CAR_Public/190401.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 65

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Faces Bull Class Action Complaint
A&S BAGEL: Bonilla Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
AEFFE USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

ALBERTVILLE AUTO: Eidson Files RICO Class Action in Alabama
AMERI-TEX SERVICES: Does Not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Hill Says
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Hossfeld for TCPA Violations
AMGEN INC: No Generic Alternative to Sensipar, Teamsters Says
ANGLIN'S BEACH: Markoe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

ARVILLA MOTEL: Forbes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AUTO RESCUE: Huntley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AVERY TECHNICAL: Guinn Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Contract Breach Suit
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Freedman v. magicJack Vocaltec Suit Ongoing

B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
BASICS PLUS: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly
BELLAMY'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Discusses Court Ruling
BERNER FOOD: Lyles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: May 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
CAMPBELL SOUP: To Defend Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey
CARA NAILS: Lliguicota Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CAS MEDICAL: Franchi Suit Challenges Sale to Edwards Lifesciences
CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending

CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey
CELGENE CORP: Court Approves Settlement in JCAR015-Related Suit
CELGENE CORP: Goldstein Sues to Enjoin Vote on Bristol-Myers Merger
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Caliendo Securities Suit in C.D. Calif.
CENTURYLINK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

CERTIFIEDSAFETY: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Jones Says
CHRYSLER: Subpoena Served in Jeep Uconnect Class Action
CIGAR.COM INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Dawson Says
CIGNA CORP: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
CINEMARK USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly

CINEMARK USA: Stipulation and Release Entered in Brown Suit
CLASSIC OILFIELD: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Fulmer Suit Says
COCO DULCE: Hayes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
COMMERCIAL FURNITURE: Mannie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK

CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Sues Over Share Price Drop
COSTA MESA, CA: Group Home Ordinance Suit Named Top Defense Verdict
CPI CARD: New York Court Tosses Securities Suit
CREDIT COLLECTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Riccio Suit
CVR REFINING: Wong Suit Asserts Stock Price Manipulation

DABECCA NATURAL: Parker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
DEL FRISCO'S: Matzura Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
DEPOP INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
DISH DBS: Oral Argument in Krakauer Tentatively Set for May 7-9
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Portela Appeals D.N.J. Order to 3rd Cir.

ECCGP LLC: Kitchen Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ELDER HOMECARE: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ELLIE MAE: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Thoma Bravo
EMC HOTELS: Harty Claims Website not Blind-friendly
EQT CORPORATION: Garfield Files Appeal in Suit v. Officers

FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Fees and Expenses Resolved in Parshall Suit
FLEX PHARMA: Rumaldo Agrees to Drop Class Action
FORJAS TAURUS: Burrow Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Kanugonda Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in King County

GLASSMAN AUTO: Installers Claim Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Adeptus Health Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces 1MDB-Related Class Suit in New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Forex-Related Litigation Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Approved in Cobalt Securities Litigation
HARD TACK: Naiman Files Suits Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys "R" Us Disclosure Ongoing
HAUDENOSAUNEE DEV'T: Ordered to Pay $15K to Class Action Plaintiffs
HCP OXFORD: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois

HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Appeal in Adelphia Class Suit Underway
HESKA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Fauley Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Class Action Remains Stayed
HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Class Action Ongoing

HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Wall Suit Granted Final Approval
HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food
HP INC: 189 Plaintiffs Opt in Forsyth Lawsuit
HP INC: April 25 Final Approval Hearing in Printer Firmware Case
HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Brake Defect Can't Proceed

KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
KPA STUDIO: Jin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
LABOR NETWORK: Cruz Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
LASSENS NATURAL: Caballero Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
LVNV FUNDING: Court Refuses to Approve Elliott Suit Settlement

MARINA'S BAKERY: Brito Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Overtime
MDL 2545: Kilpatrick Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
METHUEN, MA: Police Superior Officers Union Files Wage Suit
MICHIANA CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Deceptive Act Can Proceed
MIZUHO BANK: Lack Moves to Certify Class of California Residents

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clark Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Henderson Files Suit for Racial Discrimination
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Prelim. Nod of $470,000 Settlement
NATERA INC: Hale Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages
NEWELL BRANDS: Still Defends Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit

NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
OJKAV INC: Fears Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Suit Underway
ONLY NY: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly
OTTO CLIPS: Bennington Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PATTERSON COS: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Action
PATTERSON COS: Faces Hatchett Class Suit in Illinois
PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Ongoing
PATTERSON COS: Settlement Agreement Inked in Dental Supplies Suit
PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing

PBF HOLDING: Kendig Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District
PETE AND GERRY'S: Lugones Files False Ad Suit in NY
PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit
RALPH LAUREN: Does Not Pay Tailors Overtime Wage, Luna Suit Alleges

REALPAGE INC: Jones Sues Over Inaccurate Background Reports
RELATED COMPANIES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO-Related Suit
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Hubner Files Securities Class Action in NY
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata and Klapper Class Suits Consolidated

SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros Moves for Prelim. OK of $8MM Deal
SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken-Related Suits
SANDERSON FARMS: North Carolina Class Action Shelved
SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
SEALE MOORER: Employees Hit Unpaid Overtime, Insurance Premiums

SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
SLEEP NUMBER: Cassels and Cadenas Suit Transferred to Fresno County
SLEEP NUMBER: Spade Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
SOLDIER TRUCKING: Barricelli Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Certified in Quinn Suit; April 29 Hearing

STAMPS.COM: Karinski Files Securities Class Action in California
SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Has Initial OK
SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Final Approval
T.B.G. PIZZA: Kenny Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
TAMPA BAY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages

TAPESTRY INC: Garcia Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses of AMs
TENNESSEE: Harris Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23
TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: Stein Sues Over Unremitted Lien Filing Fees
TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Still Pending
TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Faces Toro Private Merger-Related Suits

TRIVAGO NV: NY Court Rejects Consolidated Class Suit
TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Seeks Class Certification; Hearing on May 13
U.S. XPRESS: Solak Files IPO-Related Securities Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Commuters Plan to File Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Miller Thomson Discusses Court Ruling

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Victims of Attacks File Class Action
UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola ISD Class Suit
UNITED ENROLLMENT: Becker Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending

UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach Suit Underway
UNITED STATES: 10K Federal Employees Opt Into NTEU Class Action
VEOLIA: AG Defends Decision to Remove Counsel in Flint Water Suit
VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Faces Labor Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.

VIVINT SOLAR: Resolves Customers' Suit over Power Purchase Deals
VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Ongoing
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Smith Appeals E.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Mays Suit
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington Class Action Underway

WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Werner Suit
WELCH FOODS: Jones Files Fraud Class Action in New York Ct.
WILLOW CREEK COMPANIES: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WORLD FINANCIAL: Abtahi Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Alvarado Sues to Recover Overtime Pay


                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Faces Bull Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action
complaint entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry
Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, has not yet been served on
the Company  

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled:
Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and
John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.  

The Complaint filing discloses that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased
3,000 shares of the Company's common stock from September 14, 2016
to October 15, 2018 at share prices between $.91 and $2.57 per
share, and that on September 24, 2018, he sold 419 shares for a
profit at $2.88 per share. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to
bring a  class action for persons or entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25,
2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company’s Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in
Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are supposedly
liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.  

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint has not yet been
served on the Company, Mr. Sicignano or Mr. Brodfuehrer and,
therefore, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have
not yet filed responses.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


A&S BAGEL: Bonilla Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. A&S BAGEL INC. and related or affiliated
entities, and ANTONINO SCOLIERI individually, Case No. 603116/2019
(N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to New York
Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

A & S Bagel Inc. is a business corporation incorporated under the
laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business
located in in Franklin Square, New York.  Antonino Scolieri, a
resident of New York, is an officer, director, president, vice
president, and/or owner of the Corporate Defendant.

A & S Bagel is a bagel manufacturer and deli.  A & S Bagel prepares
and serves bagels and deli food.  It has a seated service and bakes
and is a major wholesaler and distributor of bagels throughout Long
Island and New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  lcoyle@vandallp.com


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alyshea Ford, an individual, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Account
Control Technology, Inc., Act Holdings, Inc., a corporation and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100089
filed in California Superior Court on January 10, 2019, was removed
to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of California on
February 12, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00203.

Ford alleges unlawful deductions, failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure
to pay all wages due upon separation and reimbursements of all
business-related expenses, and failure to furnish timely and
accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com

             - and -

      David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN AND ASSOCIATES
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Phone: (818) 918-3876

Defendant is represented by:

      Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
      Rachel Patta Howard, Esq.
      Sandra Hanian, Esq.
      Adria K. Harris, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
      333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
      Telephone: (213) 620-1780
      Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
      Email: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
             rhoward@sheppardmullin.com
             shanian@sheppardmullin.com
             aharris@sheppardmullin.com


AEFFE USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
---------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Aeffe USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01384 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a clothing company that operates
www.philosophyofficial.com. Dawson claims that this is not
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is
legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Lori Hopkins, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. AeroCare Home Medical Equipment, Inc., AeroCare
Holdings, Inc. and AeroCare Employee Benefits, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-04054-WJE (W.D. Mo., March 15, 2019) is a class
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants employ customer service representatives ("CSRs") to
coordinate the fulfillment of orders for home-based medical
equipment by doing such things as making arrangements with
patients, their medical providers, and health insurers when medical
equipment is needed at a patient’s home.

The Defendants required Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSRs
to work 40 hours a week at their respective AeroCare office
location. In addition to the regular 40 hour work week, Plaintiff
and other CSRs were frequently and regularly required to be "on
call" outside of regular business hours to receive work-related
telephone calls, and to then perform tasks to coordinate
Defendants' services.

Despite these conditions and restrictions on their personal time
while "on call," the Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and other
CSRs a wage for their "on call" time. The Defendants also refused
to pay Plaintiff and other CSRs for the actual time spent on
business activities while "on call". The Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and the other CSRs properly-earned wages for time worked
was a deliberate violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lori Hopkins was employed by Defendants from
approximately March, 2017, to February 8, 2018, as a CSR, and
received assignments from Defendants.

AeroCare Home Medical Equipment, Inc. is a Missouri corporation,
organized and operating under the laws of the State of
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
     Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
     COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C.
     231 Madison
     Jefferson City, MO 65101
     Phone: (573) 635-7977
     Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
     Email: mclement@cvdl.net
            kschulte@cvdl.net

          - and -

     Ryan J. McDaniels, Esq.
     Kimberly J.Z. Guthrie, Esq.
     NEWMAN, COMLEY & RUTH P.C.
     601 Monroe Street, Suite 301
     P.O. Box 537
     Jefferson City, MO 65102
     Phone: (573) 634-2266
     Fax: (573) 636-3306
     Email: ryan.m@ncrpc.com
            guthriek@ncrpc.com


ALBERTVILLE AUTO: Eidson Files RICO Class Action in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertville Auto
Acquistions, Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Eidson, an
individual, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Albertville Auto Acquistions, Inc. doing business as: Nissan of
Albertville doing business as: Team One Nissan of Albertville,
Nissan of Albertville, Sandra Tidwell, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00459-KOB (N.D. Ala., Mar. 18, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Nissan of Albertville is a privately held company in Albertville,
AL and is a Single Location business, categorized under Car
Dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J Gusty Yearout, Esq.
     Jason L Yearout, Esq.
     YEAROUT & TRAYLOR PC
     3300 Cahaba Road, Suite 300
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Phone: (205) 414-8160
     Fax: (205) 414-8199
     Email: gyearout@yearout.net
            jyearout@yearout.net

          - and -

     Sigfredo Rubio, Esq.
     RUBIO LAW FIRM PC
     438 Carr Avenue, Suite 1
     Birmingham, AL 35209
     Phone: (205) 443-7858
     Fax: (205) 433-7853
     Email: frubio@rubiofirm.com


AMERI-TEX SERVICES: Does Not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Hill Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Hill on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff. v. Ameri-Tex Services, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00035 (E.D. Tex., March 15, 2019) is a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Named Plaintiff and
the Class Members a day rate, and did not pay overtime premiums for
any hours worked over forty. Additionally, some Class Members' day
rates were so low that their regular rate fell below minimum wage.
As such, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Named
Plaintiff and other non-exempt Class Members both minimum wages and
overtime wages.

Plaintiff Kendell Hill is an individual residing in this Judicial
District and handled and otherwise worked on and/or with vehicles
that have been moved in or produced for commerce.

Defendant operates a residential and commercial garbage pickup and
disposal business in East Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
     2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Hossfeld for TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC.,
SUPREME HEALTH GROUP INC., BLAKE FISHMAN, MED-SENSE GUARANTEED
ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., NATIONAL BENEFIT
BUILDERS, INC., HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA, INC., MICHAEL SMITH,
and ZACHARY COX, Case No. 0:19-cv-60597-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6,
2019), seeks to secure redress for the Defendants' practice of
causing calls to be made to the cell phone numbers of Plaintiff and
others using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded
voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

American Financial Security Life Insurance Company is a Missouri
corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.  Federal
Insurance Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.  Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Tampa, Florida.

Supreme Health Group Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in
Pompano Beach, Florida.  Blake Fishman is a resident of Broward
County, Florida, and directed, controlled, and had authority over
Supreme Health's alleged acts.

Med-Sense Guaranteed Association, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri.  National Congress of
Employers, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Garden
City, New York.

National Benefit Builders, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.  Health Advisors of
America, Inc., is a Florida corporation headquartered in Coral
Springs, Florida.  Michael Smith and Zachary Cox are the principals
of Health Advisors.

