishan paid both the sum of
$15,000 in attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel and the contempt
penalty of $40,000 in March 2015.  On March 17, 2015, the Court
ordered Taishan and the BNBM and CNBM Entities to participate in
expedited discovery related to "the relationship between Taishan
and BNBM/CNBM, including whether affiliate and/or alter ego status
exists.

On March 10, 2016, the Court granted CNBM Group's motion to
dismiss, finding it was an "agent or instrumentality of a foreign
state" within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
("FSIA"), and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Court under
28 U.S.C. Section 1603(b). R. Doc. 20150. Because the PSC failed to
present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that CNBM
Group was entitled to independent status for purposes of the FSIA,
the Court granted the motion and dismissed CNBM Group from the
present litigation.

After concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over CNBM Group,
on April 21, 2017, the Court issued a 100-page opinion related to
jurisdictional challenges being raised with respect to CNBM, BNBM
Group, and BNBM.  The Court found Taishan was an agent of BNBM
under Florida and Virginia law, such that Taishan's contacts in
Florida and Virginia are imputed to BNBM.  It further found that
CNBM, BNBM Group, and BNBM were part of a single business
enterprise with Taishan under Louisiana law, such that Taishan's
contacts in Louisiana may be imputed to them, and that the Court
has jurisdiction over CNBM, BNBM Group, and BNBM in relation to the
Plaintiffs' claims based on Louisiana law.  Also on April 21, 2017,
the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
related to the June 9, 2015 damages hearing and adopted the PSC's
damage calculations methodology related to remediation of
properties.

On May 22, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) to certify an interlocutory appeal from the
Court's April 21, 2017 jurisdiction order.  Because the Court found
the April 21, 2017 Order & Reasons involved a controlling question
of law as to which there was substantial ground for difference of
opinion, and because the Court further found that an interlocutory
appeal might materially advance the ultimate termination of the
MDL, on Aug. 4, 2017, the Court certified an interlocutory appeal
to the Fifth Circuit.

On Aug. 1, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction following the recent U.S. Supreme Court
case of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California.
Based on Bristol-Myers, the Defendants contested the Court's
findings of personal jurisdiction, class certification, and agency
relationship.  On Aug. 14, 2017, the Defendants filed a petition
for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) in
the Fifth Circuit, in which they argued Bristol-Myers impacted
questions raised on appeal.

On Aug. 24, 2017, the Court vacated its 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b)
certification order to avoid piecemeal litigations, noting its duty
to address the effect of Bristol-Myers on the jurisdictional issue
before certifying the matter to the Fifth Circuit.  Subsequently,
on Nov. 30, 2017, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, holding Bristol-Myers did not change the Court's
jurisdictional findings and class certification.

On Jan. 2, 2018, the Court denied Defendants CNBM, BNBM Group, and
BNBM's motion to vacate the default judgments against them.  On
March 5, 2018, the Court reinstated its order certifying the
interlocutory appeal of its April 21, 2017 order.  This issue
remains with the Fifth Circuit.


Before the Court is the BNBM Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Brooke omnibus complaint, filed Jan. 15, 2016.  On Jan. 18, 2019,
Taishan and the BNBM entities filed their memoranda in further
support of BNBM's motion to dismiss, to which the PSC filed a
supplemental reply.  The Court heard oral argument on the motion on
Feb. 21, 2019.

Judge Fallon granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion.  To the extent the Defendants argue dismissal is proper for
lack of jurisdiction and improper service, the motion is denied.
Moreover, the claims of those Plaintiffs whose homes are located
Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, or North Carolina are timely pursuant
to the Gross Complaint and American Pipe tolling principles.  With
respect to the remaining Plaintiffs, their claims may be timely
pursuant to the respective discovery rules applicable to their
claims; thus, the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to
these Plaintiffs is premature.  Therefore, with respect to the
Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs' claims are not timely
filed, the Judge denied the motion.

The Louisiana-based Plaintiffs' claims for negligence, negligence
per se, strict liability, private nuisance, breach of the warranty
of fitness, and unjust enrichment are dimissed with prejudice.
With respect to the Louisiana-based Plaintiffs' claims brought
pursuant to the Defendants' alleged breach of the warranty against
redhibitory defects and violations of the Louisiana Products
Liability Act, the Defendants' motion is denide.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice all the Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to the various states' Consumer Protection Acts and all
Plaintiffs' Private Nuisance Claims.  The non-Louisiana based
Plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to the Louisiana Products
Liability Act are also dismissed with prejudice.  

With respect to the non-Louisiana based Plaintiffs' remaining
claims, specifically those based in negligence, negligence per se,
strict liability, and unjust enrichment, the Jude denied the
Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VdYCWW from Leagle.com.

Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MDL 2492: Abdulrahman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Amin Abdulrahman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00477 (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-01138 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 Abdulrahman 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: Adams Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Keenan Adams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Furman University, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00489 (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-01157 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 Furman University
Student-Athletes.

The Adams 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: Campbell Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Anthony Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00478 (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-01139 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 Campbell 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: Caylor Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, David Caylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00472 (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-01126 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 Caylor 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: Federico Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Vincent Federico, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00464 (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-01114 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 Federico 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: Fontaine Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jeremy Fontaine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00486 (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-01152 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 Fontaine 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: Fox Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Domarco Fox, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474 (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-01130 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 Fox 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: Keck Action v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Gary Keck, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00440 (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-01129 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 Keck 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: Merchant Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Emmett Merchant, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00476 (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-01134 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 Merchant 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: Pierce Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Sean Pierce, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Marist College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00437 (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-01123 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 Marist College
Student-Athletes.

The Pierce 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: Udovich Action v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Mark Udovich, 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-00499 (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-01166 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 Udovich 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: Watts Action v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Gregory Watts, 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-00498 (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-01165 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 Watts case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

MDL 2672: ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3631, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the ECF No. 3631 motion to remand.

Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or
Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one
of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car
makers.  Rather than participate in those settlements,
approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them.  Some
of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in
state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal
court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the
captioned MDL.

Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more
than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases,
were filed in the Court.  The Order addresses one of those motions,
ECF No. 3631.  The ECF No. 3631 motion covers 184 separate cases,
each of which was originally filed in California state court
against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") and a
California-based dealership.

Each of the ECF No. 3631 cases was filed by either an individual or
a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen or Audi TDI
diesel-engine car.  They allege that they purchased the cars at
California-based dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they
relied on VWGoA's representations that the cars had "low
emissions," and were "clean," "green," "good for the environment,"
and "fuel efficient."  Had they known about the cars' actual
emissions and use of a defeat device, the Plaintiffs contend that
they would not have purchased the cars or would have paid less to
do so.

The ECF No. 3631 complaints only include state-law claims.  Each
complaint includes an implied warranty claim, under California's
Song-Beverly Act, and one or more fraud claims.  Nearly all of the
complaints also include a claim for violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  A few complaints also
include other state-law claims.  Among other forms of relief, the
Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, rescission and
restitution, and attorneys' fees.

VWGoA and the California-based dealership Defendants removed
Plaintiffs' cases to federal court on the basis of federal-question
jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3631
motion to remand.  VWGoA, but not the dealership Defendants, has
opposed the motion

Judge Breyer finds that alternative and independent theories
underly the Plaintiffs' fraud claims, and at least some of those
theories can be proven without needing to interpret federal law.
In these circumstances, federal-question jurisdiction does not
attach because federal law is not a necessary element of the
claim.

Next, he finds that the "street legal" federal issue in the ECF No.
3631 cases is not analogous to the federal issues that were raised
in Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., and
Burda v. M. Ecker Co.  Unlike the federal issues in those cases,
which needed to be resolved before any recovery could be had, the
Plaintiffs may prevail and recover damages from VWGoA without ever
proving that the cars at issue were illegal to drive as a matter of
federal law.  Because the "street legal" federal issue will not
necessarily arise, it does not support jurisdiction under Section
1331.

Finally, he finds that even if the complaints did include the
mandatory repair allegations, those allegations would not support
federal-question jurisdiction.  Like the "street legal" issue, the
mandatory repair issue would not necessarily arise, for the issue
would not be pivotal to the success of the Plaintiffs' claims.  It
would simply be an add-on issue that, if the facts supported it,
could enhance damages.  Because the Plaintiffs do not need to raise
the mandatory repair issue to prevail, the issue does not support
jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Judge Breyer concludes that it is a "special and small category" of
cases that only raise state-law claims but that support
federal-question jurisdiction. The ECF No. 3631 cases do not come
within that category.  He therefore granted the motion to remand.
Each of the ECF No. 3631 cases that is listed in Appendix A to the
motion and that has not been terminated will be remanded to
California state court.

The Judge does not award fees to the Plaintiffs.  Absent unusual
circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal.  A basis for removal is not
objectively unreasonable solely because it lacks merit.  Although
VWGoA's arguments for removal lacked merit, they were not
objectively unreasonable.  Cases analyzing Grable jurisdiction
require courts to venture into a murky jurisprudence, which leaves
room for creative arguments.  Although it may still be possible to
raise a Grable argument for removal that is unreasonable, VWGoA's
arguments did not reach that line.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AhIOGC from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: ECF No. 3781 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3781 MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the ECF No. 3781 motion to remand.

Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or
Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one
of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car
makers.  Rather than participate in those settlements,
approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them.  Some
of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in
state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal
court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the
captioned MDL.

Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more
than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases,
were filed in the Court.  The Order addresses one of those motions,
ECF No. 3781. The ECF No. 3781 motion covers one case, Adams v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-5085-CRB.
Adams was filed in Texas state court, by the counsel at the law
firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by Volkswagen Group of
America ("VWGoA").  When Adams was filed it had 46 plaintiffs. Many
of those Plaintiffs have since voluntarily dismissed their claims;
only 12, covering 11 separate cars, remain.

VWGoA removed Adams on the basis of diversity subject-matter
jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have
argued that diversity jurisdiction is lacking.  They allege that
they purchased the cars at Texas-based dealerships, and that prior
to doing so they read the window stickers attached to the cars,
which advertised that the cars offered "good clean diesel fun."
They also allege that VWGoA and Volkswagen AG ("VW AG") represented
that the cars were environmentally friendly and would emit 25%
fewer emissions than comparable gasoline-powered cars.

In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for
the environment. And not only were the cars' emissions higher than
represented, but VW knew this.  And not only were their emissions
higher than represented, but VW knew this.  VW knew that the cars
could not perform as promised and had specifically developed and
installed software in them that detected and evaded emissions
testing.  During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing
emission standards; but when the cars were on the road, they
emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits. In
September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations, VW
admitted that it had equipped its TDI-diesel engine cars with
emissions-cheating software, and that it had been doing so since
2009.

The Adams Plaintiffs bring five claims against VWGoA and VW AG.
The claims are for violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("DTPA") and for breach of contract, an express warranty, and
the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose.  The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include
actual and punitive damages, rescission and repurchase of the
subject vehicles and restitution of all monies expended, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  They seek only monetary
relief of not more than $74,499.99 for each vehicle including
damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment
interests, and attorney fees.

VWGoA removed Adams to federal court on the basis of diversity
subject-matter jurisdiction.  VW AG apparently was not served and
did not join the notice of removal.  The Plaintiffs responded by
filing the ECF No. 3781 motion to remand.

VWGoA, as the removing party, need only provide a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal, in which it alleges the
underlying facts supporting each of the requirements for removal
jurisdiction.  The requirement at issue is complete diversity; and
VWGoA has alleged the underlying facts supporting this requirement
by alleging that, when the complaints were filed, VWGoA was a
citizen of New Jersey and Virginia, VW AG, by implication of being
incorporated and headquartered in Germany, was a citizen of
Germany, and Plaintiffs were citizens of Texas, Georgia, and South
Dakota.  These allegations are sufficient to support that the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants were citizens of different states
when the case began.  The requirement of complete diversity is
therefore satisfied.

As to actual damages, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' purchase
price approximations range from $18,000 to $55,400.  Because the
Plaintiffs have put the full amounts that they paid to buy the cars
in dispute, these amounts represent the actual damages in
controversy.

With respect to punitive damages, he finds that at this stage, the
question is whether at least $50,000 in punitive damages is at
stake for each individual or couple in Adams.  Given the facts
alleged and the amount of punitive damages awarded in comparable
cases, it is clear that the answer to the question is yes.

As to attorneys' fees, multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate
of $295 leads to an estimate of $29,736 in attorneys' fees.  At
least that amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy
for each individual or couple in Adams.

Finally, qhen the above estimates of actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees are added together, the amounts in
controversy for each individual or couple in Adams range from
$97,736 to $135,136.  Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy
requirement is satisfied.

Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between it and VW AG on the one
hand, and the Plaintiffs on the other.  Also, a preponderance of
the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is
met.  He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity
subject-matter jurisdiction over Adams, and denied the ECF No. 3781
motion to remand.

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


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Del. Chancery Denies Bid to Enjoin Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube, et
al., the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has denied the
plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently enjoin the proposed merger
of Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) with Sierra Income Corporation
and (ii) require MCC to conduct a "shopping process" for MCC on
terms proposed by the plaintiffs in their complaint.

In MCC's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 14, 2019, the Company states that on February
11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was commenced in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by FrontFour Capital
Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., captioned FrontFour
Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al., Case No.
2019-0100 (the "Delaware Action"), against defendants Brook Taube,
Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Medley Management Inc. ("MDLY"), Sierra
Income Corporation ("Sierra"), Medley Capital Corporation ("MCC"),
MCC Advisors LLC ("MCC Advisors"), Medley Group LLC ("Medley
Group"), and Medley LLC.

The complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
MCC stockholders in connection with the proposed merger of MCC with
Sierra, and that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, Medley Group, and
Medley LLC aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC
stockholders on the proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of
certain provisions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and Sierra (the "MCC Merger
Agreement").

The Court held a trial on the plaintiffs' claims on March 6 to 7,
2019 and issued a Memorandum Opinion (the "Decision") on March 11,
2019.  The Court denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently
enjoin the proposed merger and (ii) require MCC to conduct a
"shopping process" for MCC on terms proposed by the plaintiffs in
their complaint.  The Court held that MCC's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in entering into the proposed merger, but
rejected the plaintiffs' claim that Sierra aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Court ordered the defendants to
issue corrective disclosures consistent with the Decision, and
enjoined a vote of MCC stockholders on the proposed merger until
such disclosures have been made and stockholders have had the
opportunity to assimilate this information.

MCC said that it is currently considering all available options,
including appeal, with respect to the Decision.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is
based in New York, New York.


MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Putative Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. remains subject to a putative securities
class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra,
Inc. in a business combination.  Prior to the merger, on November
4, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the
United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina,
Durham Division, naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta
Therapeutics, Inc.)(for purposes of this and the following
description of legal proceedings, "Cempra") and certain of Cempra's
officers as defendants.  Two substantially similar lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of North
Carolina on November 22, 2016 and December 30, 2016, respectively.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July
6, 2017, the court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single
action and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the
consolidated case.  On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff alleged violations of
the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the defendants between July 7, 2015, and
November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period").  the plaintiff sought to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of Cempra's common stock
during the Class Period and sought damages, costs and expenses and
such other relief as determined by the court.  On September 29,
2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  After the motion to dismiss was fully briefed,
the court heard oral arguments on July 24, 2018.  On October 26,
2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety.  On November 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed its notice of
appeal to the Fourth Circuit.  the appellant filed its opening
brief and appendix on January 28, 2019, and the appellee filed its
response brief on February 27, 2019.  The appellant's reply is due
on March 20, 2019.  We believe that we have meritorious defenses
and we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

"On December 21, 2016, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
commenced in the North Carolina Durham County Superior Court,
naming certain of Cempra's former and current officers and
directors as defendants and Cempra as a nominal defendant, and
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste (the
"December 2016 Action").  A substantially similar lawsuit was filed
in the North Carolina Durham County Superior Court on February 16,
2017 (the "February 2017 Action").  The complaints are based on
similar allegations as asserted in the securities lawsuits
described above, and seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
Both cases were served and transferred to the North Carolina
Business Court as mandatory complex business cases.  The Business
Court consolidated the February 2017 Action into the December 2016
Action and appointed counsel for the plaintiff in the December 2016
Action as lead counsel.  On July 6, 2017, the court stayed the
action pending resolution of the putative securities class action.
That stay was then lifted.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on December 29, 2017, and was required to file a further
amended complaint by February 6, 2018.  On February 6, 2018, the
plaintiff filed his second amended complaint.  On March 8, 2018,
defendants filed their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
stay plaintiff's second amended complaint.  On April 9, 2018,
plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants' motion.  Defendants'
filed their reply on April 26, 2018.  On June 27, 2018, the parties
filed a joint stipulation and consent order to stay the case until
(1) 30 days after a final order dismissing the putative securities
class action appeal with prejudice is entered; or (2) the parties
file a joint stipulation to terminate the stay in the event that a
plaintiff in a subsequently filed derivative action makes similar
allegations and does not agree to stay the proceedings on
substantially the same terms.  On June 29, 2018, the court entered
an order staying the case pursuant to the joint stipulation, which
expired by its term following entry of the court's dismissal order
in the above putative securities class action.  On November 29,
2018, the parties filed a second joint stipulation to continue the
stay until (1) 30 days after the putative securities class action
appeal and any appeals therefrom have been resolved; or (2) the
parties file a joint stipulation to terminate the stay in the event
that a plaintiff in a subsequently filed derivative action makes
similar allegations and does not agree to a stay of proceedings on
substantially the same terms.  On November 30, 2018, the court
entered an order staying the case pursuant to the second joint
stipulation.  We believe that we have meritorious defenses and we
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

"On January 3, 2018, the plaintiff who commenced the February 2017
Action, which was subsequently consolidated into the December 2016
Action, transmitted to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Cempra
a litigation demand (the "Demand").  The Demand requested that
Cempra's Board of Directors (the "Board") "commence an independent
investigation into the matters raised" in the complaint filed in
the February 2017 Action and the Demand, "take any and all
appropriate steps for Cempra to recover, through litigation if
necessary, the damages proximately caused by the directors' and
officers' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty," and "implement
corporate governance enhancements to prevent recurrence of the
alleged wrongdoing."  The Board has not yet formally responded to
the Demand.

"On July 31, 2017, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was commenced
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming certain
of Cempra's former and current officers and directors as defendants
and Cempra as nominal defendant, and asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.  The
complaint is based on similar allegations as asserted in the
putative securities class action described above, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  On October 23, 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay,
the complaint, which was supported by an opening brief filed on
November 9, 2017.  On January 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed his
answering brief in opposition to the defendants' motion.  The
defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on February
7, 2018.  On June 18, 2018, the parties filed a joint letter (1)
indicating they have agreed to stay the case until the pending
motion to dismiss in the November 4, 2016 consolidated federal
securities action pending in the United States District Court,
Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division is decided; and
(2) requesting that the June 22, 2018 oral argument scheduled for
defendants' motion to dismiss be canceled.  On June 27, 2018, the
parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the case.
On June 28, 2018, the court granted the proposed order and stayed
the case on such terms, which expired by its term following entry
of the court's dismissal order in the above putative securities
class action.  On November 28, 2018, the parties filed a second
stipulation and proposed order to stay the case, including all
discovery, until (1) 30 days after the putative securities class
action appeal and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or (2) the
parties file a joint stipulation to terminate the stay in the event
that a plaintiff in a subsequently filed derivative action makes
similar allegations and does not agree to a stay of proceedings on
substantially the same terms.  On November 30, 2018, the court
granted the joint stipulation and proposed order and stayed the
case on such terms.  We believe that we have meritorious defenses
and we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

"On September 15, 2017, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming certain of
Cempra's former and current officers and directors as defendants
and Cempra as nominal defendant, and asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, corporate waste, and violation of Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The complaint is based on similar allegations as
asserted in the putative securities class action described above,
and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  On December 1,
2017, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to stay the
shareholder derivative lawsuit pending resolution of the putative
securities class action, which stipulation was ordered by the court
on December 11, 2017.  On December 11, 2018, the parties filed a
joint status report indicating that they are in agreement that the
case should remain stated pending the resolution of the putative
securities class action appeal and any appeals therefrom.  While we
believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these
lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend the cases, these lawsuits
could divert management's attention from our ordinary business
operations.  Further, the outcome of these proceedings is difficult
to predict and quantify, and the defense against the proceedings
could be costly.  The ultimate resolution of these cases could
result in payments of monetary damages or other costs, materially
and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows, or adversely affect our reputation, and
consequently, could negatively impact the trading price of our
common stock.

"We have various insurance policies related to the risks associated
with our business, including directors' and officers' liability
insurance policies.  However, there is no assurance that our
insurance coverage will be sufficient or that our insurance
carriers will cover all claims in that litigation.  If we are not
successful in our defense of the claims asserted in these cases and
those claims are not covered by insurance or exceed our insurance
coverage, we may have to pay damage awards, indemnify our officers
from damage awards that may be entered against them and pay the
costs and expenses incurred in defense of, or in any settlement of,
such claims.

"In addition, it is possible that similar lawsuits may be filed in
the future in the same or other courts that name the same or
additional defendants, in which case we could be similarly
materially and adversely affected by such additional litigation."