Defendants American Financial and Federal Insurance are insurance
companies that do business in this District and across the country.
The Insurance Companies acquire business through, among other
things, using third parties to generate and facilitate leads of
prospective customers, including by telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com


AMGEN INC: No Generic Alternative to Sensipar, Teamsters Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237
RETIREES' BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMGEN INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ACTAVIS PLC,
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., and
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-08561 (D.N.J., March 14, 2019), alleges that Defendants
have engaged in anticompetitive conduct that has prevented a less
expensive generic equivalent of Sensipar from entering the market,
in violation of federal and state law, and seeks damages, an order
enjoining the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, and other
appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs bring the antitrust action on
behalf of a proposed class of end-payors who indirectly purchased,
reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Sensipar (cinacalcet
hydrochloride tablets) or its AB-rated generic equivalent.

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

Amgen received FDA approval for Sensipar in March 2004. Sensipar's
sales grew rapidly such that as of 2017, Amgen's United States
sales were over $1 billion in sales in 2017 and were at or near $1
billion in the first three quarters of 2018.

One of Amgen's patents for Sensipar, U.S. Patent No. 6,011,068 (the
"'068 Patent"), was set to expire on March 8, 2018. This patent,
stating claims related to calcimimetic compounds -- was the primary
patent setting forth the chemical composition of Sensipar.

Because Sensipar was a blockbuster drug, numerous generic
manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs")
with the FDA seeking the approval of generic versions of Sensipar.
Teva was one such generic. Other generic manufacturers filing ANDAs
included Accord Healthcare and Intas Pharmaceuticals; Ajanta
Pharma, Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA, Inc.; Alkem Laboratories Ltd;
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC
and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Private Ltd.; Apotex Inc. and
Apotex Corp.; Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.;
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Cipla Limited and Cipla USA,
Inc.; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc.; Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Heritage Pharma Labs, Inc.; Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs Ltd.
and Hetero Labs Ltd. Unit V; Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Macleods, and Macleods Pharma
USA Inc.; Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA Inc.; Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mylan, Inc.; Piramal Healthcare UK Ltd.;
Strides Pharma Global PTE Ltd. and Strides Pharma, Inc.; Sun Pharma
Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals; Watson
Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Actavis Pharma, Inc.;
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA).

Between March 8, 2018 and December 27, 2018, the FDA approved ANDAs
from Cipla, Aurobindo, Strides Pharma Global, Piramal Healthcare,
Sun Pharma, Mylan, and Teva.

As part of their applications, the generic manufacturers were
required to make certain certifications against the patents
covering Sensipar. Among these patents was U.S. Patent No.
9,375,405 ("the '405 patent"), "Rapid dissolution formulation of a
calcium receptor-active compound." Unlike the ‘086 patent, the
'405 Patent was a formulation patent, which only covered a new
formulation of the existing cinacalcet hydrochloride compound.

Generic manufacturers filed "Paragraph IV" certifications against
the '405 patent, claiming that the patent was invalid,
unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the proposed ANDA
applicants' generics.

In connection with the ANDAs, Amgen sued each generic manufacturer
that filed an ANDA for allegedly infringing the '405 patent. Many
of the generics manufacturers thereafter settled with Amgen,
including Strides Pharma, Apotex Corp., Micro Labs, Breckenridge
Pharmaceutical, Sun Pharmaceutical, Hetero Labs, Ajanta Pharma,
Cipla Ltd., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Aurobindo Pharma, Macleods Pharma, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Alkem
Laboratories, Torrent Pharma, Heritage, and Emcure.

However, several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Amneal,
Piramal, and Zydus, took these claims to a bench trial in the
District of Delaware, before Judge Mitchell Goldberg, 1 in March
2018. After the submission of post-trial briefs, in July 2018, the
court issued an opinion, finding that Teva, Amneal, and Piramal's
generic versions of Sensipar did not infringe the '405 patent. In
September 2018, Amgen filed a notice of appeal to the Federal
Circuit.

While this appeal was pending, on December 27, 2018, the FDA
approved Teva's ANDA for a generic version of Sensipar. Teva
immediately launched its generic product. During the one week that
followed, Teva flooded the market with roughly six weeks of product
sales. In that shore time, Teva reportedly made $59 million in
profits (assuming at 25% discount off Sensipar's price), while
Amgen lost an estimated $79 million in profits.

Despite Teva's tremendous profits, on January 2, 2019, after only
one week of availability of generic Sensipar, Teva and Amgen
entered a confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop
selling its generic version of Sensipar.

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

Harm to Plaintiffs and the Class is ongoing, as there still is no
generic alternative to Amgen's branded Sensipar available to
purchase, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund and
Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund:

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

ANGLIN'S BEACH: Markoe Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Markoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anglin'S Beach Cafe, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and Spiro Marchelos, in his individual capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60668 (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2019)
seeks monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights secured
to Plaintiff and all past and current employees of the Defendants
similarly situated to him, by the minimum wage and maximum hour
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week in excess of the maximum
hours provided by the FLSA. No provisions have been made by the
Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff at the statutory rate of time
and one-half for those hours that he worked in excess of the
maximum hours. The Defendants also failed to maintain proper time
records as mandated by the FLSA. No payments have been made to
Plaintiff by the Defendants at the statutory rate of time and
one-half for the hours that he worked in excess of the maximum
hours, despite his requests that Defendants do so, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Markoe, was hired by Defendants as a server, a job for
which he was fully qualified, on or about October, 2013.

Anglin'S Beach Cafe, LLC, was and continues to be a company
organized under the laws of the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn L. Birken, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN, P.A.
     100 SE 3RD AVE, SUITE 1300
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
     Phone: (954) 990-4459
     Fax: (954) 990-4469
     Primary Email: sbirken@birken-law.com
     Secondary Email: acabello@birken-law.com


ARVILLA MOTEL: Forbes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Forbes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Arvilla Motel, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
and JAMES MAURER, Defendants, Case No. 19-001882-CI (Circuit Ct.,
Pinellas Cty., March 15, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed
to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who are or were
employed by Defendants as Front Desk Clerks and Maintenance.

The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff,
and other similarly situated employees, were regularly required to
work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but were not paid overtime
compensation for all such time as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during time the relevant
period as Front Desk Clerk and Maintenance with a primary duty of
production work that did not involve exempt managerial
responsibilities.

Defendant Arvilla Motel, Inc., is a company that maintains and
operates a multi-room Motel located in Treasure Island, FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     William Sheslow, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     11020 Northcliffe Blvd
     Spring Hill, FL 34608
     Phone: (352) 683-2016
     Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
     Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
            lechneri@theFLlawfirm.com
            will@theFL1awfirm.com
            Nichole@thefl1awfirm.com
            pls@thefllawfirm.com


AUTO RESCUE: Huntley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Huntley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTO RESCUE OF FAIRFAX, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00964 (D. Md., March 15, 2019) is a collective
action brought by Plaintiff which arises from the Defendant's
willful violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), for failure to pay proper
minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours of work performed by
its employees.

By misclassifying their roadside assistance Technicians as
"independent contractors", Defendant violated the FLSA by failing
to pay their workers minimum wage and overtime for all time worked
in excess of forty hours per week, notes the complaint.

The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and others similarly
situated with payroll statements or other documentation that
reflected the actual number of hours that they worked. Plaintiff
and others similarly situated are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. They regularly work in excess of 40 hours a week, but they
are not paid any overtime, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Bryant Huntley worked for Defendant as a roadside
assistance technician from October 2009 to March 2017.

Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC, is a Virginia limited liability
company doing business in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington,
D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrea Gold, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     Email: agold@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            sschalman-bergen@bm.net
            elechtzin@bm.net
            apiazza@bm.net

          - and -

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Daniel C. Tai, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1166
     Phone: (734) 929-4313
     Facsimile: (888) 929-5833
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
            tai@bwlawonline.com

          - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     KEHOE LAW FIRM
     Two Penn Center Plaza
     1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone/Fax: (215) 792-6676
     Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


AVERY TECHNICAL: Guinn Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------
Sterling C. Guinn, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. Avery Technical Resources, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00070 (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2019) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act {"FLSA")
seeking to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidate damages,
expenses, costs of court, and pre and post judgment interest.

The complaint says the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff a minimum,
guaranteed amount each week. Instead, Plaintiff's compensation
varied each week depending upon the number of days worked.
Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours each week. However, when
he worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid any overtime wages
for those hours worked in excess of 40. The Defendant's method of
paying Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of the FLSA was
willful and was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief
that their conduct complied with the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector from July 2018 to
October 2018 in Oklahoma.

Defendant provides pipeline inspection services for companies in
the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


AVIOR AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Cavalieri Contract Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Federico A. Moreno affirmed and adopted U.S. Magistrate
Judge Lauren F. Louis' Report and Recommendation issued in the
lawsuit entitled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI and SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-22010-FAM (S.D. Fla.).

The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February
15, 2019, on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.

Accordingly, Judge Moreno granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.  The case is dismissed with prejudice and all pending
motions are denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Avior
Airlines for charging an exit fee at the airport of $80 per
passenger, after Plaintiffs had paid the airfare price.  The
Plaintiffs 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.  The Court notes that 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."

Because the Plaintiffs are unable to amend their complaint in a
manner that would avoid the application of the preemption doctrine,
the Court dismisses the case with prejudice.[CC]


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Freedman v. magicJack Vocaltec Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company and
magicJack VocalTec Ltd., continue to defend a putative class action
lawsuit entitled, Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al.

On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman
v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed
against magicJack and its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint alleged claims against magicJack and the members of
its Board of Directors as well as two former members for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising from proxy statements issued in connection with magicJack's
April 19, 2017 shareholders meeting and magicJack's July 31, 2017
shareholders meeting that allegedly misrepresented material facts
concerning the "true value" of Broadsmart Global, Inc. and its
future prospects in order that the individual defendants (the Board
members) could entrench themselves on magicJack's Board and extract
unwarranted compensation in connection with their attempt to sell
the company. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint.

On February 16, 2018, magicJack and all of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The
plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 2,
2018, and defendants' reply was filed on April 19, 2018. The court
issued an order dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice
on August 9, 2018.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on August 20, 2018,
magicJack filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On November 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss with prejudice.  

The plaintiff has filed Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and, on January 30, 2019, filed a
brief with the appeals court. On February 7, 2019, the court
dismissed the appeal because appellant failed to file an appendix
within the time period specified by the rules.  

On February 19, the plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the
appeal, which was returned unfiled because the proposed appendix
was not compliant.  

B. Riley said, "In the event the plaintiff successfully files a
motion to reinstate the appeal, the Company intends to object to
the request. The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential
liability, if any, that could arise from this matter."

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. B. Riley
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a putative class
action suit against MLV & Co. remains pending.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR & Co.
(FBR), as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging
claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings
of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.


The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the
Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims
and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil
action was announced. Defendants' answer was filed on September 25,
2017.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification and to remand
the case to state court following a positive ruling in an unrelated
case by the U.S. Supreme Court.

B. Riley said, "Although MLV is contractually entitled to be
indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed
for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or
eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from
Miller."

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

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. B. Riley
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.  


BASICS PLUS: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly
-------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Basics Plus Inc. and Basics Plus
Mega LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01407 (S.D. N.Y., February 13,
2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Basics Plus Mega LLC, operates the Basics Plus stores across the
United States including a commercial website, www.basicsplus.com.
Delacruz claims that this is not accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


BELLAMY'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Sise, Esq. -- psise@claytonutz.com -- of Clayton Utz, in an
article for Lexology, reports that where there are multiple
shareholder class actions making the same allegations but with
different legal teams, a court may permit the successful lead
plaintiffs to recover duplicative costs unless those costs were
unreasonably or unnecessarily incurred.

Multiple shareholder class actions against the one defendant
company about the same conduct are becoming more common. We've
already explored whether a court will allow multiple shareholder
class actions to continue in a previous Insights article. Depending
on the circumstances, a court may allow only one of the shareholder
class actions to continue; alternatively, it may allow two or more
to continue. If two or more continue, will the defendant company be
required to pay the costs of all of them if it is unsuccessful? At
the time of our previous article, this was uncertain, but because
of a recent decision of the Federal Court, we now have a little
more clarity. That decisions is McKay Super Solutions Pty Ltd
(Trustee) v Bellamy's Australia Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 215 (McKay).

The dilemma of duplication
If a defendant company fails in defending a shareholder class
action, it is likely to be ordered to pay the reasonably incurred
costs of the lead plaintiff due to the rule that "costs follow the
event". If two shareholder class actions are permitted to proceed
which relate to the same subject matter and which have two lead
plaintiffs represented by separate legal teams, some work and
attendant costs may be performed by each lead plaintiff. This is
the dilemma of duplicative costs. A defendant company could fairly
ask why it should pay for two sets of proceeding which are alleging
the same thing. Against this, the lead plaintiffs could say that
the class action legislation in Australia contemplates multiple
proceedings, since it allows group members to "opt out" and run
their own individual proceedings, and each lead plaintiff should be
allowed to choose its own legal team rather than having another's
legal team forced on it by the prospect of not recovering some of
its costs. Since costs are high in complex litigation, this is an
important issue. Matters came to the fore in the recent decision of
McKay.

McKay's super solution or Bellamy's formula?
In McKay, the defendant company was Bellamy's, which is known for
producing infant formula, among other things. It was defending two
shareholder class actions "advancing identical claims and seeking
identical relief". The two lead plaintiffs were McKay Super
Solutions and Mr Basil. In an earlier decision, Justice Beach
allowed both shareholder class actions to continue with each lead
plaintiff having separate legal representation.

Bellamy's sought orders that:

the costs that may be recovered by McKay Super Solutions and Mr
Basil from Bellamy's be assessed as though McKay Super Solutions
and Mr Basil were represented by the same legal team in one
proceeding rather than separate legal teams in separate
proceedings; and the total costs that may be recovered by Bellamy's
from McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil be capped at approximately
$4.4 million.[1]

In short, Bellamy's asked that its potential costs liability be
capped as if it were defending one proceeding instead of two. To be
balanced, Bellamy's also sought an order that the total costs it
could recover from McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil, if it were
successful, be capped at $4.4 million.[2]

McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil had already entered into a
"co-operation protocol" to reduce unnecessary duplication of work.
This was intended to reduce the costs exposure of Bellamy's and had
been ordered by Justice Beach. His Honour ordered that the protocol
require the lead plaintiffs:

   -- to use reasonable endeavours to agree on areas of expert
evidence and the briefing of experts;
   -- to consult with each other before preparing, filing and
serving any evidence;
   -- to use reasonable endeavours to progress the two proceedings
in a similar manner;
   -- to co-operate in the conduct of interlocutory applications;
and to confer about key dates.

Bellamy's considered this protocol to be insufficient, particularly
since it thought it would be exposed to $1.5 million of additional
costs if there were no capping of costs.

Justice Beach concluded that he had the power to grant the orders
sought by Bellamy's but declined to do so. His Honour accepted that
the total costs that will be incurred by McKay Super Solutions, Mr
Basil and Bellamy's were likely to exceed the costs that would be
incurred if there were only one lead plaintiff and one class
action. His Honour also accepted that some work and its attendant
costs would be duplicated as a result of their being two
shareholder class actions. In fact, the co-operation protocol
indicated this; for example, it required the solicitors for each of
McKay Super Solutions and Mr Basil to attend interviews with
potential expert witnesses as well as some other conferences.
Still, his Honour declined to make the orders sought by Bellamy's
for the following reasons.

First, his Honour thought that the correct "prism" to look through
was not whether it is reasonable for Bellamy's to bear more than
one set of costs, but whether the two plaintiffs had unnecessarily
or unreasonably duplicated costs. Once this was accepted, the fact
there would be some duplication of costs was not enough to justify
the orders sought by Bellamy's. There needed to be unnecessary
duplication. His Honour said there were several "applicant specific
tasks" that would result in duplicated, but unobjectionable,
costs.

Second, the co-operation protocol was working well to reduce any
duplication of costs, so much so that his Honour was unable to
conclude that there was likely to be any unnecessary duplication in
the future.

Third, if there were any unjustified duplication of costs, it would
be better to deal with them retrospectively at a later date. His
Honour would then be making a decision in the "known world" rather
than trying to make a prediction about the future.

Fourth, Bellamy's could not demonstrate any need to make the orders
now. Among other things, Bellamy's argued that making the orders
now would facilitate the cost-effective conduct of the matter,
which in turn would assist a settlement since a large costs
liability is an impediment to settlement. This is certainly a
relevant consideration since all shareholder class actions in
Australia to date have settled rather than proceeded to judgment.
However, if this argument justified a cap on costs in McKay, it
would also justify a cap on costs in all shareholder class actions
and in fact, in all court proceeding since settlement should be
encouraged for all disputes. Justice Beach was not persuaded by
Bellamy's argument because the co-operation protocol was working
effectively and if it ceased to work effectively, it could be
modified.

Fifth, his Honour thought he was not currently in a position to
adequately assess the cap of $4.4 million.

The upshot for costs if you're facing multiple shareholder class
actions
The outcome in McKay is mixed news for companies that might find
themselves defending multiple shareholder class actions making the
same allegations. The good news is that a court is willing to
impose a protocol on lead plaintiffs to avoid the unnecessary
duplication of costs. It is also open to addressing unnecessarily
duplicated costs at a later date when more information is
available.

The not-so-good news is that a defendant company is likely to be
liable for duplicative costs where those costs were necessary.
Justice Beach gave some examples of such costs. His Honour also
said that an order treating the case as if there were only one
shareholder class action would only operate from the date that he
decided that the two shareholder class actions should be permitted
to continue. That means that the duplicative costs of each lead
plaintiff researching and preparing their own statement of claim
plus the costs of other early steps would all be costs that each
lead plaintiff could seek to recover from the defendant.

The outcome in McKay is perhaps unsurprising. The class action
legislation in Australia contemplates multiple proceedings; Justice
Beach had already decided that the two class actions should be
permitted to continue with each lead plaintiff having separate
legal representation; and the general position for all proceedings
in the Federal Court is that a successful party is permitted to
recover its "fairly and reasonably incurred" costs. In those
circumstances, it is difficult to object to a lead plaintiff
recovering duplicated costs provided they are not unreasonable or
unnecessary. [GN]


BERNER FOOD: Lyles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Lyles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Berner Food and Beverage, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH03364 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 14, 2019) seeks
to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/or
otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or biometric information
of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without properly
obtaining a written executed release, and without making the
required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or
destruction of biometric identifiers or information.

Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Darryl Lyles is an individual citizen of the State of
Illinois who worked for Defendant in Illinois in 2018.

Berner Food & Beverage, LLC is a Delaware corporation and has at
least one place of business in Illinois.[BN]

The 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
     Phone : 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: May 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND THE GRANTING OF LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH
STATUTORY SECONDARY MARKET MISREPRESENTATION CLAIMS

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights

THIS NOTICE IS TO certain investors in the common shares of
BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") during the period from and
including March 28, 2013 to and including September 20, 2013
("Class Period") other than certain persons and entities associated
with the defendants, further described below ("Class" and "Class
Members").

THE CERTIFICATION ORDER
By Order dated February 5, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice ("Court") has certified, pursuant to the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992,

Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG
v
BlackBerry Limited,
Thorsten Heins and Brian Bidulka

File No. CV-13-495413-00CP ("BlackBerry Canadian Class Action").
The Court has appointed the class action plaintiff, Swisscanto
Fondsleitung AG, as the representative plaintiff for the Class,
defined as follows:

All persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled,
who acquired BlackBerry's Securities during the Class Period on any
Canadian securities trading venue or otherwise in Canada, and all
persons and entities who acquired BlackBerry's Securities during
the Class Period outside of Canada who are residents of Canada or
were residents of Canada at the time of acquisition and, in each
case, continued to hold some or all of those Securities as of
September 20, 2013, other than the Excluded Persons.

"Class Period" means the period from March 28, 2013 through
September 20, 2013, inclusive.

Excluded from the Class are BlackBerry, Thorsten Heins, Brian
Bidulka (collectively, the "Defendants"), their past and present
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees,
partners, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors
and assigns, and any individual who is an immediate member of the
family of an individual Defendant.

Pursuant to the certification Order, you are a Class Member if you
acquired BlackBerry's common share securities at any time between
March 28, 2013 and September 20, 2013, inclusive, held some or all
of those securities as of September 20, 2013, and:

a) you acquired such BlackBerry securities on a Canadian stock
exchange or trading venue, regardless of where you may reside; or

b) you are a resident of Canada or were a resident of Canada at the
time of acquisition of such BlackBerry securities, regardless of
the stock exchange or trading venue on which you acquired those
securities.

The BlackBerry Canadian Class Action will now proceed to trial as a
securities class action involving claims for damages for
misrepresentation in BlackBerry's disclosure documents. The Court
has identified the issues that will be dealt with collectively and
the conclusions sought, which are set out in Appendix "A." The
BlackBerry Canadian Class Action will proceed in Toronto, Ontario.

Certification is a procedural matter that defines the form of the
class action. The merits of the claims in the action, or the
allegations of fact on which the claims are based, have not been
finally determined by the Court. The Defendants dispute the claims
asserted against them.

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED
The BlackBerry Canadian Class Action arises from the unsuccessful
launch of BlackBerry's next-generation smartphones known as
BlackBerry 10 in 2013. It asserts that certain of BlackBerry's
financial disclosures and other disclosure documents issued during
the Class Period contained false or misleading representations
regarding the sales of the BlackBerry 10 smartphones and the
company's revenues generated through the sales of those devices,
and that those financial disclosures of BlackBerry violated the
applicable accounting principles. On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry
disclosed that it was taking an approximately $1 billion inventory
charge primarily related to the BlackBerry 10 smartphones, and that
it was changing its revenue recognition accounting method with
respect to the sales of those devices.

As a result of the alleged misrepresentations, it is alleged that
Class Members paid too much when they acquired BlackBerry's
securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages after the
alleged misrepresentations were publicly corrected on September 20,
2013.

The Class Action Claims
On behalf of the Class, the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action
asserts claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act
("OSA") and, if necessary, the equivalent provisions of the
Securities Legislation of the other Canadian Provinces and
Territories ("Securities Legislation"). Additionally, the Class
Action advances claims in common law negligent misrepresentation.

By Order dated November 17, 2015, the Honourable Justice Belobaba
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice also granted leave to
proceed with the statutory secondary market misrepresentation
claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act and, if
necessary, the equivalent provisions of the Securities Legislation.
The Defendants sought to appeal from the Court's Order granting
leave to proceed to the Ontario Divisional Court. By endorsement
dated November 6, 2018, the Divisional Court rejected the
Defendants' request to bring an appeal with respect to the Order
granting leave, which accordingly became final. Leave of the Court
was a necessary precondition to the assertion of these claims.

The statutory claims asserted under the OSA and the Securities
Legislation are subject to liability limits, which may cap the
amount of damages that can be recovered from each Defendant by way
of the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action or any other class or
individual proceeding asserting claims under the OSA or the
comparable provisions of the Securities Legislation in any other
province or territory of Canada. If the Class is successful at
trial, it is possible that the damages may exceed the damages caps,
if applicable. The common law negligent misrepresentation claims
are not subject to liability limits.

If you wish to pursue other claims against the Defendants relating
to the matters at issue in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action,
you should immediately seek independent legal advice.

DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BLACKBERRY CANADIAN
CLASS ACTION
Class Members who want to participate in the BlackBerry Canadian
Class Action are automatically included and need not do anything at
this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY THE CLASS ACTION

Each Class Member who does not validly opt out of the Class Action
will be bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favourable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action.

Class Members who do not want to be bound by the outcome of the
BlackBerry Canadian Class Action must "opt out," meaning that they
must exclude themselves from the Class Action in accordance with
the procedure described herein.

If you wish to opt out of the Class Action, you must complete, sign
and return the Opt-Out Form provided at Appendix "B" to RicePoint
Administration Inc.

In order for your opt-out to be valid, your complete and signed
Opt-Out Form must be postmarked or received by RicePoint
Administration Inc. by no later than May 6, 2019.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action.

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES
The representative plaintiff and the Class are represented by
Siskinds LLP ("Class Counsel"). Class Counsel are conducting the
BlackBerry Canadian Class Action on a contingent fee basis.

In the event of success, Class Counsel will make a motion to the
Court for approval of their fees and disbursements to be paid from
the funds recovered in the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action.

A Class Member will not be required to pay any costs in the event
that the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action is unsuccessful.

Class Members have the right to seek intervenor status in the
BlackBerry Canadian Class Action. A Class Member who intervenes in
the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action may be required to pay legal
costs arising from the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. The Court offices cannot answer any questions about the
matters in this notice. The Orders of the Court and other
information in both languages are available on Class Counsel's
website at http://www.siskinds.com/blackberry/.

Questions relating to the BlackBerry Canadian Class Action may be
directed to Class Counsel:

English:
Sajjad Nematollahi
Siskinds LLP
Suite 302, 100 Lombard Street
Toronto, ON, Canada M5C 1M3
Tel: +1.800.461.6166 ext. 4390 (toll free)
Tel: +1.416.594.4390 (outside North America)
Email: sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com

En français:
Karim Diallo
Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.
43, rue de Buade, bureau 320
Quebec, Quebec G1R 4A2
Tel: +1-418-694-2009
Email: karim.diallo@siskindsdesmeules.com

NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS
Please deliver this notice by email to your clients who purchased
BlackBerry's securities during the Class Period and for whom you
have valid email addresses. If you have clients who purchased
BlackBerry's securities during the Class Period for whom you do not
have valid email addresses, please contact RicePoint Administration
Inc. to obtain hard copies of this notice for the purpose of
mailing the notice to those clients. Brokerage firms may request up
to $15,000 in total for the expenses relating to the distribution
of this notice to the Class Members. If the amounts submitted in
aggregate exceed $15,000, each brokerage firm's claim shall be
reduced on a pro rata basis.

BlackBerry Canadian Securities Class Action
c/o RicePoint Administration Inc.
PO Box 4454, Toronto Station A,
25 The Esplanade
Toronto, ON, Canada
M5W 4B1

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice [GN]


BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Armando Garcia, and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Brink's Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 2018-039589, (Fla. Cir., November 27, 2019), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
February 12, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-20557.

Garcia filed the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Brink's is represented by:

      Gregory R. Hawran, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 374-0506
      Fax: (305) 374-0456
      Email: gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: To Defend Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 27, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a consolidated class action in New Jersey
entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ.
No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS.

On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action).

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants
in the Action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Campbell Soup said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the
Action."

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.


CARA NAILS: Lliguicota Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maruga Lliguicota, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, v. Cara Nails, Inc. d/b/a Cara Nails and EUN HI HONG
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02309 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid spread of
hours premium, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York
Labor Law.

Although Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek during her employment, the Defendants never paid her
overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40, as required
under the FLSA and NYLL. She was only paid at a straight time rate
for all of her work hours in excess of 40 each week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff, MARUGA LLIGUICOTA, worked as a manicure, masseuse and
pedicurist for Defendants' nail salon from in or around September
2017 until in or around September 2018.

CARA NAILS, INC. d/b/a Cara Nails, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     William Brown, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181



CAS MEDICAL: Franchi Suit Challenges Sale to Edwards Lifesciences
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., ALAN W. MILINAZZO, PAUL A.
MOLLOY, THOMAS S. PATTON, GREGORY P. RAINEY, JAMES E. THOMAS,
KATHLEEN A. TUNE, and KENNETH R. WEISSHAAR, Case No.
1:19-cv-00478-UNA (D. Del., March 7, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which CAS Medical will be acquired by
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and its affiliates.