Melinta Therapeutics, a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes differentiated anti-infectives for the
hospital and select non-hospital, or community, settings that
address the need for effective treatments for infections due to
resistant gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria.  It currently
markets four antibiotics to treat a variety of infections caused by
these resistant bacteria.  The Company is based in Morristown, New
Jersey.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 appeal in Martin v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), is
still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years.

Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice
of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium
loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that
this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California
law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Voshall Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Voshall v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), has approved the
settlement agreement.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (MLIC) to public entities in California between April 8,
2011 and April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by
including cost of living adjustments and employee paid
contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income
that reduces the benefit payable under such policies.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The parties reached a settlement, which the court approved on
January 3, 2019.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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, Julian & McKinney v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the
plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from
non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a
result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief. On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally
certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be
mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for the Company from
February 8, 2014 to the present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 putative class action lawsuit entitled, Parchmann v.
MetLife, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00780 (E.D.N.Y., filed
February 5, 2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that
MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board, and its Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing
materially false and/or misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On Feb. 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a third amended class action
complaint against John C. R. Hele, Steven A. Kandarian, and
MetLife, Inc.

Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Owens Class Action in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom etropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan. The action
alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff
seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned
by members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment. On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's
summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial
summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified
a nationwide class.

The court also certified a Georgia subclass. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
defend a class action lawsuit entitled, City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company’s August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METROPOLITAN TRANSPO: Court Dismisses 1st Amended DeJesus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANA JESSICA DEJESUS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 7054-LTS-SN (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

DeJesus brings the putative class action against Defendants MTA and
NYCTA, seeking damages and injunctive relief for violations of
Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, ("ADA"), Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, New York State Executive Law Section
296, and New York City Administrative Code Section 8-107.

The Plaintiff is a legally deaf resident of New York City who
frequently uses the New York City Subway.  Defendant MTA selects
and purchases the railcars used by the Subway.  Defendant NYCTA is
a subordinate entity of the MTA that operates and maintains the
Subway.

In the spring of 2017, the Plaintiff attempted to travel from her
home in Manhattan to LaGuardia Community College ("LAGCC") in
Queens.  The Plaintiff boarded a Queens bound local 7 train at
Grand Central Terminal, with the intent to dismount the train at
33rd Street in Queens, the nearest stop to LAGCC.  Once the
Plaintiff was onboard the local train, and unbeknownst to her, the
conductor made an audio announcement that the train would be
running express to 61st Street in Queens.  Unable to hear the
announcement, the Plaintiff remained on the train as it skipped her
intended stop at 33rd Street, and ultimately exited the train at
61st Street, the next express stop.  She alleges that this was one
of numerous occasions on which she expended time, energy, and money
due to an unplanned service change.

The Plaintiff contends that Subway railcars are inaccessible to
deaf and hearing-impaired individuals, because they make use of
exclusively auditory announcements during unplanned service
changes.  She argues that the Defendants, by failing to provide a
"visual equivalent to audio announcements," have discriminated
against her and other legally deaf Subway users.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants must
accommodate deaf Subway riders by providing "onboard electronic
screens" with "closed captioning of real-time route changes."  She
also asserts that the exercise of jurisdiction under CAFA is
appropriate because a member of the putative class is a citizen of
a different state than the Defendants, and the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million.

The Defendants now move, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Swain finds that to permit the Plaintiff to assert her claim
under a reasonable modification theory would allow any person to
file an action contending that, in the opinion of this particular
Plaintiff, a design feature ought to have been included, even
though Congress has recognized that courts are ill-equipped to
evaluate such claims and to make what amount to engineering,
architectural, and policy determinations as to whether a particular
design feature is feasible and desirable.  Moreover, such an
interpretation would create uncertainty for public transportation
authorities and individuals tasked with designing new Subway
railcars, as any particular design feature might later be subjected
to court-mandated revisions despite a transit authority's adherence
to DOT-approved specifications.  Because Congress intended that
compliance with DOT regulations would be sufficient to satisfy a
public transit entity's obligations under Title II with respect to
accessible vehicle design, and because DOT's regulations do not
require the installation of onboard electronic screens, the
Plaintiff's ADA claim must be dismissed.

Next, the Judge agrees with the Defendants that it would be
unreasonable to infer from the tourism figures that tourists make
up more than one-third of the proposed class.  Accordingly, she
finds that it must decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction of the
Plaintiff's state and city law claims.  In light of her dismissal
of the Plaintiff's federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, the
Judge also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the
Plaintiff's state and city law claims.

For these reasons, Judge Swain granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the FAC, and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims under the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act.  To the extent that the Plaintiff
asserts state and city law claims, she finds no basis for the
exercise of CAFA jurisdiction and declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of those
claims, which therefore are also dismissed.  The Memorandum Opinion
and Order resolves docket entry no. 19.  The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ATS2BA from Leagle.com.

Ana Jessica Dejesus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority & New York City Transit
Authority, Defendants, represented by James Luke Kerwin, New York
City Transit Authority - Law Department.


MIAMI AUTO MAX: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Vasconcelo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Roberto Vasconcelo filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Roberto Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-21765-RNS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks payment of minimum wages, liquidated damages, an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and any and all such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Vasconcelo works as automobile salesperson at a conglomerate of
automobile dealership locations known as "Car Depot of Miami" and
"Car Depot of Miramar" in Miami-Dade County, Florida and Broward
County, Florida, owned and/or operated and controlled by Miami Auto
Max, Inc.  Employees worked under a "commissions-only" pay plan in
place at both dealerships.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberto Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto
Max, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10679, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
March 21, 2019, as to Appellee Miami Auto Max, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERTO VASCONCELO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellees MIAMI AUTO MAX, INC., d.b.a. Car Depot of
Miami, d.b.a. Car Depot of Miramar, and KENNYA QUESADA,
individually, are represented by:

          David Peter Reiner, Esq.
          Samuel Barclay Reiner, II, Esq.
          Chelsea Silvia, Esq.
          REINER & REINER, PA
          9100 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 901
          Miami, FL 33156-7815
          Telephone: (305) 670-8282
          E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.com
                  sbr@reinerslaw.com
                  cts@reinerslaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Agneys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW W. AGNEY and AMY S. AGNEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01234-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
18, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Arriolas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ARRIOLA AND PATRICIA ARRIOLA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00368 (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: Bryant Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE BRYANT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00382 (E.D. Mo., March 1, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Culbertson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Culbertson, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00449 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kennedy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Kennedy, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00448 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER W. LEWIS AND CARRIE LEWIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00344 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff'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: Manresa and Garcia Sue over Herbicide Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MANRESA and LISSETTE GARCIA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00388 (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: Ribar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RIBAR, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00447 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanders Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SANDER, SR. and RITA SANDER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00387 (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
Plaintiffs 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: Tebays Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DORIS TEBAY AND RODNEY TEBAY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00452 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Welch Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN WELCH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00442 (E.D. Mo., March 13, 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


N.A.R. INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Lowery FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA LOWERY, Plaintiff, v. N.A.R., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00480-JNP-PMW (D. Utah), Judge Jill N. Parrish of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and referred to
arbitration its motion to strike the Plaintiff's class claims.

On Oct. 1, 2014, Lowery leased furniture under a rent-to-own
agreement.  She financed the transaction through Crest Financial
Services, LLC, which maintained a security interest in the
furniture.  She signed a lease agreement that defines the parties
to the agreement so as to include any successors and assigns to
Crest Financial's rights under the agreement.  On Feb. 16, 2017,
Crest Financial assigned Lowery's obligation to NAR for collection.
On June 13, 2017, NAR sent a notice to Lowery regarding the debt
owed.  On June 13, 2018, Lowery filed a class action complaint
against NAR, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The lease agreement contains an arbitration provision that allows
either party to the agreement to demand arbitration of any claim or
dispute arising under the lease.  NAR now demands arbitration.  It
also asks the court to strike Lowery's class claims.

Lowery did not file a memorandum in opposition to NAR's motion.  

Judge Parrish arbitration provision of the parties' lease agreement
is reasonably susceptible of an interpretation that covers the
asserted dispute because Lowery alleges unfair debt collection
practices and the arbitration provision covers such claims.
Because the arbitration provision of the parties' lease agreement
governs the dispute at issue in the suit, she grants the motion to
compel arbitration and dismisses the action.

The Judge declines to evaluate the merits of NAR's argument that
Lowery waived her right to bring, participate in, or maintain a
class action.  Having determined that the claims in the action are
subject to an arbitration agreement, the question of whether Lowery
has waived those rights does not properly lie before the Court.
Second, courts making the determination are not to rule on the
potential merits of the underlying claims.  Having elected to
arbitrate its dispute with Lowery, NAR may not pick and choose
which issues will be resolved by the Court and which will be
resolved by an arbitrator.  Resolution of the question regarding
the class claims is therefore left to arbitration.

For these reasons, Judge Parrish granted NAR's request to compel
arbitration, and denied NAR's request to strike Lowery's class
claims.  Because the ruling disposes of the controversy before the
Court, she directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CkHZCF from Leagle.com.

Erica Lowery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Cragun --
Brett@BrettCragun.comv -- CRAGUN & CRAGUN.

NAR, Defendant, represented by Ronald F. Price, PRICE PARKINSON &
KERR PLLC.


NCC BUSINESS: Removed Peacock Case Moved to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
NCC business Services, Inc. removed case, LACEY PEACOCK, on behalf
of himself And all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., and BENTLEY GREEN APARTMENTS INVESTORS
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2019-CA-1107 (Feb. 11, 2019), was
removed from the Circuit Court, in and for Duval County, Florida to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division on March 14, 2019. The Middle
District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case no. 3:19-cv-00303 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that NCC was acting as a debt collector in
attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims
NCC violated sections 1692e and 1692g of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act in its attempted collection of amount owed
by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks recovery of actual damages and
statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692(a)(2)(B),
prejudgment interest, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the FDCPA. [BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Seth Drach, Esq.
          2120 Corporate Square Boulevard, Suite 17
          Jacksonville, FL 32216
          E-mail: justindrach@drachlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Hammond, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
          5201 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 450
          Tampa, FL 33609
          E-mail: hammond@litchfieldcavo.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Barbara Fernandez, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-358-7747
          Facsimile: 305-577-1063
          E-mail: bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com

NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE: Rule Change Bid in Long Partly Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES LONG and HOMER WALKER, Petitioners-Appellants,
v. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Respondent-Respondent, Case No.
A-1557-17T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New
Jersey for the Appellate Division affirmed in part and remanded in
part the NJTA's Oct. 18, 2017 final decision, which denied the
Petitioners' petition for a rule change and related relief.

Petitioners' Long and Walker, two E-ZPass toll violators, filed a
petition for rulemaking with the NJTA.  They had argued that a $50
administrative fee, which N.J.A.C. 19:9-9.2(b) (the regulation)
permitted, was excessive and violated N.J.S.A. 27:23-34.3(a) (the
authorizing statute).  The Petitioners now appeal from an Oct. 18,
2017 final decision by the NJTA, which denied their petition for a
rule change and related relief.  The Petitioners seek damages on
behalf of all motorists similarly situated to them, but no court
has certified such individuals as a class.

In May 2017, approximately six years after NJTA raised the fee from
$25 to $50, and almost two years after the Petitioners had paid
their respective fees, they filed their petition.  The petition,
entitled "Petition for Rule Change, Refund/Disgorgement and Cause
of Action for Unjust Enrichment," challenged the regulation on two
grounds.  The Petitioners' first and primary objection is that NJTA
used the fee to generate revenue for its operating fund and that
the fee was unrelated to the actual costs of enforcement.  They
therefore contend that the fee was unreasonable and contravened the
authorizing statute.  Second, the Petitioners challenge the use of
a 15-day notice provision to avoid incarceration and other
penalties, which they asserted had violated the authorizing
statute.  NJTA has since ceased employing this provision.

Notwithstanding the application of the equitable doctrine, on the
merits, the Court concludes that the Petitioners' arguments -- that
in 2011, NJTA violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"),
due process, and fundamental fairness -- are without sufficient
merit to warrant further attention in the Opinion.  NJTA complied
with N.J.A.C. 19:9-6.5 (governing NJTA's rulemaking requirements)
and N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4 (imposing additional requirements under the
APA).  The NJTA published the proper notice in the New Jersey
Register of the rulemaking in 2011, which contained a sufficient
explanation of the basis for the regulation. NJTA afforded all
interested persons the proper period for public comment.  The NJTA
received no comments about the proposed fee increase or requests
for a hearing.  Four months after publishing the notice, NJTA
published the adoption of the fee increase from $25 to $50 in the
New Jersey Register.

It also finds that any dispositive ruling on the Petitioners' claim
for damages is premature.  Although the Courts has serious doubts
about the propriety of such damages under these facts (because in
part, petitioners apparently paid the toll violations, failed to
make a timely protest, and then delayed filing the petition for
almost two years), the record is incomplete and must be more fully
developed before a ruling is made.  On remand, therefore, the
parties may address all issues related to the Petitioners' claim
for damages.

In accordance with Rule 2:5-5(b), the Court therefore remanded for
supplementation of the administrative record.  It directed the
Middlesex County assignment judge to designate a particular judge
in Middlesex County to handle the remand proceedings.  The Court
affirmed in part; and remanded in part for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.  The Court retains jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ibLnI3 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Faranda-Diedrich -- mfd@rccblaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellants (Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld LLC, attorneys; Matthew
Faranda-Diedrich, of counsel and on the briefs; Alexander J. Nassar
-- anassar@rccblaw.com -- on the briefs).

Christopher R. Paldino -- cpaldino@csglaw.com -- argued the cause
for respondent (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC, attorneys;
Ronald L. Israel, Christopher R. Paldino, and Ryan P. O'Connor, on
the brief).


NEW YORK & CO: Faces Childers Suit Alleging False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE CHILDERS v. NEW YORK & COMPANY, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION n/k/a RTW RETAILWINDS, INC., Case No. 19-001573-CI
(Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., March 5, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for injunctive
relief, breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, false advertising, and fraud.

The class of persons represented by the Plaintiff consists of all
those persons, who received the solicitation materials from RTW on
May 13th or 14th of 2018, who purchased any merchandise during the
Mother's Day Sale as extended through May 14, 2018, but were not
given a discount of 50% or more off the price of such merchandise
or who were charged more than the designated prices for certain
items as more particularly set out in the terms and conditions.

New York & Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation n/k/a RTW
Retailwinds, Inc., is a Delaware limited liability company
authorized to do business in the state of Florida.

RTW is an omni-channel and digitally enabled women's specialty
retailer offering exclusive celebrity and sub-brand collections
through the Internet and retail outlet stores located throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Staack, Esq.
          John Seth Simms, Esq.
          STAACK, SHVIMS & REIGHARD, PLLC
          900 Drew Street, Suite 1
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 441—2635
          Facsimile: (727) 461—4836
          E-mail: Jim@Staack1aw.com
                  John@staacklaw.com


NEXTERA: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Wind Turbines
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Olberding, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
Blue Hill resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against
NextEra, alleging that its wind turbines are a nuisance to nearby
homeowners.

The suit was filed on March 1 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of Kevin Kohmetscher.

According to court documents, Mr. Kohmetscher lives on an 11-acre
plot that is surrounded on three sides by wind turbines from
NextEra's Cottonwood Wind Energy Center, a 40-turbine, 89-megawatt
farm that began operation in the fall of 2017.

Mr. Kohmetscher says in the lawsuit that the closest turbine is
1,300 feet from his property line.

According to the suit, since the wind farm started operating,
Kohmetscher has experienced stress, anxiety, an inability to sleep,
headaches, nausea and other physical symptoms, which he says are
caused by shadow flicker, noise and other negative effects of the
wind turbines.

Mr. Kohmetscher also alleges in the complaint that the wind
turbines have interfered with the use and enjoyment of his property
and also that the proximity of the turbines has decreased the value
of his property and he "will be unable to lease or sell his
property for its fair market value prior to installation of the
turbines."

The suit is seeking class-action status for potentially more than
100 plaintiffs. It seeks monetary damages, which it estimates would
be in excess of $5 million, and also a permanent injunction to
prevent NextEra "from continuing to unreasonably interfere with his
and the putative class members' use and enjoyment of their
property."

A NextEra spokesman declined comment on the lawsuit.

NextEra, which is based in Jupiter Beach, Florida, has been
expanding its footprint in Nebraska. In addition to the Cottonwood
Wind farm and its first Nebraska wind farm, the 75-megawatt Steele
Flats Wind Energy Center in Jefferson and Gage Counties, the
company is building the 160-megawatt Sholes wind farm in Wayne
County.

NextEra also has expressed interest in building a wind farm in
southern Lancaster and northern Gage counties.

In response to opposition to that project, the Lancaster County
Board last month voted in favor of a rule that would require a
1-mile setback between wind turbines and any home on a property
that is not participating in a wind farm project. That's believed
to be the strictest setback rule in the state.

However, the board had decided to reconsider the decision at its
March 19 meeting. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Court Consolidates Bashaw, Kerkorian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CATHY BASHAW, ROBERT GARNEAU, NANCY HOUSELL, and
JEFFREY OLKOWSKI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN
MOTOR CO., LTD, Defendants. VAUGHN KERKORIAN and DAVID TURNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO.,
LTD, Defendants, Case Nos. 4:18-cv-07292-HSG, 4:18-cv-07815-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,
has issued an order on the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and
Nissan North America ("NNA")'s response thereto.

On Nov. 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bashaw filed a putative class action
Complaint in the Court against NNA and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
("NML") captioned Bashaw v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al., No.
4:18-cv-07292-HSG.  On Dec. 31, 2018, Plaintiffs Kerkorian and
Turner filed a putative class action Complaint in the Court against
NNA and NML captioned Kerkorian et al. v. Nissan North America,
Inc. et al., No. 4:18-cv-07815-HSG.

On Jan. 3, 2019, Plaintiff Bashaw filed a Motion for Consolidation
and Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, which, among other
things, sought consolidation of the Bashaw and Kerkorian actions.


On Feb. 7, 2019, NNA filed in the Bashaw and Kerkorian actions a
Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue or, In the
Alternative, Transfer for Convenience.

On Feb. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs in Bashaw filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint adding additional Plaintiffs Garneau,
Housell, and Olkowski.

On March 5, 2019, the Court held a Case Management Conference in
Bashaw and Kerkorian and determined that it was appropriate in the
immediate term to consolidate Bashaw and Kerkorian as an
administrative device.  By minute order on March 6, 2019, the Court
terminated the Motions to Transfer as moot in light of the First
Amended Class Action Complaint in Bashaw and the impending
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and directed the parties to file a
stipulation and proposed order setting a (1) date for the filing of
a consolidated complaint, (2) briefing schedule for the anticipated
motion to dismiss after the consolidated complaint is filed, and
(3) hearing date for the anticipated motion to dismiss and the
motions currently pending.

The Plaintiffs and NNA have met and conferred through their counsel
and have agreed to their proposed schedule.  They stipulated, and
Judge Gilliam granted, as follows:

     1. Bashaw and Kerkorian are consolidated for administrative
purposes without prejudice to the substantive or procedural rights
of the parties;

     2. The Plaintiffs will have until March 22, 2019 to file their
Consolidated Amended Complaint;

     3. NNA will have until April 22, 2019 to answer or other
otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint;

     4. If NNA files a motion in response to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, the briefing schedule will be as follows: (i)
The Paintiffs will have until May 20, 2019 to file their
opposition; (ii) NNA will have until June 10, 2019 to file its
reply; and (iii) NNA will notice the hearing for June 27, 2019, or
such other date as directed by the Court.

The Judge continued the April 11, 2019 hearing on the Motion for
Appointment will to June 27, 2019, or such other date as directed
by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/leAlfY from Leagle.com.

Vaughn Kerkorian, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frederick J. Klorczyk,
III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

David Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith, Bursor
& Fisher, P.A., Benjamin L. Bailey, BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel Adam Schlanger, Schlanger Law Group LLP, pro hac
vice, H. Clay Barnett, III , Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan David Boggs , BAILEY AND
GLASSER, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael L. Murphy, Bailey and Glasser,
LLP, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., pro hac vice & Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul
Cauley, Jr., Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Matthew Jacob Adler --
matthew.adler dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Paul Jeffrey
Riehle, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Investors Drop Suits over Tivity Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Nutrisystem, 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 plaintiffs in Tivity
Health Merger-related suits have agreed to voluntarily dismiss
their lawsuits after the company filed a supplemental disclosure.

As of February 20, 2019, six putative class action complaints have
been filed by purported Nutrisystem stockholders challenging the
Merger with Tivity Health in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware.

The complaints are captioned Klein v. Nutrisystem, Inc. et al.,
Docket No. 1:19-cv-00056 (filed January 9, 2019), Shaev v.
Nutrisystem, Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:19-cv-00063 (filed January
10, 2019), Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Nutrisystem, Inc.,
Docket No. 1:19-cv-00069 (filed January 10, 2019), Frechter v.
Nutrisystem, Inc., et al, Docket No. 1:19-cv-00087 (filed January
16, 2019), Walton v. Nutrisystem, Inc. et al, Docket No.
1:19-cv-00112 (filed January 19, 2019), and Haines v. Nutrisystem,
Inc., et al, Docket No. 1:19-cv-00137 (filed January 24, 2019).