On February 11, 2019, CAS Medical's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Edwards.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, CAS Medical's
stockholders will receive $2.45 in cash for each share of CAS
Medical common stock they hold.

Mr. Franchi alleges that the Proxy Statement relating to the sale
omits material information regarding the Company's financial
projections and fails to disclose, among other things: (i) all line
items used to calculate EBITDA and EBIT; (ii) unlevered free cash
flow and all underlying line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of
all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

CAS Medical is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Branford, Connecticut.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

CAS Medical is a medical technology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets non-invasive cerebral and tissue
oximeters used in patient monitoring.  CAS Medical's principal
products are the FORE-SIGHT(R) and FORE-SIGHT ELITE(R) brand tissue
oximeters and sensors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion for class
certification has been pending in the antitrust lawsuits related to
the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R).

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated
various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws
by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R).

IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party
payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action
making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence),
the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion
to dismiss on all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International
Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of
patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers
have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new
complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August
1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB,
Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell.

On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another complaint,
which it identified as related to the consolidated case, and which
made similar allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class
representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC).
The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action
involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a
master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class.

On February 26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings
dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek
to represent a class.

The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed
its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in
support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018.

Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert
discovery closed on December 11, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the
Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On
December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification.

The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion for class
certification was filed on January 25, 2019 and the plaintiffs'
reply in support of their new motion for class certification was
filed on February 15, 2019.

No trial date has been set.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide.  The company has agreements
with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
Summit, New Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.    

On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative class action against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H.
Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel
for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff
to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019;
and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019. On December 10,
2018, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint. On February
8, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint in full.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide.  The company has agreements
with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
Summit, New Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Court Approves Settlement in JCAR015-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has
approved the settlement reached in the securities lawsuits related
to the clinical trial of JCAR015.   

In July 2016, two putative securities class action complaints (the
Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint) were filed against Juno
Therapeutics, Inc. (Juno) and its chief executive officer, Hans E.
Bishop, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class
action complaint (the Paradisco Complaint and, together with the
Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint, the Complaints) was
filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and its chief financial officer,
Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The Complaints generally allege material misrepresentations and
omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in Juno's
Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 as well as, violations by all
named defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

On October 7, 2016, the Complaints were consolidated into a single
action. On December 12, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff
and a named plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(Consolidated Complaint), which includes claims against Juno, Mr.
Bishop, Dr. Harr, and Juno's chief medical officer, Dr. Mark J.
Gilbert (the Defendants). The Consolidated Complaint includes
allegations similar to those in the previous Complaints, as well as
additional allegations regarding purported material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements after July 7,
2016 regarding the safety of JCAR015.

The parties mediated on May 9, 2018, following which the parties
agreed to a settlement in principle of the class action. On
November 16, 2018, the court approved the parties' settlement.

Celgene said, "The settlement amount was not materially different
than the amount we had previously accrued for this matter."

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide.  The company has agreements
with BeiGene, Ltd; Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Agios Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; bluebird bio, Inc.; Lycera Corp.; and Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
Summit, New Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Goldstein Sues to Enjoin Vote on Bristol-Myers Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GOLDSTEIN, on Behalf of Himself 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.
2:19-cv-08087 (D.N.J., March 7, 2019), seeks to enjoin a
stockholder vote on a Proposed Transaction currently scheduled for
April 12, 2019, unless and until certain violations are cured.

On January 2, 2019, Celgene and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
("Parent") through Parent's wholly owned subsidiary Burgundy Merger
Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to
which, each Celgene stockholder will be entitled to receive $50 in
cash, one share of Parent common stock and one contingent value
right ("CVR") for each share of Celgene common stock they own.  If
the Proposed Transaction is completed, BMS stockholders are
expected to own approximately 69% of the company, and Celgene
stockholders are expected to own approximately 31%.  The Proposed
Transaction has an equity value of approximately $74 billion.

Mr. Goldstein alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a materially incomplete and
misleading Registration Statement with the SEC and disseminated it
to Celgene's stockholders.  He contends that the Registration
Statement fails to disclose, among other things: (i) projected
earnings per share ("EPS"); (ii) EBITDA; and (iii) the projection
line items used to derive the Company's unlevered free cash flows,
including taxes, capital expenditures and changes in net working
capital and milestone payments.

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.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
          E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Caliendo Securities Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CALIENDO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTURYLINK, INC., GLEN F. POST, III, SUNIT S. PATEL,
JEFF K. STOREY, INDRANEEL DEV, and ERIC J. MORTENSEN, Case No.
2:19-cv-01629 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed failed to disclose that: (1)
CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal
controls over revenue recording processes and the procedures for
measuring fair value of assets and liabilities assumed in
connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc. acquisition; (2)
consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing of its Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, despite initially
reporting those financial results in a press release dated February
13, 2019; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

CenturyLink purports to provide various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers
primarily in the United States.  The Company is incorporated in
Louisiana with global offices in El Segundo, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTURYLINK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of CenturyLink, Inc. (NYSE:CTL) from
May 10, 2018 through March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CenturyLink investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the CenturyLink class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1525.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) CenturyLink had
undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal controls over
revenue recording processes and the procedures for measuring fair
value of assets and liabilities assumed in connection with its
Level 3 Communications, Inc. acquisition; (2) consequently,
CenturyLink would delay the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018 despite initially reporting those
financial results in a press release dated February 13, 2019; and
(3) as a result, CenturyLink's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 6,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1525.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


CERTIFIEDSAFETY: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CertifiedSafety, Inc. and Phillips 66
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01380 (N.D. Cal., March 14,
2019) is a class and collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals who have worked for the
Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees, including Safety
Attendants and Safety Foremen challenging the Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California
and Washington wage and hour laws.

Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members are not paid
minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime rates or double time
rates, as appropriate, for all hours worked above eight per day and
forty per week, says the complaint. They are also routinely denied
meal and rest periods, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff and members of the putative Class and Collective are
current and former non-exempt, hourly Safety Attendants and Safety
Foremen, who worked for Defendants throughout the United States.

CertifiedSafety is an American company that provides skilled safety
personnel to clients operating oil refineries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
     Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105


CHRYSLER: Subpoena Served in Jeep Uconnect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that Belleville city attorney
Brian Flynn trusted the Federico family to sell him a Jeep but
served a subpoena for their records after one of them wouldn't help
him find plaintiffs for a class action against Chrysler.

Mr. Flynn leads the class action in U.S. district court, not as
lawyer but as Jeep owner.

A subpoena he served on Federico Dodge Chrysler in Wood River last
year hangs over the action while he and the family hold it in
abeyance.

The subpoena would require Federico to produce dealership contracts
with Chrysler and all rules and policies on warranties, promotions,
and customer inquiries. It would also require production of sales
reports and personnel records.  

Mr. Flynn bought a Jeep in 2013, with an information system by name
of Uconnect.

He sued Chrysler in 2015, claiming hackers could remotely seize
control of his Jeep through Uconnect. He also named UConnect maker
Harman Industries as second defendant.

Chrysler counsel Stephen D'Aunoy of St. Louis deposed Mr. Flynn in
2016, asking at the outset why he bought his vehicle at Federico.

"I'm friends with one of the Federicos so I kind of had it in my
mind that I might go get a Dodge or a Jeep," Mr. Flynn said,
identifying Danielle Federico as his friend and one who finalized
paperwork for his transaction.

"I think her father is the owner," he said.

Mr. Flynn said he knew her through mutual friends for five or six
years.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked when he decided he wanted an SUV from Federico.

"I think I always just had it in the back of my mind," Mr. Flynn
said. "I just like to do business with friends."

Mr. D'Aunoy asked what he drove on his first visit and he said
Grand Cherokees.

"I know I drove a couple of them because one of the ones I drove
was actually Mr. Federico's," Mr. Flynn said. "They're saying I
could get a good deal on it. Of course he is driving a high end car
but I didn't want to spend that kind of money."

Mr. Flynn said he had a loan preapproved but financed the Jeep
through the dealership.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked how he determined that the price was fair.

Mr. Flynn said they gave him a price and he asked if they could go
a little lower.

"I didn't sit there and haggle with them a lot simply because, I
guess, my view is I want to do business with friends," Mr. Flynn
said. "If they screw me here, I'm never coming back. If they want
to do business with me, I can come back every few years and get a
car."

Mr. D'Aunoy asked why he purchased an extended warranty.

"Because Danielle told me it was a good idea and I trusted her,"
Flynn said.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked his understanding of his complaint about the
vehicle.

"That it's susceptible to being taken over, being hacked," Flynn
said, and when asked if it had ever been hacked said he didn't
know.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked how his vehicle was different from any other for
hackability.

"It is my understanding generally that the Uconnect system is more
susceptible to hacking," Mr. Flynn said.

"It's my understanding that all the electrical components are part
of one system and a patch just isn't going to fix it."

Mr. D'Aunoy asked if he thought there was anybody out there who
wanted to harm him, and Mr. Flynn said there might be.

"I represent, you know, dangerous individuals who have been accused
of dangerous crimes," Flynn said. "I have had people approach me
and threaten me."

Mr. D'Aunoy asked if they were capable of hacking his vehicle.

"I'm not aware of their capabilities," Flynn said.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked if it was easier to cut his brake lines than hack
the vehicle, and Mr. Flynn said he had no idea.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked him about discussions with Danielle Federico in
2015, and he said he called her to see if she might know other Jeep
owners.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked if she identified any, and Mr. Flynn said she did
not.

Mr. D'Aunoy showed him a response to an interrogatory indicating he
asked whether she would provide names of those who purchased the
affected vehicles.

Mr. Flynn said that was essentially his question.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked if she provided names and he said no.

Mr. D'Aunoy asked what she told him.

"She really just expressed she wasn't interested," Mr. Flynn said.
"I was really asking if we had any mutual friends. I wasn't asking
her to give me the names of somebody I had never met."

Mr. D'Aunoy asked why he was interested in other purchasers.

Mr. Flynn said that after he and class counsel Mike Gras talked,
"it seemed like he needed more than one person."

For Uconnect maker Harman Industries, William McKenna asked Mr.
Flynn if Ms. Federico said anything about a defect in the vehicle.


"I think she said that a recall would be coming," v Flynn said He
said she told him it would be okay.

Mr. McKenna said, "Those were exact words or words in substance?"

Mr. Flynn said, "Words in substance."  

The Federico family didn't figure in the litigation any further
until late last year, when Flynn served his subpoena for their
records.

The family retained William Niehoff of Belleville, who objected on
Jan. 4.

Mr. Niehoff wrote that the subpoena was unreasonable in scope and
unduly burdensome, that it included trade secrets or other
confidential information. It would require Federico to engage
counsel to assist in collection and review of documents.

He further wrote that it would require Federico to divert employees
from their jobs to search paper and electronic information over an
extended time, and that Flynn could obtain most of the information
from defendants.

On Jan. 22, Mr. Niehoff posted a joint motion to hold his
objections in abeyance.

He wrote that the parties worked diligently to find a solution
addressing Flynn's discovery requests and Federico's concerns. He
wrote that the parties would update the court regarding whether to
withdraw the subpoena or set the objections for consideration by
the magistrate.

Magistrate Judge Reona Daly presides over discovery.

District Judge Michael Reagan presides as trial judge but won't
hold trial.

He set it in November but plans to retire. [GN]


CIGAR.COM INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Dawson Says
------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. CIGAR.COM, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01377 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a cigar retail company that operates www.cigar.com
that allow consumers to access store locations and hours, purchase
store products online for pickup or delivery. Dawson claims that it
is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


CIGNA CORP: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan E Richman, Esq. -- jerichman@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 5 affirmed the
dismissal of a securities class action alleging misrepresentations
arising from generalized statements about an issuer's compliance
efforts and Code of Ethics. The decision in Singh v. Cigna
Corporation held that such generic statements are not material
because a reasonable investor could not have relied on them as
representations of regulatory compliance.

The decision is welcome news for issuers in light of the many
recent lawsuits alleging securities-law violations based on
generalized statements about the importance of ethical standards
and regulatory compliance. Such cases should be more difficult to
maintain unless the issuer has touted its compliance efforts in
detail.

Background
The Singh case arose from Cigna's purchase of a regional Medicare
insurer. After the acquisition, Cigna began receiving notices of
noncompliance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS"). CMS conducted an audit and concluded that Cigna had failed
to comply with CMS requirements. Cigna eventually announced that it
had already spent nearly $30 million to remedy the alleged
violations, but that it might "'not be able to address matters
arising from the [CMS Sanctions] Notice in a timely and
satisfactory manner.'"

Cigna shareholders filed a securities class action alleging that
Cigna had made false or misleading statements by:

   -- claiming that it had "'established policies and procedures to
comply with applicable requirements'" and that it "'expect[ed] to
continue to allocate significant resources'" to compliance
efforts,
   -- publishing a Code of Ethics that affirmed the importance of
compliance and integrity, and
   -- stating in its annual report that it "'expect[ed] to continue
to allocate significant resources'" to compliance, and discussing
the difficulty of compliance in light of regulatory uncertainty in
the healthcare arena.

These statements allegedly were false or misleading in light of the
regulatory issues that Cigna was facing.

The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs
had failed to sufficiently allege both materially false statements
and scienter.  The Second Circuit affirmed on the first ground,
without reaching the scienter issue.