The complaints name as defendants each member of Nutrisystem's
Board of Directors and Nutrisystem itself and, in the case of the
Klein and Gusinsky complaints, Tivity Health and Sweet Acquisition,
Inc. The complaints allege, among other things, that statements
made in the registration statement filed by Tivity Health on
January 7, 2019 were materially incomplete and misleading and
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In addition, the complaints generally allege that the Merger
undervalues Nutrisystem, that the process leading up to the
execution of the Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement improperly favor Tivity Health
and improperly impede a potential alternative transaction. Among
other remedies, the complaints seek equitable relief rescinding the
Merger Agreement and enjoining the defendants from completing the
Merger, as well as recovery of litigation costs and attorneys'
fees.

Nutrisystem believes that the claims asserted in the actions are
without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of adverse
effect or delay in connection with these actions and to minimize
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Nutrisystem
voluntarily supplemented its proxy statement as described in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 22, 2019, and the
plaintiffs in these actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss
their lawsuits in light of this supplemental disclosure.

Nutrisystem, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides weight
management products and services for women and men in the United
States. The company offers weight loss programs that consist
primarily of a pre-packaged food program, digital tools, and
counseling. Nutrisystem, Inc. was founded in 1972 and is
headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. As of March 8,
2019, Nutrisystem, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Tivity Health,
Inc.  


NYAA HOLDINGS: Sullivan Brings ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYAA Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYAA Holdings, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02341 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

NYAA Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiaries, offers oil and gas
field services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Phoenix Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Costas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAC COSTAS, Plaintiff, v. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00271-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Robert
C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
appointed Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd. as the Lead Plaintiff and its
counsel as the Lead Counsel.

The federal securities fraud class action is still in the pleading
stage.  The Plaintiff and the three Movants have separately asked
the Court to appoint them as the Lead Plaintiff (and their counsel
as the Lead Counsel).  One Movant has withdrawn its request, and a
second Movant, along with the Plaintiff, have filed notices of
non-opposition to the third Movant's request, noting that they
currently have no reason to doubt that the third Movant, Phoenix,
has the largest financial interest in the action and otherwise
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, making it the appropriate
class representative.

Judge Jones therefore granted Phoenix's motion and denied the
remaining two motions without prejudice, subject to any further
relevant developments.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9QURh8 from Leagle.com.

Mac Costas, Plaintiff, pro se.

Timothy Herbst, Movant, represented by Kimberly P. Stein --
KSTEIN@NEVADAFIRM.COM -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey &
Thompson.

Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice & Andrew R. Muehlbauer -- andrew@mlolegal.com --
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd.

City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan,
Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Ormat Technologies Inc., Isaac Angel & Doron Blachar, Defendants,
represented by Douglas P. Baumstein -- dbaumstein@whitecase.com --
White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Dominique Forrest --
dominique.forrest@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice &
Matthew C. Addison -- maddison@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson LLP.


P&B CAPITAL GROUP: Kovarsky Files FDCPA in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P&B Capital Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Kovarsky on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P&B Capital Group,
LLC, Crown Asset Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01512 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

P&B Capital Group, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.

Crown Asset Management, LLC provides receivables and debt
management services. The company offers receivables, credit cards,
consumer loans, and deficiency balances trading services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PARSEC INC: Hanks Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------
Vesmo Hanks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Parsec, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2019CH01641 (Ill. Cir., February 7, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Hanks worked for Parsec from 2015 to November 2018. He was required
to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned
fingerprints. He alleges that Parsec improperly disclosed
employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEKIN, IL: Responds to Disabled Residents' ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WEEK reports that after being the subject of a class-action lawsuit
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city of Pekin has
responded 3 months later to 7 disabled plaintiffs by telling them
they have insufficient knowledge of their claims, and denying any
relief in the form of fixing cracked roads, sidewalks and curb
ramps. [GN]


PESSCO LLC: Wants More Time to Respond to Valdez's Bid to Certify
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the lawsuit captioned ARTURO VALDEZ, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PESSCO, LLC d/b/a
PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT SALES & SERVICES and GEN-NAN RESOURCES &
EQUIPMENT, L.P., Case No. 7:18-cv-00094-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), file
with the Court their unopposed motion for enlargement of time to
respond to the Plaintiff's opposed motion for class certification
and expedited discovery.

The Defendants were served with Plaintiff's Motion on March 1,
2019.  They contend that C.H. (Hal) Brockett, Jr., Esq., their
attorney in charge of this file, has been out of the country and
has returned to the office on March 11, 2019.  They assert that due
to Mr. Brockett's absence, their counsel needs additional time to
review, analyze, and respond to the Plaintiff's Motion.

This Motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but to permit
adequate time for them to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion, the
Defendants contend.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          C. H. (Hal) Brockett, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan J. McNeel, Esq.
          BROCKETT & McNEEL LLP
          TGAAR Tower
          24 Smith Road, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 1841
          Midland, TX 79705
          Telephone: (432) 686-7743
          Facsimile: (432) 683-6229
          E-mail: hbrockett@brockettmcneel.ent
                  rmcneel@brockettmcneel.ent


PETER MANNING: Knowles Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Manning LLC.
The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peter Manning LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02342 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 15, 2019).

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

Peter Manning Nyc is a privately held company in New York,
categorized under Wholesale Men's Apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAYHOUSE LOUNGE: Robbins Sues Over Unlawful Wage, Tip Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Robbins, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Playhouse Lounge and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08387 (D. N.J., March 12, 2019)
initiates the instant action to redress violations by Defendants of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants erroneously designated Plaintiff
and those similarly situated as independent contractors and
unlawfully deducted from and withheld a portion of Plaintiff's and
Collective Action Plaintiffs' pay. Specifically, the Defendants
unlawfully requested, demanded and/or received wages from Plaintiff
and Collective Action Plaintiffs, unlawfully demanded, accepted
and/or retained a part of gratuities or charges purported to be
gratuities, unlawfully deducted employee wages through fines and
penalties for lateness and misconduct, and required Plaintiff and
Collective Action Plaintiffs to cover the costs of the Defendants'
business.

As a consequence, Defendants reduced Plaintiff and Collective
Action Plaintiffs' pay below the statutorily mandated minimum wage
for all hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff and Collective
Action Plaintiffs at least 1.5 times the minimum wage for all hours
worked over 40 per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as an entertainer for Defendant in New Jersey from
in or around December 2017 to in or around August 2018.

Playhouse is a New Jersey Corporation doing business in New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Hwy N., Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Claims in Products Liability Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-0939 (WMW/DTS) (D. Minn.),
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are 11 individuals who reside in eleven states
throughout the United States.  Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation based in Minnesota and Defendant Polaris
Sales Inc., a subsidiary of Polaris Industries, is a Minnesota
corporation also based in Minnesota.  The Defendants design and
manufacture off-road vehicles and their component parts, including
engines.  In the past five years, the Plaintiffs each purchased an
off-road vehicle manufactured by the Defendants.

Between 2013 and 2018, the Defendants recalled more than one dozen
off-road vehicle models, including the vehicles purchased the by
the Plaintiffs.  These recalls occurred because of a design defect
that creates a significant risk of overheating and catching fire.
This design defect has caused more than 250 fires, more than 30
severe injuries, and at least three deaths.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the design defect is common to all the class vehicles,
which are equipped with an unusually high-powered "ProStar" engine.
Three of the 11 Plaintiffs, Jose Luna, Clint Halvorsrod, and Chad
Rogers, allege that the off-road vehicles that they purchased
caught fire while operating, which resulted in a total loss of the
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs commenced multiple putative class-action lawsuits
against the Defendants in April 2018 arising from the defects and
fire hazards associated with the class vehicles.  Subsequently,
U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz consolidated these cases and
appointed the interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative
class, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) and
42(a).  Magistrate Judge Schultz also ordered the Plaintiffs to
file a consolidated amended complaint, which the Plaintiffs filed
on June 15, 2018.

The amended complaint alleges 54 counts against the Defendants.
Count 1 alleges that the Defendants breached a written warranty and
an implied warranty of merchantability, in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA").  Counts 2 through 54 allege
violations of state laws in the 11 states in which the Plaintiffs
purchased defective off-road vehicles.  These claims allege
violations of state consumer fraud laws, breaches of express and
implied warranties, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment.  As
a result of the engine defects, the Plaintiffs allege, their
vehicles have diminished in value.  The Plaintiffs either would not
have purchased their vehicles or they would have paid significantly
less for their vehicles had they known about the engine defects.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief.  But they
expressly do not seek damages for any personal injuries resulting
from the engine defects.

The Defendants move to dismiss each count except Counts 7, 8, 9,
and 12, which allege violations of California law with respect to
Plaintiff Luna.  Advancing several alternative arguments, the
Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs claims must be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for
failure to plead fraud with particularity and failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.

First, the Defendants contend that most of Plaintiffs' state-law
claims must be dismissed because they do not allege that the defect
manifested in their vehicles.  Second, the Defendants argue that
most of the Plaintiffs' warranty claims must be dismissed in light
of the Defendants' limited warranty because the Plaintiffs do not
allege pre-suit notice and the viability of the Plaintiffs' MMWA
claim depends on the Plaintiffs' state-law warranty claims.  Third,
the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
must be dismissed because tje Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at
law and the Plaintiffs did not directly confer a benefit on the
Defendants.  Fourth, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
fraudulent omission and consumer fraud claims must be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs either fail to plead fraud with
particularity or the claims are barred by the applicable state
laws.

Judge Wright finds that Plaintiffs Bruner, Lenz, Zeeck, Berens,
Bailey, Jacks, Forrest, and Beattie lack Article III standing to
pursue their claims in the Court because they have not alleged a
"particularized" and "actual" injury in fact.  Consequently, the
following counts are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction: Count 1 (to the extent asserted by the
foregoing Plaintiffs); Counts 2 through 6 (asserted by Plaintiff
Bruner); Counts 17 through 25 (asserted by Plaintiffs Lenz and
Zeeck); and Counts 31 through 54 (asserted by Plaintiffs Berens,
Bailey, Jacks, Forrest, and Beattie).

Next, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actual knowledge
of the engine defect satisfies any pre-suit notice requirements,
but the Plaintiffs cite no Michigan or Florida legal authority to
support this argument.  The Plaintiffs' argument is inconsistent
with case law in which courts in both Michigan and Florida,
applying their respective state laws, have dismissed
breach-of-warranty claims for failure to comply with the pre-suit
notice requirement.  For these reasons, the breach-of-warranty
claims asserted by Plaintiffs Halvorsrod and Rogers (Counts 14, 27,
and 28) are dismissed without prejudice.  And because an MMWA claim
requires an underlying state-law breach-of-warranty claim, Count 1,
as asserted by Plaintiffs Halvorsrod and Rogers, also is dismissed
without prejudice.

The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff Rogers purchased his
vehicle from "T&C Powersports" in Michigan.  The Plaintiffs neither
allege in the amended complaint nor argue that T&C Powersports is
one of Defendants' dealerships, or that Plaintiff Rogers otherwise
had any direct contact or interaction with Defendants.  As such,
Plaintiff Rogers fails to state a claim of unjust enrichment under
Michigan law.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss the
unjust-enrichment claims asserted by Plaintiffs Halvorsrod and
Rogers (Counts 16 and 30) is granted.  These claims are dismissed
without prejudice.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff
Luna's unjust-enrichment claim (Count 11) is denied.

Because the fraudulent-omission and consumer-fraud claims of
Plaintiffs Luna, Halvorsrod, and Rogers satisfy the particularity
requirements of Rule 9(b), the Defendants' motion to dismiss those
claims on this basis is denied.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the
fraudulent-omission claims asserted by Plaintiffs Halvorsrod and
Rogers (Counts 15 and 29).  Those claims are dismissed with
prejudice.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the
fraudulent-omission claim of Plaintiff Luna (Count 10) and the
consumer-fraud claims of Plaintiffs Halvorsrod and Rogers (Counts
13 and 26).

Based on the foregoing, Judge Wright granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  She dismissed without prejudice Count 1, as asserted by
all the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Luna, Counts 2 through 6, Count
14, Counts 16 through 25, Counts 27 and 28, and Counts 30 through
54 of the amended complaint.  She dismissed with prejudice Counts
15 and 29 of the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3RpDfZ from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, pro
hac vice, Karl L. Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com --
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Roland Karim Tellis, Baron Budd PC, pro hac
vice & W. Daniel Miles, III -- info@baronbudd.com -- Beasley Allen
Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L.
Bleichner -- #bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut
Cambronne PA & Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA.

James Bruner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt
Gutzler LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne
PA, Courtney Davenport, The Davenport Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice,
Daniel R. Ferri, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, pro hac vice, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, John E.
Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Karl L.
Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA & Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., pro hac vice.

Michael Zeeck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Ed Beattie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner,
Chestnut Cambronne PA, Courtney Davenport, The Davenport Law Firm
LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Ferri, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, pro
hac vice, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, John E. Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac
vice, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA & Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

Jose Luna, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Clifford L. Carter --
cliff@cwclawfirm.com -- Carter Wolden Curtis, LLP, David Fernandes,
Jr. -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- David Fernandes, pro hac vice,
Gregory N. McEwen -- gmcewen@mcewenlaw.com -- McEwen Law Firm,
Ltd., Karl L. Cambronne , Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Kirk Jerome
Wolden -- kirk@cwclawfirm.com -- Carter Wolden Curtis, LLP, Mark
Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice &
Roland Karim Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd PC, pro
hac vice.

Polaris Industries, Inc. & Polaris Sales Inc., Defendants,
represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul David Collier, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
Magnuson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, R. Allan Pixton , Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Richard C. Godfrey, Kirkland & Ellis, pro
hac vice & Wendy Jo Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arnold Sues Over Illegal Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00265, (C.D. Cal., February 8, 2019)
seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies, resulting
from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant contacted Arnold on his cellular telephones without his
prior express consent via an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or by using a prerecorded voice message, notes the complaint.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company that acts as a debt collector. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


RBS CITIZENS: 3rd Cir. Addresses Conflicting Evidence Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick G. Brady, Esq. -- pbrady@ebglaw.com -- and Michael D.
Thompson, Esq. -- mdthompson@ebglaw.com -- of Epstein Becker &
Green, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that
the obligations of a district court to analyze conflicting evidence
regarding class and collective action certification was recently
addressed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Reinig v. RBS
Citizens N.A., 912 F.3d 115, (3d Cir. 2018) ("Citizens"). In that
case, the Third Circuit opined that Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 class
certification orders (i) must explicitly define the classes and
claims that are the subject of a certification order and (ii)
provide an analysis of how the court reconciled any conflicting
evidence supporting class certification.

In addition, the Third Circuit held that while Rule 23(f) permits
an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order relating
to 10 state law wage hour claims, the court did not have pendent
appellate jurisdiction to review a related order certifying a
nationwide collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Facts
Plaintiffs, a group of mortgage loan officers, alleged that, among
other things, Citizens failed to pay overtime wages in accordance
with the FLSA and state law. Plaintiffs pursued a collective action
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and separate Rule 23 class actions
under the laws of 10 states.

Each mortgage loan officer was informed of Citizens' policy that he
or she was "required to obtain prior approval from [his or her]
supervisor for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,"
and could be disciplined for working unapproved overtime. But,
plaintiffs claimed, Citizens' written overtime policy was a "ruse,"
and that the company actually had a "policy-to-violate-the-policy."
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Citizens' "coordinated,
overarching scheme" was to encourage unreported overtime by: (1)
disciplining mortgage loan officers who reported working overtime
that was not preapproved; (2) restricting the amount of overtime
hours that could be approved; (3) violating its own attendance
monitoring and timesheet approval policies so that overtime hours
could go unreported; and (4) discouraging or harassing mortgage
loan officers who reported or requested overtime.

In May 2016, the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs' Section 216(b) motion for
conditional certification of a collective action. In August 2017,
based on the recommendations of a Special Master, the District
Court denied Citizens' motion to decertify the FLSA collective
action, granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of the
FLSA collective action claims, and granted plaintiffs' Rule 23
motion for certification of 10 state wage/hour class actions.

Pursuant to Rule 23(f), Citizens appealed from the District Court's
order certifying the state law wage class claims.

A Rule 23 Class Certification Order Must Define Class and its
Claims
Reiterating its earlier decision in Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
687 F.3d 583, 592 (3d Cir. 2012), the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's order, because it failed to define the classes
being certified and to define the claims, issues, or defenses
accorded class treatment. The District Court's order stated only
that Plaintiffs' "state law subclasses are for Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois,
Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio," without
defining the scope of those subclasses.

The Third Circuit commented that the District Court's analysis was
insufficient to allow it to determine whether the evidence
proffered by the plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23's commonality and
preponderance requirements. It opined that, when ruling on a motion
for class certification, a district court must "clearly articulate
its reasons," so that the certification decision can be reviewed on
appeal.

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the putative class members "share at
least one question of fact or law in common with each other," and
Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common issues predominate over issues
affecting only individual class members. Analyzing these elements
together, the Third Circuit stated that the plaintiffs had to
demonstrate that (1) Citizens' managers were carrying out a "common
mode" of conduct through the company's internal
"policy-to-violate-the-policy," and (2) Citizens had actual or
constructive knowledge of this conduct.

Rather than conduct its own rigorous analysis, the District Court
relied on the Special Master's reports, which cited to testimony
from "roughly two dozen [mortgage loan officers]" that "Citizens'
managers nonetheless regularly and almost uniformly instructed
[mortgage loan officers] not to report all the hours that they
worked." The Third Circuit commented that the Special Master's
reports did not specifically identify the testimony relied upon to
reach this conclusion and did not reference the evidence showing
that knowledge of the purported policy was imputable to Citizens.

The record on appeal failed to support uniform application of the
"policy to violate the policy," but rather evidenced different,
individualized experiences. Witness testimony was "confined to
interactions with specific managers in distinct offices." On
multiple occasions, the testimony of putative class members
contradicted the plaintiffs' argument that managers "almost
uniformly" instructed mortgage loan officers not to report all
hours worked. The District Court did not reconcile these record
conflicts. The Third Circuit was unable to determine whether the
evidence met the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule
23.

Relying on Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036,
1046-47 (2016), the Third Circuit stated that, for the plaintiffs'
representative evidence to satisfy the commonality/predominance
requirements of Rule 23, the evidence must be sufficiently
representative of the class as a whole, such that each individual
plaintiff "could have relied on [the] sample to establish liability
if he or she had brought an individual action." The record on
appeal was to the contrary.

The Third Circuit vacated the order and remanded the matter to
District Court with instructions that a class certification order
must include: "(1) a readily discernible, clear, and precise
statement of the parameters defining the class or classes to be
certified, and (2) a readily discernible, clear, and complete list
of claims, issues or defense to be treated on a class basis."

No Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction over the District Court's FLSA
Collective Action Order
The Third Circuit's decision is also important because it signaled
an unwillingness to conflate the FLSA's similarly situated standard
for a collective action with FRCP Rule 23's more stringent test for
class certification. In declining to do so, the Third Circuit
recognized that other circuit courts have "treated FLSA and Rule 23
certification as nearly one and the same." See Epenscheid v.
DirectSat USA, LLC, 705 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir. 2013), and Theissen
v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1105 (10th Cir. 2001).

Rule 23(f) permits interlocutory review of a Court's order granting
or denying class action certification. No comparable procedural
rule permits review of an order certifying a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b). In Citizens, defendant sought
appellate review of the District Court's interlocutory order
denying defendant's motion to decertify the collective action
through the doctrine of pendant appellate jurisdiction.

Pendant appellate review is available in two limited circumstances,
to wit: (i) '"inextricably intertwined'" orders and (ii) review of
a "non-appealable order when it is necessary to ensure meaningful
review of [an] appealable order." Neither circumstance was met to
permit appellate review of the District Court's order certifying a
Section 216(b) collective action, while vacating an order
certifying a Rule 23 class.

Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows an appellate court to
exercise jurisdiction over issues that are not independently
appealable, but that are inextricably intertwined with issues over
which that court has independent jurisdiction. The question before
the Third Circuit was whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that
common state law issues predominate over issues affecting only
individual class members was inextricably intertwined with the
issue of whether the plaintiffs were "similarly situated" as
required to certify an FLSA collective action. The Third Circuit
opined that the doctrine of pendant appellate jurisdiction is
"narrow" and "should be used 'sparing.'" (Citations omitted).

The Third Circuit joined with the Second Circuit in Myers v. Hertz
Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 553-54 (2d Cir. 2010), to conclude that FLSA
and Rule 23 certification orders were not inextricably intertwined,
because the requirements of Rule 23's predominance standard were
significantly higher than the FLSA's similarly situated standard.
Therefore, a court may find that Rule 23 requirements had not been
met without addressing whether the lower FLSA standard had been
satisfied. The Third Circuit aligned with the Second Circuit in
holding that Rule 23 certification is not "inextricably
intertwined" with an FLSA collective action certification, and,
therefore, declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over
the interlocutory FLSA certification order.