Second Circuit's Decision
The court framed its decision as presenting "a creative attempt to
recast corporate mismanagement as securities fraud." "[F]irst,
point to banal and vague corporate statements affirming the
importance of regulatory compliance; next, point to significant
regulatory violations; and voila, you have alleged a prima facie
case of securities fraud!" But the court held that "such generic
statements do not invite reasonable reliance" and therefore are not
materially misleading.

The court ruled that Code of Ethics statements that "amount to
general declarations about the importance of acting lawfully and
with integrity" constitute inactionable puffery. Similarly, the
statements about Cigna's compliance efforts were too generic to be
material. The court distinguished the statements in this case from
those in a prior case, in which the company had "described its
compliance mechanisms in confident detail, including references to
24-hour monitoring teams, specific compliance equipment, and its
clean compliance record." "Such detailed descriptions stand in
sharp contrast to Cigna's simple and generic assertions about
having 'policies and procedures' and allocating 'significant
resources'" to compliance.

The court also noted that Cigna's statements were "framed by
acknowledgments of the complexity and numerosity of applicable
regulations," thereby suggesting "caution (rather than confidence)
regarding the extent of Cigna's compliance." Because Cigna's
challenged statements were "tentative and generic, and because they
emphasize the complex, evolving regulatory environment that Cigna
faced," a reasonable investor would not view them as material.

Implications
Securities cases traditionally were about accounting or financial
matters, but so many securities actions these days are actually
about something else: alleged foreign bribery, sexual harassment,
antitrust violations, money laundering, environmental disasters,
apartment fires, etc. Companies involved in those situations have
been sued under the securities laws based on the theory that they
made broad statements about the importance of and their efforts to
comply with legal and ethical standards – and that those
statements must have been false or misleading because of what
ultimately happened.

Many (although not all) courts have dismissed such claims where the
challenged statements were only generic. Some courts, however,
appear to have applied a looser standard, at least at the pleading
stage. The Singh decision should cause courts to look harder at the
challenged statements to determine whether they are specific enough
to be material – or whether, as in so many cases, they are merely
generic, almost boilerplate recitations that most companies make to
state their aspirational goals and show that they hope to be
considered good corporate citizens.

The Singh decision does not specifically address a situation where
a company has made generic statements about compliance and ethics
in direct response to questions about or allegations of misconduct.
Nor, however, does the Second Circuit's ruling create an exception
for those statements. The decision focuses more on the generic
nature of the statements than on the specific context in which they
were made. We shall see how courts construe Singh if merely generic
statements are made to rebut allegations of misconduct. [GN]


CINEMARK USA: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01348 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Cinemark USA, Inc. is movie theatre chain owned by Cinemark
Holdings, Inc. Its website, www.cinemark.com, allows access to
information on movies and showtimes, including the ability to
purchase movie tickets online, and related goods and services.
Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


CINEMARK USA: Stipulation and Release Entered in Brown Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has agreed to a
Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims
in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, presents putative class action
claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged
violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also
asserted as a representative action under the California Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class
certification.

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.  

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.  

The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost
and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to
fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the
case.  The Settlement Agreement must be approved by the Court.  

During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a
litigation reserve based on the proposed Settlement Agreement in
loss on disposal of assets and other on the consolidated income
statement.

Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the
motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two
segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. The company was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc.


CLASSIC OILFIELD: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Fulmer Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Todd Fulmer and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Classic Oilfield Services, LP, and Ben Pinkston, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00041, (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2019) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Classic Oilfield Services operates a logistics and trucking
business where Fulmer worked as driver. He claims to have worked in
excess of forty hours in a workweek without being paid an overtime
premium at a rate not less than one and one half times his regular
rate of pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Houston, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 474-7677
      Fax: (512) 474-5306
      Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com


COCO DULCE: Hayes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in RONNETTE HAYES, Plaintiff, v. COCO DULCE, INC., a
Florida corporation, and EMILIO PEREZ, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 9:19-cv-80368 (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2019) brought this
action on behalf of herself and other employees and former
employees of the Defendant similarly situated for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

In the course of employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees were not paid time and one-half
of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week during one or more work weeks, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida and
was an employee of the Defendant.

Defendant, COCO DULCE, INC., is a Florida corporation authorized to
do business in the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
     1880 North Congress Avenue
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Phone: 561-369-3331
     Fax: 561-369-5902
     Email: crush@crushlawfl.com
            eservice@crushlawfl.com


COMMERCIAL FURNITURE: Mannie Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitry Mannie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Commercial Furniture Installation, Inc.,
John Haselhorst and Jackie Armagost, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00182-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., March 13, 2019) seeks from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants repeatedly violated the FLSA by failing willfully to
pay Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants within the three years
immediately preceding the filing and the commencement of the
instant civil action.

Defendants provide furniture installation and renting, in several
states, including in the State of Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     E. Carlos Tanner, III, Esq.
     TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     Post Office box 3709
     Jackson, MS 39207
     Phone: 601-460-1754
     Facsimile: 662-796-3509
     Email: carlos.tanner@thetannerlawfirm.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the settlement in the
contact lens-related class action remains subject to final Court
approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc.,
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the
class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, without any admission of liability, to settle
all claims against CooperVision.

In July 2018, the Court approved the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the Company paid the
$3.0 million settlement amount into an escrow account.

The settlement remains subject to final Court approval at a future
hearing to be set by the Court.

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

The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company
worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical
business units. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and
is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Melucci, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, Joseph K. Belanoff, and Charles Robb, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2019) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Corcept securities between August 2, 2017 and
February 5, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had improperly paid doctors to
promote its drug Korlym; (2) that the Company aggressively promoted
Korlym for off-label uses; (3) that the Company's sole specialty
pharmacy was a related party; (4) that the Company artificially
inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales practices
through a related party; (5) that such practices are reasonably
likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) 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.

On January 25, 2019, Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
("SIRF") published a report alleging that Corcept paid doctors to
prescribe its drug Korlym for off-label uses. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $1.52, or more than 11%, to close at
$12.29 per share on January 25, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff Nicholas Melucci purchased Corcept securities during the
Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations.

Corcept is a pharmaceutical company that purports to develop
medications to treat severe metabolic, oncologic, and psychiatric
disorders by modulating the effect of cortisol.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


COSTA MESA, CA: Group Home Ordinance Suit Named Top Defense Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller/Anderle LLP on March 6 disclosed that two of
Keller/Anderle's jury trial victories in 2018 were selected to the
Daily Journal's list of the prestigious top 20 "Top Defense
Verdicts of 2018."  The Daily Journal describes the list as "the
largest and most significant verdicts in California in 2018."

In Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc., et al. v. City of
Costa Mesa, Keller/Anderle LLP secured a complete jury victory for
the City of Costa Mesa in a federal lawsuit challenging its group
home ordinance.  Two sober living home operators and an industry
trade group brought the suit in the Central District of California
in 2014, arguing that any regulation, no matter how favorable to
the disabled, was discriminatory. Other cities had lost lawsuits
challenging their own ordinances, settled them, or had been
intimidated into not passing ordinances at all. The Costa Mesa City
Council hired Keller/Anderle in March 2018, when it was clear the
City would need a complete victory at trial in order to preserve
the ability to enforce reasonable regulations on group home
operators.  After a four-week trial before the Honorable James
Selna, the eight person jury returned a unanimous verdict on all
counts for the City of Costa Mesa. Jennifer Keller and Chase
Scolnick were co-lead counsel and Anand Sambhwani was second chair,
backed by Michael Schachter and Nahal Kazemi.

In Christina Chavez v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
after deliberations following a 12-day trial, a jury in Los Angeles
Superior Court found that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.
("MassMutual") did not improperly withhold dividends from a class
of hundreds of term life insurance policyholders.  The jury sided
with the insurer and found that the policies in question never
generated enough profit to warrant dividends under the policy
agreements.  The jury rejected named plaintiff Christina Chavez's
claims that the insurer had breached its contracts with hundreds of
people who had purchased participating 20-year term life insurance,
or T20G policies, from 2000 to 2004 in the Los Angeles area.
Jennifer Keller and Jesse Gessin led the firm's trial team.

Contact:

Kay Anderle
Managing Partner
Keller/Anderle LLP
Address: 18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 930
Irvine, California 92612-1057
Ph. 949.476.8700
Fax 949.476.0900  
kanderle@kelleranderle.com
www.kelleranderle.com [GN]


CPI CARD: New York Court Tosses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court in the case
entitled, In Re CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.), has entered an order and final judgment
dismissing the case, in its entirety, with prejudice.   

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") against CPI, certain of its former officers and
current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the
financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s
October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO").

The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO, asserted claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and sought, among other things, damages and
costs.

In particular, the complaints alleged that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard and
VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV(R) cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV(R) card inventory
levels; and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV(R) cards in
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The complaints alleged that these actions artificially inflated the
price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On October 17, 2016,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting
the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act. The amended complaint was based principally on the
same theories as the original complaints, but added allegations
that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk
disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers'
slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV(R) technology and (ii)
increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV(R)
market.

On September 21, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation and
agreement of settlement ("Stipulation") to resolve the claims
asserted in the amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Court
granted lead plaintiff's motion for authorization to notify the
settlement class of the proposed settlement.  

After distribution of the notice to the class and a final
settlement hearing on February 5, 2019, the Court entered orders on
February 6, 2019: (i) approving the proposed settlement; and (ii)
granting in part lead plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees and
expenses. On February 25, 2019, the Court entered an order and
final judgment dismissing the case, in its entirety, with
prejudice.

CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
design, production, data personalization, packaging, and
fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through U.S.
Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and Other segments. CPI Card
Group Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Littleton,
Colorado.


CREDIT COLLECTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Riccio Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Frank Riccio filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Frank Riccio v. Credit Collection Services, Case
No. 3-17-cv-08889, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Frank Riccio v. Credit
Collection Services, Case No. 19-1500, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK RICCIO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES is represented by:

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2765
          E-mail: amschwartz@mdwcg.com


CVR REFINING: Wong Suit Asserts Stock Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------
Billy F.B. Wong and Stephanie Gordon, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVR Refining GP, LLC, CVR
Energy, Inc. and Icahn Enterprises, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
2019-0103, (Del. Ch., February 11, 2019), seeks redress for breach
of contract, tortious interference and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing for alleged depression of
trading prices of partnership's units and acquisition of all
minority units at an artificially deflated price in violation of
the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership.

CVRR is an independent downstream energy limited partnership with
refining and related logistics assets that operates in the
mid-continent region.

The General Partnership and its affiliates allegedly manipulated
CVRR's common unit price by disclosing that it was considering
exercising its purchase right, causing the Partnership's unit price
to decline.

Plaintiffs held CVRR common units that were seized for grossly
inadequate value.  They had owned CVRR common units continuously
since 2013. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      Kelly M. Purcaro, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West – Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      Email: psp@njlawfirm.com
             kmp@njlawfirm.com

             - and -

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


DABECCA NATURAL: Parker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------
Danielle Parker and Craig Reed, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dabecca Natural Foods,
Inc., Case No. 2019CH01845 (Ill. Cir., February 13, 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.

Parker and Reeds worked for Dabecca at its Illinois facility. They
were required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. Plaintiffs alleges that Dabecca 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


DEL FRISCO'S: Matzura Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MATZURA AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. DEL FRISCO'S OF NEW YORK, LLC D/B/A DEL FRISCO'S, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02046 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

Del Frisco's of New York, LLC, doing business as Del Frisco's, is a
domestic limited liability company registered to do business in the
state of New York with its principal executive offices in Irving,
Texas.

The Defendant operates Del Frisco's restaurants, as well as the Del
Frisco's Web site and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or
sells food and other products at its restaurants in the state of
New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 879-0240
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


DEPOP INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
---------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Depop, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01350
(S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights
Law.

Depop is a clothing, shoes and accessories retailer that operates
DEPOP stores in New York, including its store in New York City. It
offers the commercial website, www.DEPOP.com, that allow consumers
to access store locations and hours, purchase store products online
for pickup or delivery, including shoes and related products.
Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


DISH DBS: Oral Argument in Krakauer Tentatively Set for May 7-9
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from a court
decision in the Krakauer Action has been tentatively calendared for
oral argument during the May 7-9, 2019 argument session.

On March 25, 2009, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH
Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States
Attorney General and several states in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC Action"),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as
analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws.  

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. On March 7,
2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment
as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which
the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
$61 million judgment in favor of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH
Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.    

The appeal has been tentatively calendared for oral argument during
the May 7-9, 2019 argument session.  

DISH DBS said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41
million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on
our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss). We recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related to
the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total
accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018 and
2017 was $61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on
our Consolidated Balance Sheets."   

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Portela Appeals D.N.J. Order to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Diego F. Portela filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Diego Portela v. Diversified Consultants Inc.,
Case No. 2-17-cv-03431, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2019, Judge
John Michael Vazquez granted DCI's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The matter involves alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the "FDCPA").  On Dec. 9, 2016, the Plaintiff
allegedly incurred a debt obligation to Verizon Wireless.  The debt
was then referred to DCI for collection.  When the debt was
referred to DCI, the Verizon obligation was past due and in
default.  In a letter dated Dec. 9, 2016, the Defendant wrote to
the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect payment for the debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Diego Portela v. Diversified
Consultants Inc., Case No. 19-1501, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DIEGO F. PORTELA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INC. is represented by:

          Andrew J. Blady, Esq.
          Ross Enders, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3682 Green Ridge Road
          Furlong, PA 18925
          Telephone: (267) 544-0840
          E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal
                  renders@sessions-law.biz

               - and -

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


ECCGP LLC: Kitchen Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Abilio Arriola and Porfirio Arriola Cruz, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ECCGP LLC,
Kefkarp Inc., FYSI35 Inc., Fotios Liberatos, Kostas Kantlis,
Dimitri Doe and Giovanna Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00849
(E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

ECCGP LLC, Kefkarp Inc. and FYSI35 Inc. operate as Greek Family
Kitchen and Souvlaki Square respectively, where Plaintiffs worked
as kitchen staff. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ELDER HOMECARE: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reatha Gonzales on behalf of herself and all others similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ELDER HOMECARE, INC. AND MIMI ANH-NGOC
TRAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00261-LY (W.D.
Tex., March 15, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit
against the Defendants.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Class Members by the hour,
but only paid straight time for all hours worked over forty per
week. As such, Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt Class Members overtime wages, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated provided care to the
Defendants' clients at their homes.

Defendants provide services to elderly residents in their
homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
     Moreland Verrett, PC
     2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


ELLIE MAE: Kent Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Thoma Bravo
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ELLIE MAE, INC., SIGMUND ANDERMAN, JONATHAN CORR, KAREN
BLASING, CARL BUCCELLATO, CRAIG DAVIS, A. BARR DOLAN, ROBERT J.
LEVIN, MARINA LEVINSON, JEB S. SPENCER, and RAJAT TANEJA, Case No.
1:19-cv-00473-UNA (D. Del., March 6, 2019), arises from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Ellie Mae will be acquired by EM
Eagle Purchaser, LLC and EM Eagle Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates
formed by Thoma Bravo Fund XIII, L.P.

On February 11, 2019, Ellie Mae's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Thoma
Bravo.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ellie Mae's
stockholders will receive $99 in cash for each share of Ellie Mae
common stock they hold.

The Plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Proposed Transaction omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading and in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Among other things, the Plaintiff contends,
the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to
calculate Adjusted EBITDA; (ii) all line items used to calculate
unlevered free cash flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

Ellie Mae is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Pleasanton, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Ellie Mae is a leading cloud-based platform provider for the
mortgage finance industry.  Founded in 1997, Ellie Mae's technology
solutions are used by lenders to originate and close residential
mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


EMC HOTELS: Harty Claims Website not Blind-friendly
---------------------------------------------------
Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EMC Hotels and Resorts LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01326 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates The Time Hotel in Rockland NY. It offers a
website that allows consumers to book rooms online. However, Harty
claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Sverd, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      225 Broadway, Suite 613
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (646) 751-8743
      Email: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com


EQT CORPORATION: Garfield Files Appeal in Suit v. Officers
----------------------------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed in Garfield, R. v. Porges, D.,
et. al. in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Feb. 20, 2019.

The case is captioned Robert Garfield, on Behalf of Himself and all
Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. David L. Porges; Vicky A.
Bailey; Philip G. Behrman, Ph.D.; Kenneth M. Burke; A. Bray Cary,
Jr.; Margaret K. Dorman; James E. Rohr; Steven T. Schlotterbeck;
Stephen A. Thorington; Lee T. Todd, Jr., Ph.D.; and Christine J.
Toretti, and EQT Corp., Defendant, Case No. 254 WDA 2019.

Mr. David L. Porges, also known as Dave, served as Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer of EQT Corporation since
March 15, 2018 until 2018.

EQT Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
pipeline transport company headquartered in EQT Plaza in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Appellant is represented by:

     Kravec, Joseph N., Jr., Esq.
     Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC
     429 Fourth Ave, Ste 1300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-8400

The Appellees are represented by:

     Allen, Thomas Lee, Esq.
     Reed Smith LLP
     225 5TH Ave Ste 1200
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
     Phone: (412) 288-3066

          - and -

     Rockney, James Louis, Jr., Esq.
     Reed Smith LLP
     225 5TH Ave Ste 1200
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
     Phone: (412) 288-4046


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Fees and Expenses Resolved in Parshall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation, have resolved
the plaintiff's counsel's claim for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.  

On February 13, 2018, an alleged class action complaint was filed
by a purported stockholder of First Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Parshall v.
First BancTrust Corporation (Case No. 1:18- cv-00218) against the
Company, Merger Sub, First Bank and members of First Bank's board
of directors (the "Lawsuit").

The Lawsuit related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of December 11, 2017 (as amended by the First Amendment to
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of January 18, 2018),
among the Company, Merger Sub and First Bank and the merger
contemplated thereby (the "Merger").

Among other things, the Lawsuit alleged that the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by the Company on January
22, 2018 failed to disclose allegedly material information relating
to the Company's and First Bank's financial projections, the
analyses performed by First Bank's financial advisor, and alleged
potential conflicts of interest of First Bank's officers, directors
and financial advisor. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, to
enjoin the Merger from proceeding.

The Company believes that the factual allegations in the Lawsuit
were without merit.

On March 9, 2018, in order to moot plaintiff's disclosure claims,
reduce the expenses, burdens, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger, in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the
Lawsuit and dismiss his claims with prejudice, the Company and
First Bank made additional supplemental disclosures to the proxy
statement/prospectus related to the Merger that was first mailed to
stockholders of First Bank on or about February 9, 2018.

The agreement between the parties did not release or otherwise
prejudice any potential claims of any member of the putative class
other than the plaintiff and did not constitute any admission by
any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims.

In January 2019, the parties resolved the plaintiff's counsel's
claim for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to a
confidential settlement agreement.

First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides community banking products and services to commercial,
retail, and agricultural customers in the United States. First
Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. was incorporated in 1981 and is
headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois.


FLEX PHARMA: Rumaldo Agrees to Drop Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Flex Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the case, Teofilina Rumaldo v.
Flex Pharma, Inc., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 19, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain of its current executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Teofilina Rumaldo v. Flex Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-05493.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the company's common stock between November 6, 2017 and
June 12, 2018. The complaint generally alleged that the company and
certain of its current officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the company’s
business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company overstated the
viability and approval prospects for its product candidate FLX-787
for the treatment of MND and CMT and, as a result, the company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

This case was voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, on December
10, 2018.  

Flex Pharma, Inc., a biotechnology company, develops and
commercializes products for the treatment of muscle cramps, spasms,
and spasticity associated with neurological conditions and
exercise-associated muscle cramps in the United States. It operates
in two segments, Consumer Operations and Drug Development. Flex
Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.  


FORJAS TAURUS: Burrow Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM BURROW, OMA LOUISE
BURROW, SUZANNE M. BEDWELL, individually and as mother and next
friend Class Action of R.Z.B., a minor, and ERNEST D. BEDWELL,
individually and as father and next friend of R.Z.B., a minor v.
FORJAS TAURUS S.A. and BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL, L.C., Case No.
1:16-cv-21606-EGT (S.D. Fla.), move the Court for Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement, and approval of the Notice Program
intended to provide notice of the Settlement to potential Class
Members, as well as other relief incidental to the Settlement and
in furtherance of enabling the Court to conduct a Final Approval
Hearing and approve the Settlement Agreement.

In particular, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter an order:

   1. holding that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
      Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted;

   2. holding that the Settlement Agreement is Preliminarily
      Approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable to the
      Settlement Class, and within the reasonable range of
      possible final approval;

   3. holding that the Parties have shown that the Court will
      likely approve the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule
      23(e)(2) and certify the Settlement Class for purposes of
      judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, such
      that giving of notice to all Settlement Class Members who
      would be bound by the Settlement Agreement is justified;

   4. approving the Notice Program as the best notice practicable
      under the circumstances, and as meeting the requirements of
      due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   5. directing that Notice be provided to the Settlement Class
      in accordance with the Notice Program;

   6. establishing the procedure for Settlement Class Members to
      object to final approval of the Settlement Agreement or for
      Persons to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class,
      and setting the Opt-Out and Objection Deadline;

   7. approving the suggested form Notice of Opt-Out, provided
      that potential Settlement Class Members need not use the
      suggested form and may opt-out by providing the information
      required in another form;

   8. approving the method of providing the Enhanced Warranty
      Service and the claim process provided for in the
      Settlement Agreement for submitting Claim Forms and
      determining whether Persons qualify as Validated Claimants;

   9. barring and preliminarily enjoining all Settlement Class
      Members, directly, on a representative basis or in any
      other capacity, from commencing, prosecuting, intervening
      in, or participating as a plaintiff or class member in any
      action, arbitration, or proceeding in any court,
      arbitration forum or tribunal asserting any of the Released
      Claims against any of the Released Parties, pending final
      determination of whether the Settlement Agreement should be
      approved;

  10. staying all proceedings in this civil action except those
      related to approval and effectuation of the Settlement
      Agreement, pending final determination of whether the
      Agreement should be approved;

  11. approving and appointing Epiq Class Action & Claims
      Solutions to serve as Claims Administrator, with Hilsoft
      Notifications (a business unit of Epiq) serving as Notice
      Provider, to perform the tasks as set forth in the
      Settlement Agreement and execute the Class Notice and
      authorizing and approving Braztech's role in the claims
      process as provided for in Part III(C)(2) of the Settlement
      Agreement;

  12. holding that no discovery (except for reasonable
      confirmatory discovery requested by Class Counsel) with
      regard to the Settlement Agreement or its implementation
      shall be permitted by any prospective Settlement Class
      Member or any other Person, other than as may be directed
      by the Court upon a proper showing seeking permission to
      conduct such discovery by motion filed with the Court,
      noticed, and served in accordance with applicable rules
      and procedures;

  13. scheduling a hearing on Final Approval of the Agreement;
      and

  14. suthorizing and approving Defendants continuing the Early
      Warning Program and beginning to provide the Enhanced
      Warranty Service prior to Final Approval and approving the
      evidentiary preclusion provided for in Part IV(B) of the
      Settlement Agreement.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Brannon J. Buck, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Brockwell, Esq.
          BROCKWELL SMITH LLC
          2100 1st Avenue North, Suite 300
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 800-8505
          E-mail: greg@Brockwellsmith.com

               - and -

          Chris Bataille, Esq.
          FLANIGAN & BATAILLE
          1007 W. 3rd Ave., Suite 206
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 279-9999
          Facsimile: (907) 258-3804
          E-mail: cbataille@farnorthlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew F. Knopf, Esq.
          PAUL KNOPF BIGGER
          840 South Denning Dr., Suite 200
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 622-2111
          E-mail: andrew@pkblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Vincent Swiney, Esq.
          SWINEY & BELLENGER, LLC
          2910 Linden Ave., Suite 201
          Homewood, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 236-6735
          E-mail: jvs@sblaw.net


FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Kanugonda Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that a lead plaintiff has been
appointed in the class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, et
al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v.
Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Plaintiff Carl Berkelhammer's
Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Selection of Lead and Liaison.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in King County
-------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities
Litigation in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.  

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering (IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et. al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et. al (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors,
ACON, Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2015, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.  

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko,
Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On May 21,
2018 the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on June 12,
2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the
company moved to dismiss that action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on October 31, 2018,
and the company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on
November 30, 2018.  

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GLASSMAN AUTO: Installers Claim Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Cline and Jeremy Meade, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glassman Auto Repair, LLC and
Matt Stone, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00043, (S.D.
Ohio, February 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
including overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Glassman specializes in auto glass replacement and repairs where
Cline and Meade worked as installers. Glassman failed to pay them
for the hours in excess of 40 they worked in a workweek, including
premium pay for the overtime hours worked, saya the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
      Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
      GIBSON LAW, LLC
      9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
      Cincinnati, OH 45242
      Tel: (513) 834-8254
      Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Adeptus Health Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 a class
certification motion has been pending in in the consolidated class
action related to the sale of Adeptus Health securities.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include certain former directors and
officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus'
sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and
the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock
in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock
in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $184 million, and all the shares of common stock
in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On
September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted
as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings but denied as to the
July 2015 and June 2016 offerings.

On September 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint to remove the dismissed claims. On December 7, 2018,
plaintiffs moved for class certification.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces 1MDB-Related Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
is facing a putative securities suit in New York regarding the
company's disclosure concerning the scandal in 1Malaysia
Development Berhad or 1MDB, an insolvent Malaysian strategic
development company, wholly owned by that country's Minister of
Finance .

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain current and former officers
of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the
Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning
1MDB and seeking unspecified damages.

The firm is cooperating with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
all other governmental and regulatory investigations relating to
1MDB. Proceedings by the DOJ or other governmental or regulatory
authorities could result in the imposition of significant fines,
penalties and other sanctions against the firm, including
restrictions on the firm's activities.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Forex-Related Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 in litigation involving the sales of
foreign currency exchange instruments.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the Company ("Group Inc.")
are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleged a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserted claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead
was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted
as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

On November 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under various state antitrust
laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking treble damages
in an unspecified amount.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on November 7, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached
with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in two
putative class actions filed in the district court of the Central
District in Israel on behalf of direct purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments.

The complaints, filed on September 11, 2018 and September 29, 2018,
respectively, generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate prices of
foreign exchange instruments. The second putative class action also
asserts claims based on misuse of the "last look" features of
foreign exchange trading systems.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
district court has stayed the proceedings in a securities class
action pending an appellate court's decision.  

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for
summary judgment.

On December 11, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted
the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court’s August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On January
23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings in the district
court pending the appellate court's decision.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Approved in Cobalt Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 approved a settlement of the claims against the Goldman Sachs
defendants related to the sale of securities of Cobalt
International Energy, Inc.

The Company (Group Inc.), certain former directors of Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), who were designated by
affiliates of Group Inc., and GS&Co. are among defendants in a
putative securities class action relating to certain offerings of
Cobalt's securities, and are among the parties that have reached a
settlement.

On February 13, 2019, the court approved a settlement of the claims
against the Goldman Sachs defendants. The firm has paid its full
contribution to the settlement fund.  