The Third Circuit's ruling in Reinig will assist employers who are
faced with Rule 23 class certification motions that seek to certify
ill-defined classes and ambiguous claims based on anecdotal
evidence. However, under Reinig, employers will be hard pressed to
obtain immediate appellate review of the certification of an FLSA
collective action. [GN]


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Commission Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
group of recent home sellers filed a class action antitrust lawsuit
against multiple realty agencies in federal court in Chicago on
March 6, alleging the agencies conspired to develop a commission
scheme that significantly inflated the cost of selling their
homes.

The 30-page complaint claims the defendants, including The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings and RE/MAX Holdings,
conspired "to require home sellers to pay the broker representing
the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated amount, in
violation of federal antitrust law."

The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy has centered around The
National Association of Realtors' "adoption and implementation of a
rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable
offer of buyer broker compensation…when listing a property on a
Multiple Listing Service," or MLS.

This makes the market noncompetitive, according to the complaint,
since the cost of paying a commission to the buyer broker is a cost
that would normally fall on the home buyer in an ordinary,
competitive market. And since the defendants have control of the
local MLS, which is the key database of region-specific property
listings on which most homes in the United States are sold, this
gives them unfair leverage and market power.

The lawsuit also notes that "in furtherance of the conspiracy" The
National Association of Realtors "advises MLS's to enter into
non-compete agreements with third-party websites, such as Zillow,
so that those websites do not become competitive rivals to MLS's."

This means that in order for another listing service to compete
under these rules, they need to have listings as comprehensive as
the popular MLS's. The inability to list properties for sale in a
centralized MLS database excludes a broker or agent from the vast
resources an MLS makes available.

The complaint makes the point that The National Association of
Realtors requires its members to comply with the buyer broker
commission rule as part of its handbook and code of ethics.

For context, the complaint states that "Brokers and their agents
who currently profit from inflated buyer broker commissions and
total commissions have minimal incentive to participate on an
alternative listing service that would general lower buyer broker
commissions and lower total commissions."

"In a typical transaction," the complaint states, "separate brokers
will represent the seller and the buyer of a home. Both the buyer
broker and seller broker…are paid a percentage of the property's
sales price." Usually, the total broker compensation in the U.S. is
around five to six percent of the home's sale price, with half that
amount going to the buyer broker.

However, the complaint charges that the "Defendant's conspiracy has
kept buyer broker commissions in the 2.5 to 3 percent range for
many years despite the diminishing role of buyer brokers."

An example in the complaint states that a class member who sold
their house for $500,000 paid the buyer broker somewhere in the
range of $12,000 to $15,000 in additional commissions due to the
conspiracy. In a competitive market, the seller would pay nothing
to the buyer broker.

Plaintiffs' attorney Benjamin Brown, with the Washington, D.C.
branch of the Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll firm, said in a
statement that "For years, economists have been sounding the alarm
that American home sellers are paying inflated broker
commissions."

"This stems from that fact that to list a home for sale on an MLS,
sellers need to agree to play by a set of rules that distort and
destroy competition, including requiring home sellers to pay the
buyer's broker," Brown said.

Christopher Moehrl, a listed plaintiff in the lawsuit, sold a home
in the Minneapolis area in November 2017. According to complaint,
he listed his home on the local Northstar MLS and, at the end of
the transaction, Moehrl had paid 2.7 percentage points to the buyer
broker.

The suit claims that the alleged conspiracy violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and requests that the court award the class a
permanent injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act "enjoining
defendants from continuing to require sellers to pay the buyer
broker and from continuing to restrict competition among broker
buyers" among other measures.

Representatives with The National Association of Realtors could not
be reached after business hours on March 6 for comment. [GN]


REPUBLIC MARATHON: Honeywell Files ADA Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Marathon
LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Republic Marathon LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-10040 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 15,
2019).

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

Republic Marathon LLC (trade name Skipjack Resort & Marina) is in
the Marinas business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


REYNOLDS METALS: Cothern Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Terry Cothern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Reynolds Metals Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00140, (W.D. Pa., February 7, 2019) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Reynolds Metals Company manufactures and provides aluminum metal
products where Cothern worked as a salaried supervisor from around
January of 2014 until January of 2019. Cothern claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week throughout his
tenure without the appropriate overtime pay. Terry Cothern is a
resident of Hot SpringCounty, Arkansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is still awaiting the Court's
decision on the defendants' bid for partial judgment on the
pleadings in a putative class action against SandRidge Energy, Inc.
and others, according to the Trust's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Trust has been named as an additional defendant in the
SandRidge case.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").  The
complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf
of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7,
2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian
Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge
and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, including the Trust are responsible for making
false and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims").
In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange
Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their Exchange
Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants.  In
November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the
litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by
purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers of
common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, arguing that
non-purchasers of common units in the Trust lack statutory standing
to pursue claims against the Trust.  On January 18, 2019, the Court
granted the Trust's motion dismissing claims brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

On February 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has been fully briefed and is awaiting a
decision from the Court.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.  The motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a
decision from the Court.

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

The Trust is a statutory trust created under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act. The business and affairs of the Trust are administered
by the Trustee and, as necessary, the Delaware Trustee. The Trust's
purpose is to hold the Royalty Interests, to distribute to the
Trust unitholders cash that the Trust receives in respect of the
Royalty Interests and to perform certain administrative functions
in respect of the Royalty Interests and the Trust units.


SANTA CLARA, CA: Gaffney, et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER GAFFNEY, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-06500-JST (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2018), the Plaintiff will
move the Court for an order on March 14, 2019, conditionally
certifying this case as a collective action and facilitating notice
to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).

The proposed Class will consist of:

   "all current and former FLSA non-exempt fulltime employees of
   the Defendant who worked overtime and received cash payments in

   lieu of health care benefits and/or contributions on their
   behalf towards the purchase of health benefits, at any time
   during the past three years."

The Plaintiffs seek to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs in
accordance with Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165
(1989). The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs based on allegations that the City
knowingly failed to compute properly Plaintiffs' regular rate of
pay, and thus underpaid Plaintiffs in their overtime rate
allegations and raising affirmative defenses.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Dieter C. Dammeier, Esq.
          DAMMEIER LAW FIRM
          9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 240-9525
          Facsimile: (909) 912-1901
          E-mail: Dieter@DammeierLaw.com

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA 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
case entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., is still stayed.  

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.


The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December, 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the
court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the
resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re
Cobalt Int’l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settlement in Parmelee Granted Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA 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
court has entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in the case,  Parmelee v. Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc.    

The Company is a defendant in two purported securities class
actions lawsuits that were filed in March and April 2016 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. The
lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a
class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15,
2016.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in
connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods.

In March 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In January 2018, the court granted the Company's motion as to
defendant Ismail Dawood (the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July
2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of $9,500. In September 2018, the court entered an order
granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of
the lawsuit.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.


SI-BONE INC: Chiropractor Sues over Faxed Dinner Event Invitations
------------------------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc. is facing a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, over alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The putative class action captioned Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic,
Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-633-SVK) was filed
on February 6, 2019.  The complaint alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an
individual and putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly
situated.  The complaint alleges that the Company sent invitations
to an educational dinner event to health care providers by way of
facsimile transmission.

The TCPA prohibits using a fax machine to send unsolicited
advertisements not including proper opt-out instructions or to send
unsolicited advertisements to persons with whom the sender did not
have an established business relationship.

The Company said that it believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend itself in the action.  It is too
early in this matter to reasonably predict the probability of the
outcomes or to estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant
system in the United States and Internationally.  It offers iFuse,
an implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint to treat sacroiliac
joint dysfunction that causes lower back pain.  The Company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


SIENTRA INC: Records $0.4MM Settlement Payable for miraDry Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it recorded US$0.4 million in "legal
settlement payable" related to the miraDry class action litigation
on its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018.

On August 3, 2017, a lawsuit styled as a verified class action on
the part of the former stockholders of miraDry was filed in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against the former
board of directors of miraDry, or the Defendants, alleging breach
of their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's
acquisition of miraDry.

On August 30, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the verified
class action complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  On November 11, 2017 the parties notified
the Court that they had reached an agreement to settle the matter
pending completion of confirmatory discovery regarding the fairness
of the settlement and obtaining approval from the court.  Following
a hearing, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the proposed
settlement terms on January 15, 2019, with a modification to the
amount of attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for a full and final
settlement and release of all claims, the Defendants (and/or their
indemnitors and/or insurers) paid a settlement consideration of
US$0.4 million.  The miraDry Merger Agreement contained a holdback
amount expected to be used for the settlement and associated costs
of the miraDry Class Action litigation.

The holdback amount has been used to offset US$0.6 million of legal
fees and US$0.4 million is included in "legal settlement payable"
on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018.

Sientra, Inc. is a medical aesthetics company committed to making a
difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image,
growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence. The
company is based in Santa Barbara, California.


SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Over Pistol "Drop Fire" Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Bookman, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio, reports that
a gun owner is alleging that New Hampshire-based Sig Sauer, one of
the country's largest gun makers, sold hundreds of thousands of
faulty pistols that could fire without pulling the trigger.

The plaintiff, Dante Gordon, filed a lawsuit in federal court in
Texas last month claiming that Sig Sauer's P320 handgun is an
"unreasonably dangerous" weapon because of its risk of so-called
drop fire.

The gun at the center of the case is the same one that Sig Sauer
supplies to the U.S. Army as part of a $580 million contract.
According to the lawsuit, the Army first discovered the risk of
potential discharge of the weapon when dropped in April 2016, while
the weapon was being considered as the new standard issue sidearm
for all U.S. soldiers. The suit alleges that Sig Sauer made
necessarily modifications to the military version of the P320,
which went on to win the lucrative Army contract.

However, Sig Sauer allegedly continued to sell a potentially unsafe
civilian version of the P320 for an additional 16 months. The
company promoted the weapon using the slogan "Safety Without
Compromise," and stated in marketing materials that the P320 "won't
fire unless you want it to."  

In August 2017, online gun seller Omaha Outdoors published a video
detailing its concerns about the P320's "extremely rare but still
possible" potential for discharging when dropped. The next day, Sig
Sauer, which is headquartered in Newington, N.H., announced that it
was offering a "voluntary upgrade" for the P320, which would
retrofit the guns with a different trigger and other components.

Sig Sauer's response to the drop issue was the subject of a CNN
investigation published in May 2018. The company's website
continues to state that the P-320 "meets and exceeds all U.S.
safety standards. However, mechanical safeties are designed to
augment, not replace safe handling practices. Careless and improper
handling of any firearm can result in an unintentional discharge."


In his suit, Mr. Gordon says he wasn't physically injured by his
pistol. He's seeking class action status to represent all
purchasers of the P320, claiming the company has harmed them by
failing to disclose its knowledge of the P320's potential defect.

Sig Sauer didn't respond to a request for comment, and the company
has yet to file a response in court. Lawyers for Gordon also didn't
respond to inquiries.

Multiple Claims of Injuries From Misfire

Concerns over the safety of the P320 prompted multiple police
departments to issue warnings about the weapon. The lawsuit
highlights that at least three public safety officials have been
injured after unintentional discharges of the P320.

In 2017, a Stamford, Conn., police officer was shot in the left leg
when his P320 allegedly fired after falling to the ground. Sig
Sauer settled a civil case with the officer for an unknown amount.

In Orlando, a SWAT team officer dropped a holstered P320, resulting
in a gun shot wound to his leg.

Sig Sauer is continuing to litigate a $10 million lawsuit filed by
a deputy in the Loudon County Sheriff's Office in Virginia, who was
severely injured when a P320 discharged. The officer claims she was
shot while removing the holstered weapon without pulling the
trigger.

It isn't clear how many model P320 pistols Sig Sauer has sold,
though the lawsuit claims as many as 500,000 defective P320s remain
in circulation. It also isn't known how many customers have taken
up the company's offer of a fix.

Flawed Firearms, Financial Impacts

Sig Sauer's parent company, which is headquartered in Germany,
released a financial filing earlier this year that states its
earnings in 2017 were down more than $35 million due to a
"voluntary product recall" in the United States.

Last year, gun maker Remington Arms reached a settlement in a class
action suit involving trigger issues with its long-popular Model
700 rifle. As a result, Remington gun owners can have their weapon
retrofitted with a new part.

Court settlements like this are necessary in the case of faulty
firearms, in large part because of a lack of strict consumer
protection regulations in the gun industry, said Eric Holland, who
served as co-lead counsel in the Remington case.

"When you have a defect in a vehicle, you have a federal agency
that can step in and mandate recall," Holland said. "There's no
such agency with regard to guns in the United States."

He says an estimated 30,000 weapons have been upgraded as a result
of the Remington class action suit.

"I'm very satisfied with the outcome, because if we've saved one
life, what's the value of that?" Holland said. "What about ten?
What about 100? It is very likely that we had that kind of an
impact." [GN]


SOUTHEAST KANSAS: Files Joint Bid for Class Cert. in Hardridge Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT HARDRIDGE, et al. v.
SOUTHEAST KANSAS INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE CENTER, INC., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02544-CM-JPO (D. Kan.), file their joint motion to
conditionally certify a collective action and proposed notice
procedures.

On October 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of themselves
and behalf of all others similarly situated.  While the parties
disagree as to the merits of the Plaintiffs' underlying claims,
they agree to stipulate to conditional certification of these
collective action classes:

   * Joint Employer Class:

     All current and former personal care attendants, or other
     job titles performing similar job duties, employed by any
     combination of Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource
     Center, Inc., SKIL Fiscal Agent, Inc., and/or individual
     consumers who utilized any payroll-related services provided
     by Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center, Inc.
     or SKIL Fiscal Agent Inc. between October 11, 2015 and the
     present who were not paid overtime wages earned; and

   * SKIL Resource Class:

     All current and former personal care attendants, or other
     job titles performing similar job duties, employed by
     Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center, Inc.
     between October 11, 2015 and the present who were not paid
     overtime wages earned.

The parties have agreed on a form notice to be sent to the
stipulated class for the Court's consideration and approval.

The parties agree to this procedure for providing notice to the
putative collective class members:

   1. Within 30 days of the Court's approval of the notice to be
      sent to the putative collective class members, Defendants'
      counsel will provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the
      first name, last name, and last known address of all
      putative collective class members;

   2. The Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible for mailing the
      Court-approved notice and consent form to the putative
      collective class members;

   3. The Plaintiffs' counsel will provide a copy of each consent
      form submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel; and

   4. Putative collective class members will have 45 days to
      return the consent to joint form.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jshannon@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          J. Brett Milbourn KS Bar, Esq.
          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY LLC
          2600 Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: bmilbourn@hab-law.com
                  tbender@hab-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patricia A. Konopka, Esq.
          Ashley E. Dillon, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 842-8600
          Facsimile: (816) 691-3495
          E-mail: pat.konopka@stinson.com
                  ashley.dillon@stinson.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Miller Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CAROLYN MILLER, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff,
v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04088 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order
on March 14, 2019:

   1. certifying that the claims set forth in her complaint may
      proceed on behalf of the class as follows:

      "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)

      from whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted "MONI"
      credit account (3) to whom it sent an initial communication
      letter sent during a period one year prior to the filing of
      this action and ending 20 days after the filing date of the
      initial complaint;

   2. appointng the Plaintiff as class representative;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff's lawyers as counsel for the class;
and

   4. allowing the Plaintiff to file a memorandum in support of
      this motion.

The Plaintiff alleges that Southwest Credit Systems violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it failed to state the name
of the creditor to whom a debt is owed, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
section 1692g(a)(2). The Defendant uses the mails and telephones to
collect consumer debts owed another, and is thus a "debt collector"
as that term is defined at section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Quinn FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS QUINN and THERESA QUINN, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-2021
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In the action, Plaintiffs Thomas and Theresa Quinn allege that
Defendant SLS, a home loan servicer, violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") when the company's agents left
allegedly misleading door hangers at their home and at the homes of
similarly situated consumers in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.


Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to certify two separate
classes.  

The first class ("Class A") the Plaintiffs seek to represent
pertains to the alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(a)(2)
raised in Count I of their complaint.  According to the Plaintiffs,
Class A would consist of: (1) all consumers in Illinois, Indiana,
and Wisconsin; (2) whose home loans SLS began servicing after the
loans were in default; (3) where SLS had written notice that the
consumer was represented by an attorney; (4) where SLS sent an
Independent Field Inspector to the consumer's home who left a door
hanger containing a slip of paper requesting that the consumer call
a number owned by SLS; and (5) where at least one such Independent
Field Inspector visit occurred on or after a date one year prior to
the filing of the action on Feb. 8, 2016.

The second class ("Class B") the Plaintiffs seek to represent
relates to the violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) and (11)
alleged in Count II of the complaint.  According to plaintiffs,
this class would consist of: (1) all consumers in Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin; (2) whose home loans SLS began servicing
after the loans were in default; (3) where SLS caused an
Independent Field Inspector to visit the consumer's home and leave
a door hanger with the same or substantially the same notice as the
notice attached as Exhibit A; and (4) where at least one such visit
occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of the
action on Feb. 8, 2016.

The notice attached to the Plaintiffs' motion as Exhibit A reads:
"At the request of Specialized Loan Service, an Independent field
Inspector called on you today. Please contact Specialized Loan
Servicing at 1-800-306-6062. Thank you." For the reasons that
follow, I grant plaintiffs' motion with respect to both classes.

Judge Bucklo finds that there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs
meet two of Rule 23(a)'s four threshold criteria -- commonality and
typicality -- as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  She finds
that the Plaintiffs' proposed classes potentially include more than
2,500 consumers with small value claims resulting from the same
conduct.  Rather than separately adjudicating hundreds of very
similar individual cases, the most efficient method for resolving
these claims is a class action.  A class treatment will also ensure
that lack of incentive or time and resource concerns do not
dissuade or prevent similarly situated consumers from pursuing
their claims.

SLS argues that a class treatment would not be fair to class
members because the FDCPA's statutory damage cap could limit their
recovery.  The FDCPA, however, explicitly contemplates class
actions for statutory damages, without regard to a minimum
individual recovery.  SLS' speculation that some class members
might prefer to individually litigate their claims is not a ground
for denying class certification, especially where the class members
would be able to opt out under Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(v).  A class action
is clearly the superior method for adjudicating these claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bucklo granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Class A and Class B may proceed
under the definitions outlined.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/A02Iii from Leagle.com.

Thomas Quinn & Theresa Quinn, Plaintiffs, represented by Deadra
Woods Stokes -- dstokes@clg-lawfirm.com -- Consumer Legal Group,
P.C. & Al Hofeld, Jr. -- al@alhofeldlaw.com -- Law Offices of Al
Hofeld Jr., LLC.

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabriel
A. Crowson -- gcrowson@kingjurgens.com -- King & Jurgens, LLC,
Jeffrey R. Seewald -- jseewald@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey
Stafford, Pllc, pro hac vice, Gregg M. Barbakoff --
gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher LLP, James V.
Noonan -- jnoonan@noonanandlieberman.com -- Noonan & Lieberman,
LTD, Rocio Herrera -- rherrera@noonanandlieberman.com -- Noonan &
Lieberman & Ruth B. Sosniak -- rsosniak@noonanandlieberman.com --
Noonan and Lieberman LTD.


SPREEMO INC: R. Mauthe Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe, MD PC, filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v. Spreemo
Inc., et al., Case No. 5-18-cv-01902, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2019, the
District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case.

Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., filed this putative class action
against Defendants Spreemo, Inc. (Spreemo) and the Hartford
Financial Services Group (Hartford) alleging they violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by sending advertisements
by facsimile (fax) to Plaintiff and a purported class of
similarly-situated persons.  

The appellate case is captioned as Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v.
Spreemo Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1470, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT W MAUTHE MD PC, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, Individually and as the Representative of a Class of
Similarly-Situated Persons, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
          Molly S. Gantman, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (313) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  daniel@classlawyers.com
                  molly@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Reilly, Esq.
          SWARTZ CAMPBELL
          115 North Jackson Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 566-9222
          E-mail: areilly@swartzcampbell.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
          6550 Lakeshore Street
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (412) 716-5800
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SPREEMO INC. and HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP INC. are represented by:

          Bart T. Murphy, Esq.
          ICE MILLER STRATEGIES LLC
          2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 455
          Lisle, IL 60532
          Telephone: (630) 955-6392
          E-mail: bart.murphy@icemiller.com

               - and -

          Frederick A. Tecce, Esq.
          ICE MILLER STRATEGIES LLC
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 377-5031
          E-mail: fred.tecce@icemiller.com


SSP AMERICA: Wilson-Davis Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
TRAMON WILSON-DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. SSP AMERICA, INC., a
California corporation; SSP AMERICA LAX, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08579 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 13, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a)
failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime
wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest
breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to
reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and (f) failing to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment.

The Defendants are in the business of staffing and operating
restaurants in airports located throughout California.[BN]

Attorneys for Tramon Wilson-Davis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated:

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

STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Hill Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C. et al. The case is styled as Jodian Hill on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stephen
Einstein & Associates, P.C., Progressive Process Service, Inc.,
Credit Acceptance Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02277-JMF (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 13, 2019).

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

Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. was established in 1989 as a
law firm focused on a creditor rights, collections, litigation and
real estate.

Progressive Process Service offers expedited and cost effective
process serving service to attorneys in New York State.

Credit Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company providing
automobile loans and other related financial products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward B. Geller, Esq.
     Edward B. Geller, P.C.
     15 Landing Way
     Bronx, NY 10464
     Phone: (914) 473-6783
     Email: epbh@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Robert Louis Arleo, Esq.
     380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: (212) 551-1115
     Fax: (518) 751-1801
     Email: RobertArleo@gmail.com


SUNTRUST BANK: Ga. App. Affirms Class Certification in Bickerstaff
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUNTRUST BANK, v. BICKERSTAFF, Case No. A18A1519 (Ga.
App.), Judge Elizabeth Gobeil of the Court of Appeals of Georgia
for the Third Division affirmed the Superior Court of Fulton
County's order granting class certification.

Like many banking institutions, SunTrust provides an automated
overdraft program that allows an account holder's ATM or debit card
transaction to be approved even if the approved amount exceeds the
account holder's available balance.  In other words, the customer
has insufficient funds to cover the transaction and SunTrust
advances the customer the necessary funds to cover the transaction,
but, in return, charges the customer a flat fee per overdraft
transaction.  During the relevant time period, SunTrust charged a
flat overdraft fee of $32 or $36 per overdraft transaction.

In the complaint, Bickerstaff alleged that, on multiple occasions,
SunTrust advanced money to the Plaintiff in amounts less than
$3,000 and collected Overdraft Fees from the Plaintiff in
connection with each such advance.  He maintained that SunTrust's
overdraft fees in fact constitute interest charged by SunTrust for
the use of the money SunTrust advanced/loaned account holders to
cover overdrafts on their accounts, and that the rate of interest
grossly exceeded the rate allowed under Georgia's usury laws.

The record reveals that, in 2009, when Bickerstaff opened his
account with SunTrust, he, like all SunTrust customers, signed a
document acknowledging receipt of SunTrust's Rules and Regulations
for Deposit Accounts -- an approximately 40-page, single-spaced,
fine-print booklet -- and agreeing to be bound by the Rules and
Regulations.  In relevant part, in an introductory section
preceding the table of contents, the Rules and Regulations included
a provision that a determination that any part of this agreement is
invalid or unenforceable will not affect the remainder of this
agreement.

After Bickerstaff filed the underlying complaint, SunTrust revised
its Rules and Regulations and provided customers with the ability
to opt out of arbitration.  SunTrust moved to compel arbitration in
the underlying case, which the trial court denied, finding that
Bickerstaff effectively exercised his right to opt out of
arbitrationby filing the instant complaint.

Subsequently, SunTrust entered into an agreed upon stipulation
related to class certification.  In 2013, Bickerstaff moved for
class certification, pursuant to OCGA Section 9-11-23.  SunTrust
opposed class certification, arguing, in relevant part, that (1)
the class-action waiver in the Rules and Regulations precluded
certification; (2) Bickerstaff could not opt out of the arbitration
agreement on behalf of the class; and (3) Bickerstaff could not
satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation requirements for class certification under OCGA
Section 9-11-23.  In reply, Bickerstaff asserted, among other
arguments, that the class-action waiver was unconscionable, and,
alternatively, was unenforceable as a matter of law because it was
a non-severable part of the unenforceable jury trial waiver.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied Bickerstaff's motion
for class certification, finding that the class lacked numerosity
because Bickerstaff could not reject arbitration on behalf of the
putative class.  Bickerstaff appealed the denial of class
certification (Case No. A14A1780), and SunTrust cross-appealed the
denial of its motion to compel arbitration (Case No. A14A1781).

The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of both motions.
Bickerstaff appealed the class certification issue to the Supreme
Court, and the Court reversed and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  SunTrust filed a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court, which was denied.

On remand, following supplemental briefing by the parties, the
trial court found that the class-action waiver (contained in the
jury trial waiver provision of the Rules and Regulations) was
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  

Additionally, the trial court found that all of the requirements of
OCGA Section 9-11-23 were met and certified the following class:
Every Georgia citizen who had or has one or more accounts with
SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to Oct. 6, 2017 (i) had
at least one overdraft of $500 or less resulting from an ATM or
debit card transaction; (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a result of
the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of those Fees.
The appeal followed.

The first issue before the Court is whether the class-action waiver
in SunTrust's Rules and Regulations is enforceable.  The trial
court found that the class-action waiver was unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable.  In three interrelated enumerations of
error, SunTrust argues that the trial court erred in finding that
the class-action waiver was unconscionable.  On the other hand,
Bickerstaff argues that the Court need not reach the question of
unconscionability because the class-action waiver is unenforceable
as a matter of law as it is a non-severable, integrated part of the
legally unenforceable jury trial waiver.  SunTrust does not dispute
that the jury trial waiver is unenforceable as a matter of law in
Georgia, but maintains that the class-action waiver is severable
from the otherwise invalid provision.

Judge Gobeil agree with Bickerstaff.

First, SunTrust asserts that class certification is improper under
OCGA Section 9-11-23 (b) (3) because the class-action waiver is
enforceable, and, regardless, whether the waiver is procedurally
unconscionable is an individualized issue.  The Judge disagrees.
As discussed in Division 1, the class-action waiver is
unenforceable as a matter of law.

Second, SunTrust argues that whether its overdraft fees constitute
interest cannot be determined on a class-wide basis because the
particular services involved and costs incurred by SunTrust vary
with each fee, and a service charge is not interest if it was based
upon some service rendered, trouble encountered, inconvenience
sustained or risk assumed by SunTrust, other than the advance of
money.  The Judge finds that a classwide proceeding in the case has
the capacity to generate common answers that will drive the
resolution of the litigation and renders a class action superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy.

Third, SunTrust asserts that class certification is improper
because, if the overdraft fees constitute interest, then the term
of each "loan" will have to be determined on an individualized
basis for purposes of calculating damages.  The Judge finds that
the common legal issue of whether SunTrust's overdraft fees
constitute interest predominates and the answer to that question
will determine SunTrust's liability for all putative class members.
There may be differences in the damages for the members of the
class does not prevent certification.

Finally, SunTrust asserts that class certification is improper
because each class member's ability to recover on the claims for
conversion and money had and received will depend on an
individualized inquiry as to whether the voluntary payment doctrine
bars recovery.  The Judge finds the argument unpersuasive.
Bickerstaff's claims for money had and received and conversion seek
to recover all payments under SunTrust's overdraft program deemed
to be usurious, and it is well-established that the voluntary
payment doctrine does not apply to the recovery of usury.  Thus, if
Bickerstaff is successful on his claim that SunTrust's overdraft
fees constitute interest and are usurious, the voluntary payment
doctrine will not bar recovery by the putative class members.
Accordingly, this issue does not preclude class certification.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Gobeil concludes that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class.  She
accordingly affirmed the Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lvAuSK from Leagle.com.

Lindsey Bowen Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- for Appellant.

Jaime L. Theriot -- jaime.theriot@troutman.com -- for Appellant.

Richard H. Sinkfield -- rsinkfield@rh-law.com -- for Appellant.

William N. Withrow, Jr. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- for
Appellant.

Michael Leonard Eber, for Appellant.

Katherine Leigh D'Ambrosio -- kate.dambrosio@stoel.com -- for
Appellant.

Jason James Carter -- carter@bmelaw.com -- for Appellee.

C. Ronald Ellington -- cre@uga.edu -- for Appellee.

James Benjamin Finley, for Appellee.

Mary Kathryn Rogers -- krogers@constangy.com -- for Appellee.

Steven Jason Rosenwasser -- rosenwasser@bmelaw.com -- for
Appellee.

Michael Brian Terry -- terry@bmelaw.com -- for Appellee.

Joshua Ferber Thorpe -- thorpe@bmelaw.com -- for Appellee.

MaryBeth V. Gibson -- MGibson@thefinleyfirm.com -- for Appellee.


SYNACOR INC: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a federal securities class action
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in the federal
securities class action lawsuit filed April 4, 2018 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares between
May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018.

The plaintiff alleged that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its contract with AT&T and the
timing of revenue to be derived therefrom, and that as a result
class members suffered losses because Synacor shares traded at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiff sought an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and legal
expenses.  The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel on July 6, 2018.

On October 16, 2018 the court appointed new lead counsel and
confirmed the lead plaintiff.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on November 2, 2018, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss on December 17, 2018.

Synacor said, "The Company disputes these claims and intends to
defend them vigorously.  The liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by D&O insurance after the Company reaches its
deductible."

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.


TOUCHPOINT 360: Certification to Putative Supplement Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DONNA ARUGU, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
TOUCHPOINT 360, LLC and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCIATES, LTD., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00343-LY (W.D. Tex., March 14, 2019),
the parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a supplement to the putative class
      peviously conditionally certified as a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on December 28, 2018.  The
      putative supplement to the class shall include:

      "all former and current employees of TouchPoint 360, LLC who

      were compensated via TouchPoint's project pay compensation
      structure, whether on a day rate, task rate, or any other
      basis, and worked at  least 40 hours in at least one workweek

      at any time since December 28, 2015, and to whom notice of
      the pendency of the action has not previously been sent in
      this case";

   2. authorizing counsel for the Plaintiffs to issue the notice of

      collective action and consent forms to be delivered or
      otherwise disseminated by mail and email to employees: 1) who

      were paid on a project pay basis, 2) whom TouchPoint's
      records show that they worked more than 35 hours in a given
      workweek since December 28, 2015, and 3) who were not
      included in Touchpoint's January 7, 2019 list of putative
      class members; and

   3. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to make available on a
      website the Consent Form; and

   4. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to permit putative the
      Plaintiffs to sign their consent forms with electronic
      signatures using the Adobe Sign electronic signature
      platform.

The Defendants are agreeing to the certification of this supplement
to the class for settlement purposes only, and they expressly
reserve their right to contest the collective treatment of this
case if 1) a settlement is not entered into, 2) the Court does not
approve the terms of the Parties' proposed settlement, or 3) the
Court does not enter a final order dismissing the case with
prejudice.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Telecopier: (512) 782-0605

               - and -

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          John R. Eagan, Esq.
          Louis J. Phillips, Esq.
          PATZIK, FRANK, & SAMOTNY LTD.
          200 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 551 8300
          E-mail: lphillips@pfs-law.com
                  jeagan@pfs-law.com

               - and -

          Barry A. Moscowitz, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
          700 N. Pearl St., 25th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 871-8200
          Facsimile: (214) 871-8209
          E-mail: bmoscowitz@thompsoncoe.com

TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, MacMann Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI L. MACMANN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TROPICANA
ST. LOUIS, LLC D/B/A LUMIERE PLACE CASINO & HOTELS, Case No.
4:19-cv-00404 (E.D. Mo., March 4, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, the mandated federal and state minimum wage
rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40
in a single workweek.

Tropicana is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in the state
of Nevada.  Tropicana owns and operates Lumiere in the City of St.
Louis, Missouri.  Lumiere is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  Lumiere operates in the
City of St. Louis.

Tropicana is a casino entertainment company.  Lumiere is a casino
owned and operated by Tropicana in St. Louis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Denied Mental Health Coverage, Court Finds
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark mental health ruling, a federal court held on March 5
that health insurance giant United Behavioral Health (UBH), which
serves over 60 million members and is owned by UnitedHealth Group,
used flawed internal guidelines to unlawfully deny mental health
and substance use treatment for its insureds across the United
States. The historic class action was filed by Psych-Appeal, Inc.
and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and litigated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The federal court found that, to promote its own bottom line, UBH
denied claims based on internally developed medical necessity
criteria that were far more restrictive than generally accepted
standards for behavioral health care. Specifically, the court found
that UBH's criteria were skewed to cover "acute" treatment, which
is short-term or crisis-focused, and disregarded chronic or complex
mental health conditions that often require ongoing care.

The court was particularly troubled by UBH's lack of coverage
criteria for children and adolescents, estimated to number in the
thousands in the certified classes.

"For far too long, patients and their families have been stretched
to the breaking point, both financially and emotionally, as they
battle with insurers for the mental health coverage promised by
their health plans," said Meiram Bendat of Psych-Appeal, Inc. and
co-counsel for the plaintiffs who uncovered the guideline flaws.
"Now a court has ruled that denying coverage based on defective
medical necessity criteria is illegal."

In its decision, the court also held that UBH misled regulators
about its guidelines being consistent with the American Society of
Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria, which insurers must use in
Connecticut, Illinois and Rhode Island. Additionally, the court
found that UBH failed to apply Texas-mandated substance use
criteria for at least a portion of the class period.

While the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008 requires parity for mental health and
substance use benefits, insurers are permitted to evaluate claims
for medical necessity. However, by using flawed medical necessity
criteria, insurers can circumvent parity in favor of financial
considerations and prevent patients from receiving the type and
amount of care they actually require.

In his decision, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero concluded that
"the record is replete with evidence that UBH's Guidelines were
viewed as an important tool for meeting utilization management
targets, 'mitigating' the impact of the 2008 Parity Act, and
keeping 'benex' [benefit expense] down."

The court's ruling stems from two consolidated class-action
lawsuits, Wit et al. v. United Behavioral Health and Alexander et
al. v. United Behavioral Health, brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in 2014, certified
in 2016 and tried in October 2017. The ruling affects UBH insureds
who were denied outpatient, intensive outpatient and residential
treatment from 2011 to 2017.

Only ERISA participants and beneficiaries are class members in this
lawsuit, requiring non-ERISA insureds, such as government
employees, who were denied coverage under the same flawed
guidelines to rely on regulators to hold UBH accountable.

"The practice of developing and relying on sub-par medical
necessity criteria is endemic in the managed behavioral health care
industry," said Bendat. "More robust safeguards to protect patients
are clearly warranted, including legislation mandating exclusive
adherence to guidelines developed by nonprofit, clinical specialty
organizations, and formal recognition by the American Psychiatric
Association that managed care medical directors owe a primary
ethical obligation to insureds."

Psych-Appeal, Inc. and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP were appointed class
counsel by the federal court and represent plaintiffs in several
class actions against other insurers.

                   About Psych-Appeal, Inc.

Psych-Appeal, Inc. -- http://www.psych-appeal.com-- is the first
private law firm in the United States exclusively dedicated to
mental health insurance advocacy on behalf of patients and
providers. The firm is recognized as a national leader in the area
of mental health parity, spearheading numerous high-profile cases
and collaborating with The Kennedy Forum and The Saks Institute for
Mental Health Law, Policy, and Ethics. [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PATRICIA MERKOVICH and MARIA
WOLF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00382-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs asks the
Court for an order certifying classes, appointing the Plaintiffs as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed Plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named Plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a Plaintiffs from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

UNITED STATES: Class Definition in Separation Suit Modified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ms. L.; et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. U.S
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); et al.,
Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to modify
class definition.

Last spring, the Attorney General of the United States announced a
controversial "zero tolerance" policy for all persons crossing the
border illegally.  Under the policy, parents and children who
crossed the border illegally were separated, and the children were
placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human
Services ("HHS"), Office of Refugee and Resettlement ("ORR").  

Several weeks before the Attorney General's announcement of the
zero tolerance policy, the Plaintiffs filed the present case
alleging they, and a class of similarly situated individuals, had
been forcibly separated from their children by government officials
at the border.  They alleged these separations were the result of a
nationwide policy that had been implemented well before the
announcement of the zero tolerance policy and that the policy had
resulted in the indiscriminate separation of migrant families both
at and between designated ports of entry.  They challenged this
family separation policy as a violation of their substantive due
process rights to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

On June 26, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions for
class certification and for a preliminary injunction, and ordered
reunification of the children in ORR custody with their parents
within 30 days.  Pursuant to the Court's Orders, 2,816 children
were identified as having been separated from their parents at the
border, and nearly all of them have now been reunified with their
parents or otherwise discharged in accordance with their parents'
wishes.

Recently, the HHS Office of Inspector General ("OIG") conducted an
internal investigation into the Administration's zero tolerance
policy given the potential impact of [the policy] on vulnerable
children and ORR operations, and to determine the number and status
of separated children who have entered ORR care as a result of the
policy.  On Jan. 17, 2019, the OIG issued a Report on its
investigation entitled, "Separated Children Placed in Office of
Refugee Resettlement Care."  That Report reveals the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") and the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")
began separating migrant families as early as July 1, 2017, well
before the zero tolerance policy was publicly announced in May of
2018, and that pursuant to the policy, potentially "thousands" more
families had been separated.

In granting class certification, the Court generally defined the
class to include parents who had entered the United States at or
between ports of entry, who were, had been or would be detained in
immigration custody by DHS, and had a minor child who was separated
from them and detained in ORR custody at or after that time.

Specifically, the class was defined as all adult parents who enter
the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1)
have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the
DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from
them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS
custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or
presents a danger to the child.

In implementing the Court's preliminary injunction and
reunification order, the Defendants limited the class to parents
whose children were "detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or
DHS custody" on the date the preliminary injunction was issued,
June 26, 2018.  They did not include in the class those parents
whose children were released from ORR custody before June 26, 2018.
As a result, those parents -- the potentially "thousands"
identified by OIG -- were not reunified with their children
pursuant to the Court's preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs now move to clarify that the class certified in the
Court's Order includes those parents, or in the alternative, to
modify the class definition to include those parents.

After reviewing the parties' briefs and relevant legal authority,
and hearing argument from counsel, the Court grants Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the class definition.

Defendants oppose the motion on several grounds.  They contend that
expanding the class to include these parents would run afoul of the
adequacy, typicality and commonality requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), and present ascertainability problems.
They argue parents whose children were released from government
custody before June 26, 2018, are in a different legal position
from parents whose children were in government custody on or after
that date.  They also argue the Plaintiffs delayed raising the
issue, and that it would be unfair to the Defendants to expand the
class after they have reunified so many class members with their
children.

Judge Sabraw finds that the Plaintiffs were alerted to the
existence of a handful of parents within the group, and that
subsequent investigation by the OIG confirmed that there was not
just a handful but potentially thousands of parents in the group,
does not render modification of the class definition unfair.
Rather, modification of the class definition falls squarely within
the confines of Supreme Court precedent and Rule 23(c)(1)(C), which
give courts broad discretion to alter or amend a class definition
considering subsequent developments in a case.

Subsequent developments have occurred, and the modified class, like
the original class, satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.
Accordingly, she holds that the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the
class definition is granted.  The previously certified class is
modified as all adult parents who entered the United States at or
between designated ports of entry on or after July 1, 2017, who (1)
have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the
DHS, and (2) have a minor child who has been, is or will be
separated from them by DHS and has been, is or will be detained in
ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, absent a
determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the
child.

Although the parties addressed the issue of the relief to be
afforded to the newly included class members both in their briefs
and at oral argument, the Judge declines to resolve that issue in
the present order.  Rather, pursuant to the Defendants' request,
she stays application of its preliminary injunction to the newly
included class members pending further briefing from the parties as
to what specific relief the Plaintiffs request and are entitled to
at this stage of the case.  The parties should be prepared to
address these issues in the next JSR.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9opNhd from Leagle.com.

Ms. L., Petitioner, represented by Anand Venkata Balakrishnan, ACLU
Immigrants Rights Project, pro hac vice, Bardis Vakili, ACLU
Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Charles D. Reiter --
charles.reiter@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Judy
Rabinovitz, ACLU Immigrants Right Project, pro hac vice, Lee
Gelernt, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, pro hac vice, Stephen B.
Kang, American Civil Liberties Union Found. of Northern California,
Daniel Antonio Galindo, American Civil Liberties Union & Spencer
E.W. Amdur, ACLU Immigants' Rights Project.

Ms. C., Petitioner, represented by Charles D. Reiter, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Stephen B. Kang, American Civil Liberties
Union Found. of Northern California, Daniel Antonio Galindo,
American Civil Liberties Union & Lee Gelernt, ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project.

Dora & Alma, Petitioners, represented by Carol T. McClarnon --
carolmcclarnon@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland
(US) LLP, pro hac vice, Emily A. Bork --
emilybork@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland (US)
LLP, pro hac vice, John H. Fleming --
johnfleming@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland (US)
LLP, pro hac vice, Johnathan James Smith, Muslim Advocates, pro hac
vice, Joseph Saei, Muslim Advocates, Simon Yehuda
Sandoval-Moshenberg, Legal Aid Justice Center, pro hac vice, Sirine
Shebaya, Muslim Advocates, pro hac vice, Sophia Leticia Gregg,
Legal Aid Justice Center, pro hac vice, Wilson G. Barmeyer,
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Aaron M. Olsen --
aarono@haelaw.com -- Haeggquist & Eck, LLP & Lee Gelernt, ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE), U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
(CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (USCIS), U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, (HHS), Office of Refugee
Resettlement, (ORR), Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE, Greg
Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE, Joseph Greene,
San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE, Kirstjen Nielsen,
Secretary of DHS, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney
General of the United States, Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting
Commissioner of CBP, L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS, Pete
Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP, Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, Scott Lloyd, Director of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso
Field Director, CBP, Adrian P. Macias, El Paso Field Director, ICE
& Francis M. Jackson, El Paso Assistant Field Office Director, ICE,
Respondents, represented by August Edward Flentje, U.S. Department
of Justice, Samuel William Bettwy, U S Attorney's Office Southern
District of California Civil Division, Sarah B. Fabian, U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Nicole N.
Murley, U.S. Department of Justice & Scott Grant Stewart, U. S.
Department of Justice.