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HARD TACK: Naiman Files Suits Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hard Tack, Inc.; and
National Motor Club of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01738-ESW (D. Ariz., March 15, 2019) is an action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute
enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

In violation of the TCPA, National Motor hired the co-defendant
Hard Tack, who made telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone
number of Mr. Naiman for the purposes of advertising National Motor
goods and services using an automated dialing system and a
pre-recorded message, which is prohibited by the TCPA.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were
placed to him for telemarketing purposes, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Naiman is a resident of Arizona in this District.

National Motor Club of America, Inc. is a corporate entity formed
under the laws of the State of Alaska.

Hard Tack, Inc. is a corporate entity registered in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
     Kent Law Offices
     3219 E Camelback Rd #588
     Phoenix, AZ 85018
     Phone: (480) 247-9644
     Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
     Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com

          - and -

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


HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys "R" Us Disclosure Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro, 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 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action lawsuit over the
company's alleged misleading statements with the financial
condition of Toys"R"Us, Inc.

On or about September 28, 2018, a putative securities class action
complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the
company's officers and/or directors (the "Defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all
purchasers of Hasbro common stock between April 24, 2017 and
October 23, 2017, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that
Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys"R"Us,
Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial impact
on the Company's business of economic conditions in the United
Kingdom and Brazil.

Defendants deny liability and intend to vigorously defend the
action.

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

Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play
and entertainment company. The company's U.S. and Canada segment
markets and sells action figures, arts and crafts, and creative
play products; electronic toys and related electronic interactive
products; fashion and other dolls, infant products, play sets,
preschool toys, plush products, and sports action blasters and
accessories; and vehicles and toy-related specialty products, as
well as traditional board games, and trading card and role-playing
games primarily in the United States and Canada. Hasbro, Inc. was
founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.


HAUDENOSAUNEE DEV'T: Ordered to Pay $15K to Class Action Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nahnda Garlow, writing for Two Row Times, reports that a Hamilton
judge has ordered the defendants to pay $15,500 in costs to Bill
Monture and Wilf Davey in a putative class action that is now
moving towards certification.

Justice Lococo issued his decision on January 7, 2019 and ordered
Haudenosaunee Development Institute, Hazel Hill, Brian Doolittle,
Aaron Detlor, the HDI's Ontario Corporation 2438543 Ontario Inc,
Ogwawista Dedwahsnye Inc. and Elvera Garlow to make payment by
February 7, 2019. Lawyer for Davey and Monture, Jeffrey Kaufman,
told TRT the payment was received late on March 5. Now, he says,
the case will proceed toward a motion for certification as a class
action.

In his decision from September 12, 2018 Justice Lococo writes that
the plaintiffs are seeking $50 million in damages for the proposed
class members, referred to in the claim as "the Haudenosaunee
People". Justice Lococo gave a decision verifying that the claims
being made by Davey and Monture have merit to come before the
courts. HDI's lawyers sought to have the case tossed but were
unsuccessful.

Justice Lococo disagreed writing in his judgment that he does not
agree "that it is plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claim has
no reasonable chance for success". None of the claims have been
proven in court, however it is now potentially on its way to
becoming a class action suit. Justice Lococo said that four items;
breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent or fraudulent
misrepresentation and oppression have tenability to be argued in
the case.

Claims in the lawsuit allege a breach of fiduciary duty by Elvera
Garlow with her role in HDI's federal financial management
corporation known as Ogwawista Dedwahsnye Inc. According to
Corporations Canada, Ogwawista is listed as a not-for-profit
corporation with three original founding board members: Elvera
Garlow, Colin Martin and Lousie Hill. Martin signed the documents
in the articles of incorporation as the incorporator.

In 2017, Hill left the board and Kelly MacNaughton was listed as
her replacement. The board changed again in 2018 with the departure
of Garlow and new member Myka Burning added to the federal
corporation. HCCC's lawyer Aaron Detlor is also being sued in the
case for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Justice Lococo writes the plaintiffs claim Mr. Detlor was retained
by the HCCC to act as their lawyer with respect to development
projects on Haudenosaunee land and that Detlor had a responsibility
to act in good faith. The plaintiffs say they suffered damages as a
result of Mr. Detlor breeching that contract. Additional claims
against the HDI and its officials allege the numbered company,
Ogwawista and the individual directors engaged in fraudulent
misrepresentation of the Haudenosaunee people and have added an
additional claim of Oppression.

The relief from oppression claim is specifically against 2438543
Ontario Inc. under the Ontario Business Corporations Act — which
protects an entities shareholders against prejudice and prevents
corporations from disregarding their interests.

The plaintiffs say all of the Haudenosaunee people are shareholders
according to the corporations construction, and that they relied on
the defendants to "protect the rights of the class but instead, the
defendants misappropriated the funds." [GN]


HCP OXFORD: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCP Oxford OBG Felix
Sub-Tenant, LLC. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCP Oxford
OBG Felix Sub-Tenant, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01870 (N.D.
Ill., Mar. 18, 2019).

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

Hcp Oxford Obg Felix Sub-Tenant, LLC (trade name Hotel Felix) is in
the Resort Hotel business.[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


HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Appeal in Adelphia Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the company has
taken an appeal from the Circuit Court's grant of class
certification in the case entitled, Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village
Auto and Dan's One Stop Shop, LLC v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc.
and Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC

The Company is currently defending a putative class action lawsuit,
Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village Auto and Dan's One Stop Shop, LLC v.
Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. and Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC, Case
No. 15-L-386, in the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit in Kane County, Illinois, alleging that the Company charged
fees in violation of both its contracts and applicable state laws.


The case involves claims brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., as
well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The
case has been brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
customers of HCC who entered into a written contract and have paid
a fuel surcharge from 2005 to present.

The Circuit Court granted Plaintiffs' request for class
certification on August 28, 2018.

Heritage-Crystal Clean said, "We have petitioned the Illinois Court
of Appeals for an interlocutory appeal of this order. It was
granted and we are proceeding with the appellant process. As of
December 29, 2018, no liability was accrued related to this
lawsuit."

Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., through its subsidiary,
Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC, provides parts cleaning, and hazardous
and non-hazardous containerized waste services to small and
mid-sized customers in the vehicle maintenance and manufacturing
services industries in North America. It operates in two segments,
Environmental Services and Oil Business. Heritage-Crystal Clean,
Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Elgin,
Illinois.


HESKA CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Fauley Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by Shaun Fauley has been approved by the
court.

On October 10, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the complaint that was filed against the Company by Shaun
Fauley on March 12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Illinois alleging the company's transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action.

The settlement, which was approved by the court on February 28,
2019, will require the company, among other things, to make
available a total of $6.75 million to pay class members, as well as
to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to legal counsel to the class.


The Company has recorded an estimated loss provision of
approximately $7.0 million in 2018 in connection with the
settlement agreement and expenses associated with the matter, which
is included in general and administrative expenses in the
Consolidated Statements of Income. The Company does not have
insurance coverage for the Fauley Complaint.

Heska Corporation manufactures, sells, and markets veterinary
diagnostic and specialty products for canine and feline healthcare
markets in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
The company was formerly known as Paravax, Inc. and changed its
name to Heska Corporation in 1995. Heska Corporation was founded in
1988 and is headquartered in Loveland, Colorado.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the case
entitled, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise, is still stayed.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017,
three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen
additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration.

On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin.

The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been
resolved. The parties submitted an update to the Forsyth court on
February 28, 2019 on the status of additional opt-in plaintiffs who
were required to arbitrate their claims. The Forsyth class action
remains stayed.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the class
action suit entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise, has been stayed by the court.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to bring the
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017.

On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the
federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia.
Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition.

On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and
struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the
appropriate venue.

On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On
August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit
in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the
court.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Ross and Rogus
v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Santa Clara County alleging that Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
(HPE) pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.

The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for March 15, 2019.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Wall Suit Granted Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the court in
the case, Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc.,
has issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and
setting a hearing for September 27, 2019, to confirm that the
settlement distributions have been made.

This certified California class action and Private Attorney General
Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17,
2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed
against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016.
The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive
compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.

On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without
prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class
certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018
trial date was vacated following the parties' notification to the
court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the
dispute.

The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement
agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.

On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and setting a hearing for September 27,
2019 to confirm that the settlement distributions have been made. A
Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food
----------------------------------------------
Kelly Bone, Christina Sawyer and Janine Buckley, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill's
Pet Nutrition, Inc., Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., And John
Does 1-10,, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00831, (E.D. N.Y., February
11, 2019), seek monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's to pull
out all potentially toxic products from shelves, redress for breach
of contract, duties and covenants of good faith and fair dealing
and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York
General Business Law and various state consumer protection laws.

Hill's manufactures and sells pet food at veterinary clinics and
pet retailers across the United States, including specialty dog
foods. It has allegedly manufactured, sold and warranted Specialty
Dog Foods containing toxic and often fatal levels of vitamin D that
can cause symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite, increased
thirst, increased urination, excessive drooling, and weight loss,
and can lead to serious health issues in dogs including renal
dysfunction and failure and death. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
      TUSA P.C.
      P.O. Box 566
      Southold, NY 11971
      Tel. (631) 407-5100
      Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

             - and –

      TUSA P.C.
      150 Motor Parkway, Ste. 401
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Tel. (631) 407-5100

             - and -

      Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
      John Scheflow, Esq.
      Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
      Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 782 4880
      Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
             jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com
             jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
             nrasche@caffertyclobes.com


HP INC: 189 Plaintiffs Opt in Forsyth Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2019, that the opt-ins in Forsyth, et al. v. HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, now has a total number of 189
plaintiffs.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a nationwide collective
class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents
employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant
to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and
who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also originally
sought to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised
of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the
state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or
after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were
added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the
putative nationwide ADEA collective action should be shortened and
now starts, at the earliest, on December 9, 2014.

The plaintiffs also agreed that the class period for the putative
California state law class action should be shortened and now
starts on August 18, 2012. On January 30, 2017, the defendants
filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel
arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the
defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a
number of the opt-in plaintiffs.

On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements, denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice,
stayed the action and administratively closed the case pending the
completion of the compelled arbitrations. On November 30, 2017,
three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single
arbitration demand. An additional arbitration claimant was added
later by stipulation.

On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to: (1) stay
the claims of individuals not subject to arbitration and (2) enjoin
the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a
separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the Court granted
the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin.

Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings took place on October 4 and
5, 2018, and the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were
resolved.

Between November 2018 and February 2019, an additional 150
individuals filed consents to opt‐in to the action as
party‐plaintiffs, many of whom signed separation agreements that
include class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The
addition of these opt-ins brings the total number of plaintiffs to
189. The stay of the litigation remains in place.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: April 25 Final Approval Hearing in Printer Firmware Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2019, that a final hearing  to consider approval
of the settlement in the case entitled, In re HP Printer Firmware
Update Litigation, is scheduled for April 25, 2019.

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some
third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of
the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases were consolidated
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation.


The remaining plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed
on February 15, 2018, alleging 11 causes of action: (1) unfair and
unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) fraudulent
business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of the
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et
seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code
Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Section 19.86.010, et
seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New
Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, et seq.; (9)
violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act,
Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11)
Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective
Economic Advantage.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive
relief class of "all persons in California who own a Class Printer"
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute and a class of "all persons in the United States who
purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while
using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between
March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017" under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels.

On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection
statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual
relations and/or prospective economic advantage.

The court also dismissed in part the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
under the California consumer protection statutes and computer
hacking claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The court denied
HP's motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claim for
trespass to chattels and claim under the "unlawful" prong of the
California unfair competition statute.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of the
dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific
subsections of that statute.

On September 18, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss all claims against HP in exchange for a $1.5 million
payment to the class and an agreement that HP would not reinstall
the authentication protocol on the printers at issue. The
settlement is subject to the approval of the court.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted by the court on November 19, 2018.
Notice of the settlement was given to the class beginning on
January 7, 2019, and class members will have 120 days in which to
opt out of or object to the settlement. A final approval hearing is
scheduled for April 25, 2019.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HYUNDAI: Class Action Over Brake Defect Can't Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a consumer's suit alleging a brake defect in
Hyundai's Santa Fe SUVs can't be certified as a class action
because she hasn't adequately proved the commonality of the alleged
damages suffered. [GN]


KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Nelson Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Knishka Restaurant Associates
Inc., d/b/a Akbar Restaurant, and Pradeep Malhotra and Meena
Malhotra, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. CV-19-1476 (E.D.
N.Y., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants to
recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs employment at the
Defendant's restaurant.

Although Plaintiff Jose Nelson Ramirez worked approximately 72 or
more hours per week during his employment by Defendants, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, says the complaint.

Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to keep accurate payroll
records, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Jose Nelson Ramirez was employed by Defendants from in or
around March 2007 until in or around October 2018.

Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc., d/b/a Akbar Restaurant, is a
corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kcw Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591


KPA STUDIO: Jin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JINHUA JIN, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. KPA STUDIO, INC.; AEG PAYROLL
PROCESSING CENTER NO. 58, INC.; APPLIED UNDERWRITING, INC.; JIHAN
"ERIC" KIM, in his official and Individual capacities; "CHRIS"
JIHONG KIM, in his official and individual capacities, Case No.
1:19-cv-01317 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
premiums and other wages she earned but which the Defendants failed
to pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

KPA Studio, Inc., is a New York corporation engaged in providing
integrated architectural metal and glass building facade design,
engineering, fabrication and installation services for construction
projects located throughout New York.  KPA has maintained a place
of business in Richmond Hill, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are officers of KPA.