Lesbi Martinez-Martinez, Objector, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Julia Elizabeth Romano -- jromano@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
LLP & Martin M. McNerney -- mmcnerney@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding,
pro hac vice.

Ms. M. D-L, Objector, Miscellaneous Party, represented by Ashley
Elizabeth Neglia, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christina Briesacher,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Emily Nicklin, pro hac vice.

Michael Wishnie, et al., amici curiae, Amicus, represented by
Michael Shipley -- michael.shipley@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP.

Children's Rights., Inc., et al., amici curiae, Amicus, represented
by Summer J. Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish.

Scholars of Habeas Corpus and Constitutional Law, Amicus,
represented by Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Casamassima,
WilmerHale, Jamie Stephen Dycus, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice & Noah Adam Levine, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Y. Padilla Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOLANY PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. US IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-928 MJP
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs are the named representatives of a putative class
seeking declaratory relief related to Defendants United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of
Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection, and
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services's policies and
practices with respect to the processing of asylum and credible
fear claims and the setting of bond for detained immigrants pending
resolution of those claims.  Their complaint was originally filed
on June 25, 2018 and has been amended twice to date.

Shortly after her apprehension for illegal entry into the United
States in May 2018, Ms. Padilla expressed a fear of being removed
to her native Honduras.  Six weeks later, she was interviewed by an
asylum officer and one day later, found to have a credible fear.
Two days later, she was granted a bond hearing, was awarded bond,
and was released in late July 2018.

Ibis Guzman is also from Honduras and underwent a similar process
to Ms. Padilla.  She was represented at her bond hearing but was
denied bond.  She reserved appeal, but was released in late July
2018.

Shortly after her apprehension for illegal entry into the United
States, Bianca Orantes expressed a fear of returning to her native
El Salvador.  About five weeks later, she was interviewed by an
asylum officer and, one day later found to have a credible fear.
She was granted a bond hearing 11 days after her credible fear
determination, was denied bond, reserved appeal, but was released
in late July 2018.

Shortly after his apprehension for illegal entry into the United
States, Baltazar Vasquez expressed a fear of returning to his
native El Salvador.  About eight weeks later, he was interviewed by
an asylum officer and found to have a credible fear.  Three weeks
later, he was granted a bond hearing, stipulated to an $8,000 bond,
waived appeal, and was released.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of two classes: A Credible Fear
Interview Class and a Bond Hearing Class, and assert the following
remaining claims:

     a. Count I (Violation of Due Process): Both Classes claim they
were detained for "an unreasonable time" while awaiting their
credible fear interview and bond hearings.  They seek to impose (1)
a 10-day deadline for the credible fear interview, running from the
date on which the non-citizen expresses a fear of returning to his
or her country; and (2) a seven-day deadline for the bond hearing,
running from the date of a positive credible fear determination.
In addition, they seek procedural changes to the bond hearing
including (1) that the government bear the burden of proof; (2)
that they be provided a recording or verbatim transcript of the
hearing; and (3) that the bond adjudicator issue written findings
after every hearing.

     b. Count II (Administrative Procedure Act): The Bond Hearing
Class claims that the procedural deficiencies they allege in the
bond hearing process are an unconstitutional part of a "final
agency action" in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act
("APA").

Preliminarily, the Defendants again argue that the restrictions in
the immigration statutes at issue deprive the Court of
jurisdiction.  These arguments are identical to those which the
Court has previously rejected.

Judge Pechman finds that the Plaintiffs have established
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, and have further
demonstrated that "declaratory relief is available to the class as
a whole" and that the challenged conduct is such that it can be
enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members
or as to none of them.

She therefore certified the following classes:

     a. Credible Fear Interview Class: All detained asylum seekers
in the United States subject to expedited removal proceedings under
8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b) who are not provided a credible fear
determination within ten days of the later of (1) requesting asylum
or expressing a fear of persecution to a DHS official or (2) the
conclusion of any criminal proceeding related to the circumstances
of their entry, absent a request by the asylum seeker for a delayed
credible fear interview.

     b. Bond Hearing Class: All detained asylum seekers who entered
the United States without inspection, were initially subject to
expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b), were
determined to have a credible fear of persecution, but are not
provided a bond hearing with a verbatim transcript or recording of
the hearing within seven days of requesting a bond hearing.

The Judge (i) designated named Plaintiffs Padilla, Guzman, Orantes
and Vasquez as the Credible Fear Interview Class representatives,
and Plaintiffs Orantes and Vasquez as the Bond Hearing Class
representatives; and (ii) appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel as the
class counsel.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all the
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XkA7e1 from Leagle.com.

Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes & Baltazar Vasquez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Leila Kang, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT,
Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice & Aaron
Korthuis, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, US
Department of Homeland Security, also known as DHS, US Customs and
Border Protection, also known as DHS, United StatesCitizenship and
Immigration Services, also known as DHS, Thomas Homan, Acting
Director of ICE, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP, L Francis Cissna, Director
of USCIS, Marc J Moore, Seattle Field Office Director, ICE,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions, III, United States Attorney General, Lowell Clark, Warden
of the Norwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Charles Ingram, Warden
of the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington & David
Shinn, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institute in Victorville,
CA, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Darrow, US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Lauren C. Bingham, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Sarah S.
Wilson, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

James Janecka, Warden of the Adelanto Detention Facility,
Defendant, represented by Sarah S. Wilson, US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: Immigrants Hit Cancellation of Protected Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keshav Bhattarai, Sajjan Pandey, Sumnima Thapa, Donaldo Posadas
Caceres, Sorayda Rodriguez Motiño, Denis Molina Chavez, S.S.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and
G.D.P., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security, Elaine C. Duke, in her official
capacity as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, United States
Department of Homeland Security and United States of America,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00731, (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2019),
seeks to challenge the Trump Administration's recent decisions to
terminate the "Temporary Protected Status" designations for Nepal
and Honduras in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and
the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.

Temporary Protected Status designation is a form of humanitarian
immigration relief that allows individuals from designated
countries to lawfully live and work in the United States when they
cannot safely return to their country of origin due to armed
conflict, natural disaster, or other exceptional circumstances.
Plaintiffs are Nepalese and Honduran immigrants living in the US
with such status. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq.
     Zoe N. McKinney, Esq,
     ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
     1313 West 8th Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 977-5211
     Fax: (213) 977-5297
     Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
            zmckinney@aclusocal.org

            - and -

     Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
     Emilou MacLean, Esq.
     NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK
     674 S. La Layette Park Place
     Los Angeles, CA 90057
     Telephone: (213) 380-2214
     Fax: (213) 380-2787
     Email: jbansal@ndlon.org
            emi@ndlon.org

            - and -

     Alycia A. Degen, Esq.
     Sean A. Commons, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Telephone: (213) 896-6000
     Fax: (213) 896-6600
     Email: adegen@sidley.com
            scommons@sidley.com


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Spinal Surgery Coverage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that another
group of patients suing a UnitedHealth Group Inc. subsidiary for
coverage of spinal surgery want class action status.

A federal judge in California previously granted class status to
about 20 patients who were denied coverage under UnitedHealthcare
Insurance Co. plans that didn't include language giving the insurer
a favorable standard of judicial review. The patients March 4
sought class treatment for another 257 people who were denied
coverage under plans with language more favorable to United. [GN]


US OLYMPIC: Claims in Gilbert's Sexual Abuse Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEIDI GILBERT, AMBER MEANS, MANDY MELOON, GABRIELA
JOSLIN, KAY POE, and JANE DOES 6-50, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, USA TAEKWONDO, INC., U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT,
STEVEN LOPEZ, JEAN LOPEZ, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 18-cv-00981-CMA-MEH (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Michael
E. Hegarty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
recommended that (i) the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants United
States Olympic Committee ("USOC"), USA Taekwondo, Inc. ("USAT"),
and Jean and Steven Lopez ("Lopez Defendants"); and (ii) USOC's
motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations, be
granted in part and denied in part.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are female taekwondo athletes who
sought to compete for Team USA.  They allege that during the time
they participated and competed in the USAT system, they were
sexually abused, assaulted, and raped by the Lopez Defendants, who
the Plaintiffs claim are prominent members of the United States
taekwondo community.  

The Plaintiffs' allegations in the lawsuit constitute three
components.  First, the Plaintiffs allege coerced sexual conduct
and sexual assault perpetrated by the Lopez Defendants.  Second,
the Plaintiffs allege the USOC and USAT ignored and discredited
their reports of such conduct in the years following the assaults.
Finally, they allege that executives of the USOC and USAT lied to
Congress in an attempt to divert blame and prevent institutional
reform.

The Plaintiffs assert 21 claims against the various Defendants.
However, the Plaintiffs have voluntarily withdrawn seven of those
claims (claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 18) in the briefing for the
present motions.  Thus, 14 claims remain, which fall into three
broad categories: (1) claims by individual Plaintiffs under federal
sex trafficking and forced labor laws; (2) a RICO claim; and (3)
state law claims.

The Lopez Defendants have filed separate Motions to Dismiss seeking
to dismiss the claims in their entirety.  Additionally, the USOC
moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike the Plaintiffs' class
action allegations.

Collectively, the Defendants argue each claim should be dismissed,
because the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, the
Plaintiffs fail to plausibly state the claim, or both.  The
Plaintiffs filed an omnibus Response on Nov. 1, 2018, and the
Defendants filed Replies to each motion on Nov. 15, 2018.

Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended that Judge Arguello permits
the following claims to proceed in the case: (i) Claim 3 against
Steven Lopez; (ii) Claim 4 against USAT; (iii) Claim 5 against
Steven Lopez; (iv) Claim 8 against Steven Lopez; (v) Claim 9
against USOC and USAT; (vi) Claim 10 against Steven Lopez; (vii)
Claim 13 against Steven Lopez; (viii) Claim 14 against USAT; (ix)
Claim 19 against USOC; (x) Claim 20 against USOC; and (xi) Claim 21
against USOC.

In addition, he recommended that Judge Arguello dismiss the
following claims: (i) Claim 5 against USAT; (ii) Claim 14 against
USOC; (iii) Claim 15 against USOC, USAT, and the Lopez Defendants;
(iv) Claim 16 against USOC and USAT; (v) Claim 17 against USOC and
USAT; (vi) Claim 19 against USAT; and (vii) Claim 20 against USAT.

Finally, as the Plaintiffs withdrew the majority of their claims
against Jean Lopez and he has recommended dismissing the RICO claim
against him, the Judge also recommended dismissing Jean Lopez as a
Defendant in the case.

Therefore, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended that the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and USOC's Motion to Strike, filed
Sept. 24, 2019, be granted in part and denied in part as set
forth.

Among other things, he finds that in the entirety of the SAC, he
sees no allegation that USAT (as the principal) transported Ms.
Joslin for Steven to obtain sexual services from her.  It simply
does not allege that USAT sent Ms. Joslin to taekwondo events "for"
her to perform sexual services for Steven Lopez.  The Plaintiffs
argue that USAT knew "of the fact that Steven would continue to use
her for her sexual services."  But the statute makes clear that
liability as a principal requires that USAT "knowingly" transported
Ms. Joslin "for" forced labor or services.  There is no such
allegation in the SAC.

He also finds that lacking in any of these allegations is a factual
assertion that the USOC took any steps to obstruct a governmental
investigation of anything, let alone conduct that violated either
Section 1590 or Section 1591.  Indeed, no governmental actor is
present in the Plaintiffs' allegations.  To the extent that the
Plaintiffs allege the USOC delayed or even interfered with USAT's
private investigation of the Lopez Defendants, this is simply
insufficient to state a claim under the obstruction statutes.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2019 Recommendation is
available at https://is.gd/ZEkMUd from Leagle.com.

Law Professors as Amici, Amicus, represented by Claire E. Hunter,
HKM Employment Attorneys LLP & Jesse Kay Fishman, HKM Employment
Attorneys LLP.

Heidi Gilbert, Amber Means, Mandy Meloon & Gabriela Joslin,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Charles Little --
jon@sllawfirm.com -- Saeed & Little LLP, Larkin Evans Walsh --
lwalsh@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Lauren Cerri,
Corsiglia McMahon & Allard, Mark John Boskovich --
mboskovich@cmalaw.net -- Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, Rex A.
Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Robert
Allard, Corsiglia McMahon & Allard, Ryan Carleton Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Sarah Tankard
Bradshaw -- sbradshaw@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, P.A.,
Stephen John Estey -- steve@estey-bomberger.com -- Estey &
Bomberger, LLP & Daniel A. Lipman -- dan@parkerlipman.com -- Parker
Lipman, LLP.

Kay Poe, and Jane Does 6-50, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larkin Evans Walsh,
Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Mark John Boskovich, Corsiglia, McMahon &
Allard, LLP, Sarah Tankard Bradshaw, Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Stephen
John Estey, Estey & Bomberger, LLP & Rex A. Sharp, Rex A. Sharp,
P.A.

United States Olympic Committee, Defendant, represented by Carolyn
J Kubota -- ckubota@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP, David
Scott Denuyl -- ddenuyl@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP, David
M. Jolley -- djolley@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP, John Polk
Craver , White & Steele, P.C., Lindsey Catherine Barnhart --
lbarnhart@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP, Michael Fields --
mfields@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP & Mitchell Aaron Kamin
-- mkamin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP.

USA Taekwondo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Raquel
Guesno, Gordon & Rees LLP, Lillian L. Alves, Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP, Nathan Andrew Huey, Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas
Baker Quinn, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.

US Center for SafeSport, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Charles
Pritchard, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Michael Thomas Kotlarczyk,
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP & Sean Connelly, Connelly Law, LLC.

Steven Lopez, Defendant, represented by Howard Lee Jacobs, Howard
L. Jacobs, Offices of Law, Josh Adam Marks, Berg Hill Greenleaf &
Ruscitti, LLP, Kathleen Teresa Alt, Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti,
LLP, Lauren Amy Brock, Howard L. Jacobs, Offices of Law & Lindsay
Scott Brandon, Howard L. Jacobs, Offices of Law.

Jean Lopez, and John Does 1-5, Defendant, represented by Howard Lee
Jacobs, Howard L. Jacobs, Offices of Law, Josh Adam Marks, Berg
Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Kathleen Teresa Alt, Berg Hill
Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Lauren Amy Brock, Howard L. Jacobs,
Offices of Law & Lindsay Scott Brandon, Howard L. Jacobs, Offices
of Law.


UTGR INC: Parties Seek Final Okay of Munsif Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Parties in the lawsuit captioned TANER MUNSIF and ELIZABETH M.
RYAN, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a LINCOLN PARK, alias, Case No.
1:16-cv-00387-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), jointly move for final
certification of the class of Plaintiffs that the Court
conditionally certified.

The Parties also ask the Court to approve the Proposed Settlement
Agreement reached on behalf of the collective class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com
                  jdx@sinapilaw.com

Defendant UTGR, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN, P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
          E-mail: Mchittick@apslaw.com


VECTRUS INC: Settlement Payments Made in Employees' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vectrus, 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 payments to eligible
class members were made in the settled class action suit filed
before the Western District of Washington.

The company recently settled a class action employment lawsuit that
was initiated in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington in April 2010 against the predecessor of the
company's Former Parent by individuals who worked on a particular
contract in Kuwait after April 12, 2009.

The plaintiffs alleged a breach of employment contract by the
predecessor of the company's Former Parent due to an alleged
violation of Kuwait labor law. Although the company disputed the
liability, the parties have negotiated a settlement, the terms of
which include a settlement fund of up to $3.75 million, plus
payroll taxes for wages paid to class members.

The settlement fund includes the judge's award of attorney's fees,
costs and class representative fees, with the remainder available
to eligible class members pursuant to an allocation formula.

The Company received final approval of the settlement by the
District Court following a fairness hearing on October 16, 2018.
Payments to eligible class members were made on February 1, 2019.

Vectrus, Inc. provides facility and logistics, and information
technology and network communication services to the U.S.
government worldwide. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is
headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado.


VEON LTD: Westway Alliance's Securities Suit Still Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Veon Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the parties' cross-applications remain
pending in a securities lawsuit.

On November 4, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States against VEON and certain of its current and former officers
by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and other investors in
the Company alleging certain violations of the United States
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's public
disclosures relating to its operations in Uzbekistan.  On December
4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by Westway Alliance Corp.
that asserts essentially the same claims in connection with
essentially the same disclosures.

On April 27, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed Westway as lead plaintiff.  On May 6, 2016, a motion for
reconsideration was filed on the appointment of Westway as lead
plaintiff and on September 26, 2016, the court affirmed the
selection of Westway as the lead plaintiff.  An amended complaint
was filed on December 9, 2016.

On September 19, 2017, the Court in the Southern District of New
York rendered a decision granting in part VEON's motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint.

On February 9, 2018, VEON filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses
to the allegations that remain in the Amended Complaint after the
Court's September 19, 2017 Order.  Motions to dismiss were filed by
all the individual defendants on February 9, 2018.  On April 13,
2018, plaintiff dismissed its claims voluntarily against one of the
individual defendants.  On August 30, 2018, the Court granted the
motions to dismiss by all of the individual defendants remaining in
the action, and the time for appeal has now expired.

On December 3, 2018, VEON requested permission from the Court to
file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Westway lacked
standing as a result of the September 19, 2017 order because it had
not purchased any securities on or after the date of the earliest
alleged misstatement.  That same day, Westway requested permission
to file a Second Amended Complaint to add three additional named
plaintiffs in an effort to cure this deficiency.

On December 6, 2018, VEON and Westway filed oppositions to each
other's applications.  The parties' cross-applications remain
pending with the Court.

Veon said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend the action at
all phases moving forward."

Veon Ltd. is a global provider of connectivity and internet
services. Present in some of the world's most dynamic markets, VEON
provides more than 240 million customers (including the Italy Joint
Venture) with voice, fixed broadband, data and digital services.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Balks at Merger Deal with Entegris
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAURY ROBERT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC., SEIFOLLAH
GHASEMI, JACQUES CROISETIÈRE, GUILLERMO NOVO, YI HYON PAIK, THOMAS
J. RIORDAN, SUSAN C. SCHNABEL, and ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00511-UNA (D. Del. March 14, 2019),
seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Versum will be acquired by Entegris, Inc.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Versum
Materials, Inc. against Versum and the members of Versum's Board of
Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9.

According to the complaint, on January 28, 2019, Entegris and
Versum issued a joint press release announcing they had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 27, 2019 to sell
Versum to Entegris. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
Versum stockholder will be entitled to receive 1.120 shares of
Entegris common stock for each share of Versum common stock they
own. Based on the value of Entegris common stock on January 25,
2019, the implied value of the Merger Consideration was $35.08 per
share. Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Entegris
and Versum stockholders will own approximately 52.5% and 47.5%,
respectively, of the combined company.

On February 28, 2019, Versum and Entegris filed a joint Proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4 with the SEC, which recommends
that Versum stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Versum's and Entegris' financial projections, relied
upon by the Company's financial advisor, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
("Lazard"), in its financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Lazard; (iii) potential conflicts of
interest faced by Lazard; and (iv) the background of the Proposed
Transaction and the unsolicited proposal submitted by Merck KgaA
("Merck") on February 27, 2019 (the "Merck Proposal"). The failure
to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Versum
stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

In short, unless remedied, Versum's public stockholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them. the Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the lawsauit says.

Versum Materials manufactures CMP slurries, ultra-thin dielectric
and metal film precursors, formulated cleans and etching products,
and delivery equipment for the semiconductor industry.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

VIRGIN AMERICA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bernstein Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Virgin America, Inc., filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Julia Bernstein,
et al. v. Virgin America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02277-JST,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
wage-and-hour class action brought by flight attendants, who work
or have worked for the Defendants in California.  The Plaintiffs
allege that Virgin violated various California labor laws regarding
payment for hours worked, wage amounts, wage documentation, and the
provision of meal and rest breaks.  The Court certified a class of
certain Virgin America flight attendants, which it later
decertified in part.

The appellate case is captioned as Julia Bernstein, et al. v.
Virgin America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-15382, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 3, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 3, 2019;

   -- Appellants Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Virgin America, Inc.'s
      opening brief is due on June 12, 2019;

   -- Appellees Julia Bernstein, Esther Garcia and Lisa Marie
      Smith's answering brief is due on July 12, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees JULIA BERNSTEIN, ESTHER GARCIA and LISA MARIE
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Ronald Scott Kravitz, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 429-5272
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          1640 Town Center Circle
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (954) 515-0124
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Monique Olivier , Esq.
          OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 484-0980
          E-mail: monique@osclegal.com

Defendants-Appellants VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES,
INC., are represented by:

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Nancy Villarreal, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-7205
          E-mail: nvillarreal@morganlewis.com


VIRTU ITG: S.D.N.Y. Judge Enters Final OK on $18MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
February 21, 2019, approved and entered a final judgment on Virtu
ITG Holdings LLC's settlement agreement in a consolidated lawsuit
related to its August 2015 SEC investigation settlement, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In August 2015, the Company paid US$20.3 million to settle the
SEC's investigation into a proprietary trading pilot operated in
2010 and 2011 (the "2015 SEC Settlement"), which had a significant
negative impact on its business.

In connection with the 2015 SEC Settlement, two putative class
action lawsuits were filed and have since been consolidated into a
single action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives.

On April 19, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit.  In
exchange for a release of claims and a dismissal with prejudice,
the settlement includes a payment to class members of US$18
million, which is well within the policy limits of, and is expected
to be paid by, the Company's insurance carrier.

On November 5, 2018, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Settlement") was preliminarily approved by the court.


VOX MEDIA: Class of Site Managers Certified in Bradley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification in the lawsuit titled CHERYL C. BRADLEY,
et al. v. VOX MEDIA, INC. d/b/a SB NATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-01791-RMC (D.D.C.).

The conditionally certified class consists of:

     all current or former Site Managers and Managing Editors who
     performed work in the United States for Vox Media, Inc. in
     its SB Nation business division within the past three years.

The Defendant is ordered to produce to the Plaintiffs' Counsel the
names, last known addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
members of the Class no later than March 27, 2019.  The Plaintiffs'
Counsel may send notice via physical and electronic mail, but may
not send reminder notices.  Any electronic notices must be sent to
a single potential class member and cannot include the contact
information for any other potential class members.  Only one
electronic notice can be sent to each potential class member.  The
notice shall provide a 60-day opt-in period.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the content of the
notices.[CC]


VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company continues to await
the Court's ruling on its motion to dismiss the "Goetz" class suit,
as amended, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The case, styled Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No.
1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), is a putative class action
in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to
represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of
similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for
recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.  Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 8, 2018.

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a subsidiary of Voya
Holdings Inc.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Appeals Ca. Dist. Ct. Decision in Rushing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The Respondent is the District Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2019, Judge William H. Orrick granted the parties' stipulated order
continuing the hearing date and briefing schedule for the
Defendants' Motion to Certify Order on Pending Motions and Order
Denying Motions for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration for
Interlocutory Appeal to the Ninth Circuit and Stay Proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al. v.
USDC-CASF, Case No. 19-70522, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and
on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Kathryn Honecker, Esq.
          ROSE LAW GROUP, P.C.
          7144 East Stetson Drive, Suite 300
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 505-3936
          Facsimile: (480) 505-3925
          E-mail: khonecker@roselawgroup.com

               - and -

          George Richard Baker, Esq.
          BAKER LAW PC
          436 N. Stanley Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (205) 746-2703
          E-mail: richard@bakerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Amber Eck, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DBA Pottery Barn, DBA Williams-Sonoma, DBA
Williams-Sonoma Home; WILLIAMS-SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a
California corporation; and WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a California
corporation, are represented by:

          Robert J. Guite, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3176
          E-mail: rguite@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          E-mail: baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Faces EarthLink Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself against
purported shareholder class action complaints related to its merger
agreement with EarthLink Holdings Corp., according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain
of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related
lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in
February 2017.  Two putative shareholders have filed separate
purported shareholder class action complaints in federal court in
Arkansas and state court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink
Holdings Corp., et al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings,
Inc., et al., respectively.

Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were
filed during the quarter in Arkansas federal court on behalf of
Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v. Wells, et al.,
and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et al.  Additionally, Windstream
received a shareholder demand letter in the fourth quarter of 2018
related to the EarthLink merger.

All four of the complaints and the demand letter contain similar
assertions and claims of alleged securities law violations and
breaches of fiduciary duties related to the disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting shareholder approval of
the merger, which the plaintiffs allege were inadequate and
misleading.

The Company said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each
of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of
all matters.  While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not
currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of
these matters, the ruling could have material adverse effects on
the future consolidated results of our income, cash flows, or
financial condition."


Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and
technology solutions in the United States. Its Consumer & Small
Business segment offers services, including traditional local and
long-distance voice services, and high-speed Internet services;
and
value-added services, such as security and online back-up.
Windstream Holdings, Inc. also leases and sells broadband modems,
home networking gateways, and personal computers; and sells home
phones. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in
Little
Rock, Arkansas.


WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter's Bid for Class Certification Stricken
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 7, 2019, in the case styled
Datisha Hunter, et al. v. Wirelesspcs Chicago LLC, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Telephone conference held with counsel for parties other
      than Defendant Ghaben, who was unavailable to participate;

   -- Motion to substitute is granted; no appearance on the
      motion is required;

   -- Daniel Gajda and Aaron Maduff are given leave to file their
      appearance on behalf of certain Defendants;

   -- The Clerk of the Court is asked to terminate the appearance
      of Joel Rice, Esq., and James Hux, Esq., as counsel for
      certain Defendants;

   -- The reconvened settlement conference set for March 13,
      2019, is stricken; the parties shall advise the Court's
      staff promptly as to whether the parties agree on either of
      the dates proposed by the Court for the reconvened
      conference;

   -- The parties shall meet and confer about any further
      document production in anticipation of the reconvened
      settlement conference, as well as on a schedule for
      exchange of new settlement letters;

   -- By agreement, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification is stricken and the Defendants' motion for
      leave to file counterclaims, without prejudice to refiling
      those motions if the parties do not reach a settlement.[CC]


ZARA USA INC: Gabriyelian Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zara USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Sedrak Gabriyelian individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zara USA, Inc. and DOES
1 to 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01821 (C.D. Cal.,
Mar. 13, 2019).

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

Zara USA, Inc. retails men's and women's clothing. The company was
founded in 1988 and is based in New York, New York. Zara USA, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Industria de Diseno Textil, S.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq.
     RM Law Group LLP
     3200 Guasti Road Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Phone: (714) 975-4811
     Fax: (866) 494-2073
     Email: jmartinez@rmlawgroupllp.com


ZIP CAPITAL: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited, Prerecorded Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ty Kempton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zip Capital Group, LLC, a Delaware company, Case No.
2:19-cv-01542-CDB (D. Ariz., March 5, 2019), seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making unsolicited, prerecorded calls to consumers without their
consent, and to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.

Zip Capital Group is a California limited liability company
headquartered in Irvine, California. Zip Capital Group is a capital
advance/financing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15863 N. Greenway-Hayden Loop, Suite #115
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (602) 529-3474
          E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


[*] Balch & Bingham Attorney Discusses Top Class Action Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Cook, Esq. -- gcook@balch.com -- of Balch & Bingham LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that some legal commentators and
lawyers have pronounced the death of class actions in light of
significant changes in the law in the last fifteen years, including
the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act and the Supreme
Court's blessing of class action waivers in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors. But, to
paraphrase Monty Python and the Holy Grail, class actions are not
dead yet and may be growing stronger. In fact, available data does
appear to point to increased class action filings.  Like it or not,
class actions are not going away anytime soon. Because class
actions remain "bet the company" cases, business owners and
litigators have good reason to stay informed about the latest
developments in class action law. Here are the top 10 class action
issues to watch in 2019:

1. Class Action Settlements
Class action settlements have become the most controversial and
fastest moving area of class action law. The December 2018
Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 made clear that federal courts
likely will spend considerable time scrutinizing the details of any
class settlement before granting preliminary approval or approving
class notice.  Even before the 2018 Amendments, many federal courts
were suggesting changes to settlement agreements before
preliminarily approving them. The 2018 Amendments ensure that this
trend will continue. Going forward, class action litigants should
expect courts to challenge the details of settlement agreements and
perhaps demand data to support its fairness. To illustrate, the
Northern District of California has already issued procedural
guidance regarding the disclosures of claims rates. Class action
litigants should expect other courts to begin demanding similar
data before preliminary approval or after payout. Courts may also
impose a delay in the approval or distribution of any attorney fees
or connect its approval to claims data. In addition to these
trends, the use of cy pres standards remain hotly debated. The
Supreme Court was poised to address the use of cy pres this term in
Frank v. Gaos, but it appears the Court may address a different
question instead. The result of the above trends is that class
actions will become more difficult to settle (and, even if a
settlement is reached, the settlement process will be more costly
for all parties).

2. Standing
The standing of class action plaintiffs remains a key unresolved
question in light of the vague language in the Supreme Court's 2016
decision in Spokeo v. Robbins. The standing question drives the
result for a host of statutory claims, and may be part of the
reason for the filings of data privacy/breach cases. The Supreme
Court could revisit Spokeo this term in Frank v. Gaos. The Court
initially granted cert in Frank to address cy pres standards but,
during oral argument, the Court raised concerns about the
plaintiff's standing. Rather than remand the case, the Court
ordered additional briefing on that issue. This suggests that the
Court may soon offer additional guidance on Spokeo.

3. Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction has become a hotly debated issue. In
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the
Supreme Court held that each mass action plaintiff must satisfy the
test for specific personal jurisdiction, and fail that test when
their injuries have no connection to the forum state. There is a
split in the lower courts over whether Bristol-Myers Squibb applies
to class actions. If the answer is yes, then most class actions
will likely be filed in the home state of the defendant (or cause
the pursuit of state-wide only classes).

4. Arbitration and Aribtrability
Arbitration remains a key battleground for class actions. When it
applies, it often eliminates the possibility of a class action
based upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Concepcion and Italian
Colors.  Plaintiffs continue their efforts to avoid arbitration and
the "click-wrap" cases (those where the plaintiff assents to a
contract by clicking on a computer screen) are at the forefront of
this battle.  Along the same lines, the question of "who decides"
whether an arbitration agreement applies also remains hot. Just
last month, the Supreme Court held that, if the parties have
clearly delegated the decision on arbitrability to the arbitrator,
it does not matter whether the argument for arbitration is "wholly"
meritless; the arbitrability question still must go to the
arbitrator. Another arbitrability question to watch is who decides
if class-wide arbitration is allowed under the arbitration clause
(the court or the arbitrator). There is a growing circuit split on
this issue.

5. Arbitration and Employment
The enforceability of arbitration clauses in employment contracts
also remains an important, and hotly contested, issue. Last year,
the Supreme Court in Epic Systems reversed an NLRB's decision
holding that class action waivers in employment contracts are
prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. The Court held that
the FAA, not the NLRA, governs such agreements. On the other hand,
a few weeks ago the Supreme Court—in a decision which caught some
by surprise—held that an exception in the FAA allowed truck
drivers (even if independent contractors) to avoid arbitration.

6. Tolling
Last year, the Supreme Court made clear in China Agritech  that
American Pipe tolling applies only to individual claims – not
subsequent class action claims even if the earlier class action was
dismissed for a nonmerits reason.  This is a decision with far
reaching implications, providing defendants with far more certainty
over their exposure and preventing the refilling of "piggyback"
class actions over decades.  On the other hand, China Agritech may
increase class action filings during the limitations period as
plaintiffs rush to beat the statute of limitations rather than
taking a "wait and see" approach.  However, it is not yet clear how
plaintiffs will react to the end of piggyback tolling.  

7. Ascertainability
The proper standard for applying ascertainbility remains
unascertainable. This requirement is not an express element of Rule
23(a) or (b), but most courts agree that the Rule requires a class
definition that is precise enough so that the defendant and the
court can determine who is in and who is out of the class. Courts
are split on how much detail is necessary (or what quantum of
evidence is required) to prove that a class is ascertainable at the
class certification stage.  Some courts only require a class
definition which is objective; other courts go further and require
a showing of administrative feasibility in identifying class
members. In light of the circuit split, it seems likely the Supreme
Court will weigh in on this issue in the near future.

8. The TCPA
The flood of class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protect Act continues.  This year saw the D.C. Circuit ruling in
ACA International, essentially sending the question of what
constituted an autodialer back to the FCC (among other things).
Possible ambiguity in this ruling has led to a split in the
District Courts over this question.  Further, the "wrong number"
version of the TCPA class action continues to be filed. There still
are questions over how the TCPA applies to texting cases. The
standing question and the ascertainability questions mentioned
above will also impact these class actions. In short, TCPA cases
are not going away any time soon.

9. Food Labeling Cases
The labeling/food cases are also being filed at an increased pace
over the last several years (although they tend to be concentrated
in the Ninth Circuit). These class actions concern: food
ingredients, sugar disclosures, claims regarding "health" of food,
"organic" or "GMO" disclosures, slack fill, country of origin
disclosures, among many others.  These claims typically raise
ascertainability questions and sometimes standing questions.  The
same can be said of the trend in some states regarding the filing
of state law privacy cases (for instance, the biometric cases).

10. Removal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court will consider this term (in Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Jackson) whether a newly added, third party defendant can
remove a class action to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act.  CAFA normally allows removal when there is minimal
diversity and more than $5 Million in controversy.  But it is
unclear whether a third party defendant who is brought into the
case after extensive litigation in state court can remove the
action under CAFA.  

The above issues are likely to generate significant and interesting
jurisprudence over the next year. Still, they are not the only
issues relevant to class action law (for instance, third party
litigation funding or the trend towards the creation of fewer
MDL's). With class actions alive and well, it is as important now
more than ever for business owners and litigators to carefully
monitor the developments in class action law so that they can
ensure their business practices and litigation strategies conform
to the more recent legal developments. [GN]


[*] ILR Publishes Report on Broken Securities Class Action System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
February 25, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute of
Legal Reform (the "ILR") published a report entitled "Containing
the Contagion:  Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class
Action System" (the "Report").  The Report describes various trends
and problems affecting the securities class action system, which
have led to the filing of securities cases "reaching levels not
seen since before the enactment of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995."  According to the Report,
the three main drivers of the steep increase in securities
litigation filings are: (1) cases alleging misstatements in
connection with M&A activity; (2) so-called "event-driven
litigation," whereby securities class actions are triggered by
unexpected adverse events, such as fires, explosions, data
breaches, and the like; and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (138 S. Ct.
1061 (2018)), which confirmed that state courts retain
non-removable (with limited exceptions) concurrent jurisdiction
over Securities Act of 1933 class actions.  The Report also
describes perceived abuses and the need to curb such practices.
Finally, the Report urges action from different parts of the
federal government including the SEC, federal courts, and Congress,
calling on each to do its part in curbing non-meritorious lawsuits
that can ultimately harm investors and the U.S. capital markets
system.  

M&A Litigation:  According to the Report, M&A litigation comprised
approximately half of the federal securities action filings in 2017
and 2018.  M&A litigation complaints, of course, usually allege,
among other things, that disclosures to shareholders regarding the
proposed transaction were false and deceptive, and historically
parties frequently settled by the defendant company agreeing to
supplement the disclosures and paying a fee to plaintiffs' lawyers.
In 2016, the Delaware courts, most notably in Trulia (129 A.3d 884
(Del. Ch. 2016)), curtailed this type of litigation and settlement
practice, stating that it "far too often . . . serves no useful
purpose for stockholders [and instead] serves only to generate fees
for a certain group of lawyers," and giving notice that
disclosure-only settlements would no longer be approved absent "a
plainly material misrepresentation or omission."  Since then, M&A
litigation has migrated from state courts to federal courts in the
form of disclosure claims under Section 14 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which often can be settled (or dismissed with
the payment of a "mootness" fee to plaintiffs' counsel) on the
basis of supplemental disclosures only.  

Event-Driven Litigation:  Another cause of the dramatic increase in
securities lawsuits is what is referred to as "event-driven
litigation," or securities class actions triggered almost by
default when a company experiences an adverse public trauma and a
subsequent stock drop.  These types of lawsuits are based on the
theory that the unexpected adverse event is tied to the company's
business or operational risks and that "the occurrence or the event
upon which the case is based was the materialization of an
under-disclosed or downplayed risk."  According to one of the
studies cited by the Report, excluding M&A litigation, "the
likelihood of an S&P 500 company being sued [in 2018] was the
highest since 2002," with "one in every eleven companies [being]
sued, amounting to 9.4% of such companies."

The Cyan Effect:  When the United States Supreme Court ruled in
March 2018 that class actions under the federal Securities
Act—including Section 11 claims alleging misrepresentations or
omissions in connection with initial public offerings
(IPOs)—still could be brought (and were generally immune from
removal from state court, notwithstanding the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA")), the number of such claims
brought in state court increased dramatically.  (We previously
covered the Supreme Court's ruling in Cyan here.)  According to the
Report, only a few such claims were filed prior to 2015, but that
number has been growing, and in 2018, 33 such cases were filed in
state courts, and approximately half of them had parallel federal
actions.  The Report notes that the advent of parallel track of
securities class actions in federal and state courts creates a
number of significant problems, including (a) the likelihood a
defendant company has to fight a "multi-front war"; (b) the state
court actions being less likely to be dismissed; and (c) IPO
companies facing more significant risk of being named in a
securities lawsuit.  Because of these increased pressure points,
defendants may be forced to settle without due regard for the
merits of the claims.  

Perceived Abusive Conduct:  The Report also describes the need to
curb what it referred to as "plaintiffs' bar's abusive litigation
practices."  Among those practices are: (a) individual plaintiffs
increasingly being appointed as lead plaintiffs, rather than
institutional plaintiffs, which are less likely to endorse less
meritorious claims and contrary to the PSLRA's intent to encourage
plaintiffs with the largest claims to take charge of such
litigation and class counsel; (b) concentration of extensive
litigation activity in a few firms (for example, one study found
that three plaintiffs' law firms appeared as counsel of record on
more than half of the initially-filed complaints in non-M&A
securities cases); and (c) arguably excessive fees awarded to
plaintiffs' lawyers in settlements.  

The ILR proposes various reforms to address these problems, urging
the SEC, federal courts, and the U.S. Congress to lead these
efforts.  First, the Report proposes that the SEC undertake a
project to evaluate the current state of securities litigation,
with a focus on identifying abuses, and (largely by filing amicus
briefs in federal court) suggest practical ways to address these
abuses.  Second, the Report proposes that federal courts follow the
approach adopted by the Delaware Chancery Court and seek to
identify and sanction abusive litigation challenging mergers and
acquisitions.  And third, the Report proposes a host of federal
statutory changes to eliminate abuses in securities class actions,
including (1) overturning Cyan to ensure that federal securities
class actions are heard only in federal court; (2) centralizing M&A
litigation so that a limited number of federal courts can establish
standards to deter abusive claims; (3) enacting an "investors' bill
of rights" to require disclosure of relationships between
plaintiffs' lawyers and plaintiffs, bar individuals and entities
from serving as plaintiff in more than five cases in 36 months, and
require federal courts to more closely scrutinize fee requests; (4)
eliminating certain tactics employed by plaintiffs' attorneys by
staying opt-out claims until the resolution of any related class
action, providing for interlocutory appeal of denials of motions to
dismiss, and strengthening the PSLRA's pleading standard and stay
of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss; and
(5) adopting a cap on damages for non-IPO cases that gives priority
to small investors.  

The ILR Report has already received significant publicity,
and—with its mix of new ideas and reiteration of longer-standing
proposals—hopefully may spur further dialogue with respect to
beneficial reform.  Whether or not securities class actions will be
a legislative priority in the current political environment, of
course, is a separate question. [GN]


[*] New Class Action Bill Target Financial Companies
----------------------------------------------------
Dave Kovaleski, writing for Financial Regulation News, reports that
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced legislation that would
end the practice of forced arbitration and allow consumers to file
class action suits against financial companies.

The Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act would also ensure that
financial crimes cannot be hidden from the public in a private and
opaque process.

"Forced arbitration is about big companies silencing victims and
giving more power to corporations that already have too much power
over the lives of working Americans," said Sen. Brown, ranking
member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs. "Ending the use of forced arbitration in student loans,
credit card agreements, and employment contracts gives working
Americans a fighting chance against powerful special interests."

This bill would overturn legislation which passed Congress in 2017
to eliminate the ability of consumers to file class-action suits
against banks and credit card companies. Instead, it instituted the
use of arbitration clauses, which require people to bring claims
individually against the company, outside the court system, before
a private individual (an arbitrator).

The Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act has been endorsed by the
American Association for Justice, Americans for Financial Reform,
the Communications Workers of America, UndiosUS, Public Citizen,
Consumer Reports, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National
Consumer Law Center, the National Association of Consumer
Advocates, the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, the
Center for Justice and Democracy, and Consumers for Auto
Reliability and Safety. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 208 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. still defends itself against 208 pending
asbestos-related cases as of December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002,
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries.  In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions that caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments of all legal fees other than
corporate counsel expenses from 2002 through December 31, 2018 for
cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$2.9 million, of
which US$2.7 million has been paid by the Company's insurers.  The
average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$36,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 208 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2018 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 218 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2017.  During 2018, 96 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 63 cases and settled 43
cases.  Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial.  The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts.  However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.  The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2uk6nE1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2018.

Advance Auto states, "Our Western Auto subsidiary, together with
other defendants (including Advance and other of its subsidiaries),
has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.  The plaintiffs
have alleged that certain products contained asbestos and were
manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the various defendants.
Many of the cases pending against us are in the early stages of
litigation.  While the damages claimed against the defendants in
some of these proceedings are substantial, we believe many of these
claims are at least partially covered by insurance and historically
asbestos claims against us have been inconsistent in fact patterns
alleged and immaterial.  We do not believe the cases currently
pending will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2CbiN5i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 60 Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. continues to face 60 asbestos
cases pending as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products,
or in manufacturing operations.  The majority of cases are pending
in Illinois state courts.  There were 60 asbestos cases pending as
of December 31, 2018.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  As of December 31, 2018, the Company has
accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims.

"The aggregate settlement costs and legal and administrative fees
associated with asbestos cases were immaterial for 2018, 2017, and
2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2tUrhJz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Has Enough Insurance to Cover Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it has "significant insurance coverage" and
believes that its reserves are adequate for known asbestos exposure
related liabilities.  

The Company states, "Some of our subsidiaries as premises owners
are defendants in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at
various facilities.  A former affiliate of a subsidiary has been
named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in
a pattern complaint where our involvement is not evident.  Since
1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed.  To date,
the former affiliate has been dismissed from almost every case that
was actually placed in line for trial.  Our subsidiaries and
acquired companies all have had numerous insurance policies over
the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims.  Many of
these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of
time and for varying locations.  We have significant insurance
coverage and believe that our reserves are adequate for known
asbestos exposure related liabilities.  The costs of defense and
settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the
results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of Alcoa
Corporation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2ufDKb9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $130.2MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation has US$130.2 million net loss and loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) reserves for asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment liabilities as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Our reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries'
reserves for loss and LAE include amounts for risks related to
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment.  The
reserves carried for such claims, including the reserves for loss
and LAE incurred but not reported, or "IBNR," claims, are based
upon known facts and current law at the respective balance sheet
dates.  However, significant uncertainty exists in determining the
amount of ultimate liability for asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment losses.  This uncertainty is due to, among
other reasons, inconsistent and changing court resolutions and
judicial interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent
and coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of
responsibility for resultant damages.  Further, possible future
changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of liability and
other factors could have a material effect on these liabilities
and, accordingly, future earnings.  Although we are unable at this
time to determine whether additional reserves, which could have a
material adverse effect upon our results of operations, may be
necessary in the future, we believe that our asbestos-related
illness and environmental impairment reserves were adequate as of
December 31, 2018.

"At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the reserves for asbestos-related
illness liabilities were approximately seven and eight times,
respectively, the average paid claims for the respective prior
three year period.  At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the reserves for
environmental impairment liabilities were approximately six times
the average paid claims for the respective prior three year
period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2ClrWsb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Had $1.6MM Reserves for Loss, LAE
------------------------------------------------------------
AMERISAFE, Inc. had US$1,555,000 reserves for loss and loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) at year ended December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Reserves established for workers' compensation
insurance have included the exposure to occupational disease or
accidents related to asbestos or environmental claims.  The
exposure to asbestos claims emanate from the direct sale of
workers' compensation insurance.  These claims resulted from
industry workers who were exposed to tremolite asbestos dust and
electricians and carpenters who were exposed to products that
contained asbestos.  There has been no known exposure to asbestos
claims arising from assumed business.  The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable.  The Company estimates
full impact of the asbestos exposure by establishing full case
basis reserves on all known losses.  Reserves for losses incurred
but not reported (IBNR) include a provision for development of
reserves on reported losses.  Reserves are established for loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) associated with these case and IBNR loss
reserves."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FoduRX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 10 Hearing for ComEd's Claims in Bankr. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A trial before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, to determine the amount of Commonwealth
Edison's claims related to asbestos liabilities is currently
scheduled for April 10, 2019, according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME.  The Company is currently
analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to
Midwest Generation.  The Company believes that it has established
an adequate reserve for these cases.  On March 27, 2018, ComEd
filed a Motion to Compel Payments of Claims seeking US$61 million
related to asbestos liabilities.  On April 25, 2018, NRG filed an
Omnibus Objection to All Remaining Claims of ComEd and Exelon."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2HPIWKT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $46.2MM Net A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has net loss reserves of
US$46.2 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-Off Lines at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Within the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company has incurred
losses (net) of US$8.0 million and paid losses (net) of US$9
million for asbestos and environmental matters.

The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
year ended December 31, 2018 included US$12.3 million of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years, of
which US$7.4 million was in asbestos and environmental lines, with
the remainder concentrated in other run-off lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UJOkm2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bleyer Couple Sues AW Chesterton Over Asbestosis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Francis Bleyer and his wife, Victoria Mayberrie-Bleyer,
Plaintiffs, v. A.W. Chesterton Company; et al., Defendants, Case
No. N19C-01-321 ASB, filed with the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, Francis Bleyer and his wife alleged that as a result of
the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Francis Bleyer
developed asbestosis and asbestos-Related pleural disease and other
asbestos-related injuries and diseases.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Francis Bleyer was exposed to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the course of his
employment:

   Townsends Garage             1948-1952
   C.F. Braun, Getty Oil        1954-1956
   Tidewater/Getty, Getty Oil   1956-1966
   Catalytic, Various sites     1967-1980

Plaintiff Victoria Mayberrie-Bleyer is married to Plaintiff Francis
Bleyer.  The complaint further alleges that as a result of the
Defendants' wrongful conduct, which caused her husband's
asbestos-related disease, Plaintiff Victoria Mayberrie-Bleyer has
and will in the future suffer a loss of support, consortium and
society of her husband, together with related mental anguish and
pain and suffering.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Crumplar, Esq.
     JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
     750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 656-5445


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,598 Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has 8,598 asbestos-related claims pending as of
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named
as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
actions.  The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and
has been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the majority of
the claims asserted against it without any payment.  Due to the
nature of the fibers used in certain types of automotive products,
the encapsulation of the asbestos, and the manner of the products'
use, the Company believes that these products were and are highly
unlikely to cause harm.  Furthermore, the useful life of nearly all
of these products expired many years ago.  The Company likewise
expects that no payment will be made by the Company or its
insurance carriers in the vast majority of current and future
asbestos-related claims.

"Through December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company
incurred US$574.4 million and US$528.7 million, respectively, in
asbestos-related claim resolution costs (including settlement
payments and judgments) and associated defense costs.  During 2018
and 2017, the Company paid US$46.0 million and US$51.7 million,
respectively, in asbestos-related claim resolution costs and
associated defense costs.  These gross payments are before tax
benefits and any insurance receipts.  Asbestos-related claim
resolution costs and associated defense costs are reflected in the
Company's operating cash flows and will continue to be in the
future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UkI6Jg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $805.3MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. estimates US$805.3 million as of December 31, 2018
for asbestos-related claims and associated costs through 2074,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company has an estimated liability of US$805.3 million as of
December 31, 2018 for asbestos-related claim resolution costs and
associated defense costs through 2074, which is the last date by
which the Company currently estimates it may have resolved all
asbestos-related claims.  The Company additionally estimates that,
as of December 31, 2018, it has aggregate insurance coverage
available in the amount of US$386.4 million to satisfy
asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated defense
costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UkI6Jg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,417 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 16,417 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company also disclosed that in the year ended December 31,
2018, there were 4,078 claims filed and 5,398 resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2W1UoH8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At December 31, 2018, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table.  These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment.  Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2HxfNDV



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delaware Couple Sues 11 Companies Over Asbestosis
------------------------------------------------------------------
In Gerald McCarthy and his wife, Geraldine McCarthy, Plaintiffs, v.
Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No.
N19C-02-058 ASB, filed with the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, Plaintiffs Gerald McCarthy and Geraldine McCarthy,
residents of Newark, Delaware, alleged that as a result of the
Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Gerald McCarthy developed
asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease and other
asbestos-related injuries and diseases.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Gerald McCarthy was exposed
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the course of his
employment:

   Young & Wiggins, repair shop     1958-1964
   Dupont, Dupont Chestnut Run      1963-1964
   Dupont, Dupont Newport                1965
   Dupont, Dupont Christiana Labs   1965-1966
   Dupont, Dupont Chestnut Run      1966-1980

Plaintiff Geraldine McCarthy is married to Plaintiff Gerald
McCarthy. As a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct which caused
her husband's above stated asbestos-related disease, Plaintiff
Geraldine McCarthy has and will in the future suffer a loss of
support, consortium and society of her husband, together with
related mental anguish and pain and suffering.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Crumplar, Esq.
     JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
     750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 656-5445


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidentiary Hearing in Varney Suit Set on April 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled Donald Varney and Maria Varney, husband and
wife, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation; et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C18-5105 RJB, (W.D. Wash.), questions have
been raised by defendants under Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2)
that the material in the affidavit cannot be presented in a form
that would be admissible in evidence. Questions are raised
regarding whether the affidavit, in spite of its hearsay nature,
should be admitted as a dying declaration under Evidence Rule
804(b)(2) or under Evidence Rule 807. The competence of the
affiant, Mr. Varney, is also challenged by the defendants under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (2) and (4).

As a result, District Judge Robert J. Bryan for the Western
District of Washington has issued an order setting evidentiary
hearing on the admissibility of admissibility of the Affidavit of
Donald Varney and the Report of John C. Maddox regarding Donald A.
Varney, both in opposition to the motions for summary judgment and
at trial, on April 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. While it is unusual in
this procedural context to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the
Court finds that the subject affidavit appears to be a critical
document and its admissibility in support of plaintiffs' response
to the summary judgment motions needs to be decided, and also its
admissibility at trial needs to be decided.

The Court notes that, while there is some written showing from Mrs.
Varney regarding the signing of the subject document, there is no
evidence from other people that were present at the signing,
including the notary, priest, and lawyer for Mr. Varney. The Court
would also welcome Mrs. Varney's testimony where cross-examination
is available. Since there is no evidence as to the source of the
information in the affidavit, or who prepared it, the Court finds
it necessary for one or more of Mr. Varney's lawyers to testify,
which may put their position as advocates in the case in question.

A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3zykp3b
from Leagle.com.

Donald Varney & Maria Varney, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Robert Couture , Weinstein Couture PLLC,
Brian Weinstein , Weinstein Couture PLLC, David C. Humen --
dhumen@dobslegal.com -- Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP, pro hac
vice, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar &
Branham, LLP, pro hac vice & Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com
-- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as, successor in
interest Buffalo Pumps, Inc. & Velan Valve Corp, Defendants,
represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com --
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by Bennett J.
Hansen -- bhansen@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett,
PLLC, David E. Chawes -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell
& Gillett, PLLC, Stephanie B. Ballard -- sballard@pregodonnell.com
-- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC & William E. Fitzharris, Jr. --
wfitzharris@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth --
cbosworth@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

Crane Co. & Crane Environmental Inc, individually and as, successor
in interest Cochrane Corporation, Defendants, represented by G.
William Shaw -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Ryan J.
Groshong -- ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Crosby Valve LLC, Elliott Turbomachinery Co Inc, also known as
Elliott Company, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds Pumps
LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps Inc., Grinnell LLC, doing
business as Grinnell Corporation & ITT LLC, formerly known as ITT
Corporation, ITT Industries Inc., ITT Fluid Products Corp., Hoffman
Specialty MFG Corp., Bell and Gossett Company, ITT Marlow,
Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC.

Darigold, Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baumgardner --
kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner
Fogg & Moore LLP & Jeff Bone -- jbone@corrcronin.com -- Corr
Cronin, LLP.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton
-- Marc.Carlton@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Randy J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, General Electric Company & The
Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendants, represented by Alice Coles Serko
-- aserko@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Christopher S. Marks
-- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

IMO Industries Inc, individually and as, successor in interest IMO
DeLaval, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne --
jhorne@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell & Michael Edward
Ricketts --  mricketts@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim --
mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Carrie S. Lin --
clin@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, pro hac vice &
Daira S. Waldenberg -- dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- Selman Brietman
LLP.

McNally Industries Inc, successor in interest Northern Fire
Apparatus, Defendant, represented by Ryan Wheeler --
rwheeler@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin & Bell LLP, pro hac vice.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie -- nmackenzie@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner &
Gibbs, Ryan W. Vollans -- rvollans@williamskastner.com -- Williams
Kastner & Gibbs, Jessica Marie Cox -- jcox@williamskastner.com --
Williams Kastner & Nicholas R. Major -- nmajor@williamskastner.com
-- Williams Kastner.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly --
mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, formerly known as Peerless Pumps
Co., Defendant, represented by Katherine M. Steele --
katherine.steele@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey, Michael
Mackenzie Brown -- mac.brown@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser
Bailey & Ryan Wheeler -- rwheeler@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin &
Bell LLP, pro hac vice.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, individually and as, successor in
interest Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Dana
C. Kopij -- dkopij@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner &
Gibbs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend itself in pending asbestos
litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, in several states.  The majority of these claims arise
out of alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania,
former employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric
generation plants.  In addition, asbestos and other regulated
substances are, and may continue to be, present at currently owned
facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available.
We believe that any remaining asbestos at our facilities is
contained and properly identified in accordance with applicable
governmental regulations, including OSHA.  The continued presence
of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities,
however, could result in additional actions being brought against
us.  This is further complicated by the fact that many diseases,
such as mesothelioma and cancer, have long latency periods in which
the disease process develops, thus making it impossible to
accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the near
future.  While insurance coverages exist for many of these pending
asbestos litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in
FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as well
as any settlements or verdict payouts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2EIpZqd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation still defends itself from various
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past.  While
the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend
will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further
increase.  Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such
products were encapsulated and used as internal components of
process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant
emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this
equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment.  Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of
existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities, in whole or in part.  Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other
companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable.  While unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the
likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter.  We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although we expect that
future claims would also be subject to then-existing indemnities
and insurance coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Y16jX8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Has $1.2MM for Honeywell Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. has recorded US$1,244 million in Obligations
payable to Honeywell related to asbestos matters as of December 31,
2018, the Company disclosed in its press release dated February 20,
2019.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix Friction Materials
("Bendix") business.  The Bendix business, manufactured automotive
brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated
form.  Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure
to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.  In
conjunction with Garrett's separation from Honeywell, certain
operations that were part of the Bendix business, along with the
ownership of the Bendix trademark, was transferred to Garrett.  

The Company states, "In accordance with the terms of our
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell, our
Consolidated and Combined Balance Sheets reflect a liability of
US$1,244 million in Obligations payable to Honeywell as of December
31, 2018, (the "Indemnification Liability").  The amount of the
Indemnification Liability is based on information provided to us by
Honeywell with respect to Honeywell's assessment of its own
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable as of such
date and is calculated in accordance with the terms of the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement.  Honeywell estimates
its future liability for asbestos-related claims based on a number
of factors."

A full-text copy of the Press Release of Garrett Motion Inc., dated
February 20, 2019, is available at https://bit.ly/2W1KlSq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Bid to Stay Trial of Piccolino Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York denied the
motion filed by Defendant-appellant, Harris Corporation, in the
case styled In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Mario
Piccolino and Arcangela Piccolino, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
Harris Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and A.B. Dick Company, et
al., Defendants. Motion No. M-879, Index No. 190186/16, (N.Y. App.
Div.) seeking for a stay of trial pending hearing and determination
of the appeal taken from the order of the Supreme Court, New York
County, entered on Jan. 25, 2019. It is noted that an interim
relief has also been denied by an order of the Court, dated Feb. 8,
2019.

A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6lvctom
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $4.0MM for Lawsuits in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded US$4.0 million expense, net of
probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation for the year ended December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.  The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate.  Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several
factors, and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments.

"We currently estimate our probable liability for known cases is
US$9.7 million and it is recorded in Accrued expenses in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet.  We currently estimate future
asbestos-related litigation cases to be between US$19.3 million and
US$34.6 million before consideration of probable insurance
recoveries with all amounts in that range equally likely.  We have
accrued US$19.3 million in Other liabilities in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet at December 31, 2018.

"For the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, we recorded
expense of US$4.0 million, US$3.5 million and US$6.3 million,
respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and
future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in Losses
(gains) and other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2NOR27h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lexington Couple Sues Over Husband's Lung Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In MARVIN L. BRITTAIN and JUDY BRITTAIN, his wife, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to BUFFALO
PUMPS, INC., et al., Case No. N19C-02-013 ASB, filed with the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, the Plaintiffs, residing
in Lexington, South Carolina, alleged that during his employment,
Plaintiff Marvin L. Brittain was wrongly exposed to, inhaled,
ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from
various sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed,
sold, removed, installed, and/or used by the Defendants including,
but not limited to: clutches, engines, brakes, gaskets, roofs and
boilers.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Marvin
L. Brittain suffers from an asbestos-related disease(s) including,
but not limited to, Lung Cancer.  The Plaintiff first became aware
that he suffered from said disease(s) on or about January 8, 2018,
and, subsequently thereto, became aware that the same was
wrongfully caused.

The Plaintiff's former employers include, but are not limited to:

   a. Denville Garage -- Columbia, SC from approximately 1946 to
1968 as a Mechanic;

   b. United States Army on the USS Walker -- from 1966 to 1966;

   c. R.L. Bryan -- located in South Carolina -- from approximately
1968 to 1974 as a Stripper/Plate Maker;

   d. R.L. Bryan -- located in South Carolina from approximately
1970 to 1977 as an Assistant Electrician; and

   e. United States Postal Service -- located in South Carolina
from  approximately 1974 to 2010 as a Clerk, Carrier and Manager.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

         - and -

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

OF COUNSEL:

     Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Has $8.30MM Litigation Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation has asbestos litigation reserve of
US$8,296,000 recorded in Other Noncurrent Liabilities as of
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
involving exposure to asbestos.  These cases involve exposure to
asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or
operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket.  We have never
manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos.
Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or
Illinois and involve multiple defendants.  We maintain an accrual
for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected
insurance recoveries.

"The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions and
factors:

   * We are often one of many defendants.  This factor influences
both the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost
associated with such resolutions.

   * The estimated percent of claimants in each case that, after
discovery, will actually make a claim against us, out of the total
number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with
past experience and current trends.

   * We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the
basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims.
These claims are filed by both former contractors and former
employees who worked at past and present company locations.  We
also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation.

   * No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

   * The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases are
based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement agreements
with Travelers Indemnity Company.

"Based on the assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of US$10 million at
both December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017.  The liabilities
related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses
(current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Certain of these costs are
recoverable through the settlement agreement with The Travelers
Indemnity Company, as well as an agreement with Albemarle
Corporation.  The receivable for these recoveries related to
premises asbestos liabilities was US$5 million at both December 31,
2018 and December 31, 2017.  These receivables are included in
trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets for the current portion.  The noncurrent portion is
included in deferred charges and other assets.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Uqe1bh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Plc Had 600 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries still defend themselves against
approximately 600 pending claims related to asbestos matters as of
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, along with numerous other
companies, are named as defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued
operations.  These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third parties.  Each case typically names between
several dozen to more than a hundred corporate defendants.
Historically, our subsidiaries have been identified as defendants
in asbestos-related claims.  Our strategy has been, and continues
to be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and, only where appropriate, settling claims
before trial.

"As of December 31, 2018, there were approximately 600 claims
pending against our subsidiaries, substantially all of which relate
to our discontinued operations.  We cannot predict with certainty
the extent to which we will be successful in litigating or
otherwise resolving lawsuits in the future and we continue to
evaluate different strategies related to asbestos claims filed
against us including entity restructuring and judicial relief.
Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a
material adverse impact on our business and financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2HkR31J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 156 PI Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. continues to defend itself in
approximately 156 lawsuits as of December 31, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of December 31, 2018, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 156 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.

"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place settlement
agreements with insurers, that we believe will be sufficient to
respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of
a similar nature.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UqVqfo



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at December 31, 2018.


The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.  At December 31, 2018, nine
plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana, in which we have or
may have an interest.  We intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome.
We historically have maintained broad liability insurance,
although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the
liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.  Based on our
evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability,
if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UqVqfo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues AGCO Over Husband's Asbestos Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
In PAMELA ROBINSON, Individually and as Personal Representative for
the Estate of LOUIS E. MALANDRONE, deceased, Plaintiff, v. AGCO
CORPORATION, f/k/a and as successor in interest to MASSEY-
FERGUSON, INC., et al., Case No. N19C-02-089 ASB, filed with the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Pamela Robinson,
Louis E. Malandrone's widow, alleged that during Mr. Malandrone's
employment with the Arizona Air National Guard from approximately
1967 to 2006 as a mechanic, he was wrongly exposed to, inhaled,
ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from
various sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed,
sold, removed, installed, and/or used by Defendants including, but
not limited to: brakes, pumps, valves, engines, heavy equipment,
farm equipment, clutches, fork lists, and cranes.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Mr. Malandrone
suffered from an asbestos-related diseases, including, but not
limited to, Lung Cancer.  He first became aware that he suffered
from the disease in or about June 28, 2018, and, subsequently
thereto, became aware that the same was wrongfully caused.  As a
result of developing Lung Cancer, he endured, great physical pain
and suffering, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss
of enjoyment of life, and ultimately died on November 15, 2018.

Mr. Malandrone is survived by his spouse.  The complaint alleged
that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, which was the
direct and proximate cause of the decedent's asbestos-related Lung
Cancer, the Plaintiff, as the surviving heir of Mr. Malandrone, has
suffered a loss of society, together with related mental anguish
and grief, all of which will continue into the future.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

          - and -

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

OF COUNSEL:

     Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500



                            *********

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 ***