AEG Payroll Processing Center No. 58, Inc., is a Nebraska
corporation engaged in providing payroll preparation and related
tax administration and reporting services as the payroll agent for
companies around the country, including KPA.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation engaged in
providing payroll preparation and related tax administration and
reporting services as the payroll agent for companies around the
country, including KPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B. Gilly, Esq.
          SCOTT BROWNING GILLY, P.L.L.C.
          510 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 319-9556


LABOR NETWORK: Cruz Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Cruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Labor Network Personnel Services, Inc. and
Aryzta, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00858, (N.D. Ill., February
11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, state
law statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Labor Network provides laborers to client companies in Illinois.
Cruz was assigned to work at its client, Aryzta Bakeries, at Clover
Hill, Chicago IL.  He claims that he was not compensated for all
time worked and failed to pay him premium overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121

             - and -

      Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
      FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 784-3541
      Email: litigation@flapillinois.org


LASSENS NATURAL: Caballero Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Caballero individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins,
LLC, a limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 13, 2019) is action against the Defendant for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal
periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
for all hours worked (including overtime and double-time wages),
failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods, failed
to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest
periods, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff
worked, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when
Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish
accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in Los
Angeles County, California as a deli employee from approximately
August 2017 to October 2018.

Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business,
and establishment within the State of California, including Los
Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
            allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


LVNV FUNDING: Court Refuses to Approve Elliott Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca Grady Jennings denied without prejudice the Joint
Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement filed by the parties
in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY ELLIOTT v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00675-RGJ-LLK (W.D. Ky.).

Plaintiff Anthony Elliott brings this action against LVNV seeking
relief for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Proposed Settlement would create two classes "Class I:
Prejudgment Court Costs Class" and "Class II: Judgment Lien Filing
Fee and Garnishment Fee Class" (the "Prejudgment Class" and
"Post-Judgment Class," respectively).  Class I encompasses those
against whom LVNV sought to collect "prejudgment court costs."
Class II encompasses those against whom LVNV tried to collect a
"post-judgment filing fee paid by LVNV to file a 'Notice of
Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate'" and/or a "post-judgment
garnishment fee."

The Proposed Settlement also details the benefits that the two
Classes would receive.  Class I members would receive an amount
equal to the "prejudgment court costs" LVNV has collected, or
sought to collect, from them, either in the form of a credit to
their account with LVNV, or, if they no longer have an account with
LVNV, in cash.  Class I members would also receive another $75 in
statutory damages.

Class II members would receive the same benefit, an amount equal to
the "prejudgment court costs" that LVNV has collected, or sought to
collect, from them, as well as the added $75 in statutory damages.

In her order, Judge Jennings opines that the Proposed Settlement is
not fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Judge Jennings notes that
Class II is not composed of individuals on whom LVNV imposed
prejudgment costs, it is made up of individuals on whom LVNV
imposed post-judgment fees.

"Thus, as written, the Proposed Settlement provides Class II
members with only the $75.00 statutory award received by members of
both classes, while Class I members would receive that $75.00
statutory award and an additional award based on the actual damages
they suffered.  And while Class II members would receive minimal
benefit from the Proposed Settlement, they are subject to the same
release of claims as Class I members," Judge Jennings rules.

A telephonic status conference is scheduled for April 9, 2019, at
11:00 a.m.[CC]


MARINA'S BAKERY: Brito Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Brito, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Marina's Bakery Corp., Margarito Gonzalez and Sergio
Gonzalez, in their individual and professional capacities,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00828 (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018),
seeks minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own and operate two restaurants and bakeries in Staten
Island, New York, both named "Marina's Bakery." Defendants
allegedly paid their employees below the applicable State minimum
wage and never paid them overtime compensation or spread of hours
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
      Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
      Patrick J. Collopy, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 983-9330
      Fax: (212) 983-9331
      Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
             ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
             pcollopy@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey L. Olshansky, Esq.
      S. Tito Sinha, Esq.
      COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
      123 William St, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Phone: (646) 923-8315
      Fax: (212) 533-4598
      E-mail: jolshansky@urbanjustice.org
              tsinha@urbanjustice.org


MDL 2545: Kilpatrick Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
James F. Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that there are two ways to beat a class action -- defeat
class certification or defeat the class claims on the merits.
Individual RICO actions tend to be complex and expensive to defend,
and they increase a defendant's exposure, given that RICO's civil
remedies include treble damages and fee-shifting.  RICO class
actions only add to the complexity, expense, and exposure.
Accordingly, defendants in RICO class actions usually seek the
dismissal of civil RICO claims at the earliest opportunity.  Recent
decisions in RICO class actions against pharmaceutical companies
demonstrate how this strategy plays out.

In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability
Litigation

In a prior post [RICO class actions: To win certification, the RICO
claims must be driven by defendant-specific and not class-member
specific evidence; otherwise, individualized issues predominate],
we reported on the denial of class certification of a putative RICO
class action in the case In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545, Case Nos. 14 C 1748,
14 C 8857, 2018 WL 3586182 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2018) ("MMO III").
In that MDL proceeding, which was consolidated in federal court in
the Northern District of Illinois, thousands of individuals
asserted personal injury claims against a number of defendants,
consisting of manufacturers, promoters, and sellers of testosterone
replacement therapy (TRT) drugs.  The individual plaintiffs claimed
that use of TRT drugs caused serious personal injuries, such as
"cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic injuries."  Id. at *1.
One of the plaintiffs in the MDL, however, was Medical Mutual of
Ohio (MMO), an insurer and third-party payor (TPP) seeking to
represent a nationwide class of TPPs.  MMO claimed that the TPPs
suffered financial harm as the result of the defendants' fraudulent
marketing schemes, by reimbursing medically unnecessary or even
harmful TRT prescriptions.  

MMO's original complaint was 434 pages long and alleged a number of
nationwide schemes to defraud.  It identified 23 defendants and
sorted them into 7 different groups.  As for the civil RICO claims,
the complaint alleged a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as well
as a claim for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).  

The defendants moved to dismiss, including for lack of standing and
for failure to state a claim.  The district court largely denied
this motion, ruling that MMO had Article III standing to bring the
RICO claims, that MMO had sufficiently alleged RICO proximate
cause, and that MMO had sufficiently alleged a RICO conspiracy.
But the district court agreed that the fraud-based predicate acts
(mail and wire fraud) had not been alleged with sufficient
particularity and gave MMO the opportunity to submit an amended
complaint.  Ultimately, some of MMO's RICO claims were allowed to
proceed, and the case moved into the class certification discovery
phase.  See In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab.
Litig., 159 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ("MMO I"), and In re
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 14 C
1748, 14 C 8857, MDL No. 2545, 2016 WL 4091620 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2,
2016) ("MMO II").

After class discovery, MMO moved for class certification.  But the
district court denied MMO's motion for class certification,
concluding that individualized issues predominated, because the
evidence going to the key issues of exposure to and reliance on the
alleged fraud -- the evidence critical to a showing of RICO
proximate cause -- required class-member by class-member proof.
MMO III, 2018 WL 3586182.  

In a later ruling granting defendants' motion for summary judgment
on MMO's individual RICO claims, the district court dismissed the
claims on the merits, ruling on the basis of detailed summary
judgment evidence that no reasonable jury could find that MMO
relied on the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and,
therefore, no reasonable jury could find that defendants' alleged
fraud proximately caused MMO's alleged RICO injury -- the
reimbursement of TRT prescriptions.  In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545,
Case Nos. 14 C 1748, 14 C 8857, 2019 WL 652217 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 14,
2019) ("MMO IV").

In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation

In another RICO case against pharmaceutical companies, In re:
Insulin Pricing Litigation, Case No. 3:17-cv-0699-BRM-LHG, 2019 WL
643709 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2019), plaintiffs accused the defendants of
engaging in a scheme to inflate the price of insulin products.  The
first case was filed in the District of New Jersey and was later
consolidated with 5 other class actions.  Ultimately, a First
Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of 67 individuals seeking to
represent a nationwide class of insulin consumers.

The pharmaceutical companies moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.  The district court denied the motion in substantial
part, ruling that plaintiffs adequately alleged RICO predicate
acts, a RICO enterprise, proximate causation, and a RICO
conspiracy.  But the RICO claim fell short in one key respect –
the indirect purchaser rule.  The plaintiffs did not buy insulin
products directly from the pharmaceutical companies.  Indeed,
"Plaintiffs [were] multiple purchasers down the distribution chain
from Defendants and [were] quintessential indirect purchasers for
the purposes of the indirect purchaser rule."  2019 WL 643709, at
*9.  Because plaintiffs did not and could not allege that they
purchased the insulin products directly from the defendants, their
claims were subject to dismissal without prejudice for lack of
standing, as per the indirect purchaser rule established by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the antitrust cases Illinois Brick Co. v.
Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) and Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc.,
497 U.S. 199 (1998).

These putative RICO class actions advanced creative and complicated
RICO allegations against pharmaceutical companies.  The defendants,
however, were ultimately able to expose the soft underbellies of
the RICO liability theories advanced in those cases.  Attorneys
defending RICO defendants -- especially in RICO class actions --
must always be looking for ways to win the dismissal of RICO
claims.  But, as especially demonstrated in In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, the path to
dismissal can be a long and difficult process. [GN]


METHUEN, MA: Police Superior Officers Union Files Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Duggan, writing for Valley Patriot, reports that the Methuen
Superior Officers Union has filed a wage violation grievance
against the city saying that; "The City of Methuen has, on an
ongoing and continuous  basis, and in an arbitrary manner violated
the provisions of the parties' CBA (contract) in effect from July
1, 2017 through June 20, 2020 as implemented by agreement under the
terms of the parties' MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) dated July
18, 2018, by failing to pay wages and other compensation to
bargaining unit members as required by the terms of the CBA, MOU,
and established practice. The actions of the city also violate
provisions of Massachusetts state law."

The grievance lists five counts against the city.

Union President Greg Gallant says that in addition to the wage
violation grievance they have also filed an unfair labor action
against the city for refusing to turn over records pertaining to
their wage violation. He related that the city actions have also
been discriminatory and punitive, stating the city has over the
last six months responded to a public records request, in which
they released their home addresses, social security numbers and
other personal information that is exempt from public release under
the state's public records law.

"Honestly, our union members did not want to take this action,"
Greg Gallant, president of the superior officers union told The
Valley Patriot late on March 6. "The city councils lack of
understanding in collective bargaining and Massachusetts Labor Law
has really forced our hand."

"The union demands that the city immediately and retroactively
abide by the terms of the CBA and make all bargaining unit members
whole, and also award any additional remedy provided for under
Massachusetts General Law, including treble (triple) damages as
provided by the Massachusetts Wage Act. [GN]


MICHIANA CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Deceptive Act Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Stancombe, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that
Mishawaka car dealership failed to convince the Indiana Court of
Appeals that it was wrongly denied its motion to dismiss a class
action complaint from several angry customers after the panel found
general allegations of uncured and incurable acts against the
dealership were enough for dismissal.

In purchasing their respective vehicles from Michiana Chrysler Jeep
Dodge Ram Fiat, Tatiyana Sanders, Shalonda Vida and Robert Sheppard
alleged they were each charged with a document preparation fee that
was neither affirmatively disclosed nor negotiated. The customers
thus argued in a July 2017 class action complaint against Michiana
that the document fee exceeded actual expenses incurred for
preparation of the documents, and that other Michiana customers who
purchased cars in the two years prior had also been unfairly
charged.

Specifically, the buyers alleged Michiana's fee was an "unfair,
abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or practice in connection with
a consumer transaction" in violation of the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer Sales Act. However, the customers instead cited a
statutory provision from the Indiana Motor Vehicle Dealer Services
Act, Indiana Code section 9-32-13-7.

Michiana filed a motion to dismiss the customers' complaint,
arguing they had failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to the
Consumer Act and that they had no private right under I.C. section
9-32-13-7. Despite agreeing that they had no private cause of
action under their cited statute, the customers asserted the
reference was merely descriptive of an unfair consumer practice
prohibited by the Consumer Act.

Noting a catch-all provision broadly defining deceptive acts in the
Consumer Act permitted the claim of non-disclosure, the St. Joseph
Circuit Court denied Michiana's motion to dismiss and certified the
order for interlocutory appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the trial court correctly denied
Michiana's motion in Gasbi, LLC d/b/a Michiana Chrysler Dodge Jeep
Ram Fiat v. Tatiyana Sanders, et al.,18A-PL-1865, noting Michiana
was not justified on grounds that the consumers identified acts
already addressed by I.C. section 9-32-13-7 without providing a
private cause of action.

Additionally, the court found that in order to state a claim under
the Consumer Act, the consumers needed to allege Michiana committed
an uncured or incurable deceptive act. It also noted, however, that
the consumers' complaint relied on the premise that conduct that
would constitute a violation of I.C. Section 9-32-13-7 would also
be a deceptive act within the meaning of the Consumer Act.

"We find 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," Judge
L. Mark Bailey wrote for the court. "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 appellate court thus found the customers' complaint should not
be dismissed as long as it stated a set of allegations on which it
could be granted relief, "no matter how unartfully pleaded." [GN]


MIZUHO BANK: Lack Moves to Certify Class of California Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH LACK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIZUHO BANK,
LTD., a Japanese financial institution, and MARK KARPELES, an
individual, Case No. 2:18-cv-00617-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), moves to
certify this class:

     All California residents who wired money to Mt. Gox KK's
     bank account at Mizuho Bank, Ltd., between June 20, 2013 and
     February 24, 2014.

Mr. Lack also moves to be appointed as class representative, and to
have his counsel appointed as class counsel.

This case involves the alleged concealment of information critical
to the decision to invest in cryptocurrency.  Mizuho Bank provided
banking services for Mt. Gox, a bitcoin exchange based in Tokyo.
That partnership proceeded with little conflict until Mizuho
decided that it no longer wanted to do business with Mt. Gox, and
embarked on a months-long quest designed to either force Mt. Gox to
sever the relationship or create a pretext for Mizuho to do so
without getting blood on its hands, the Plaintiff contends.

The centerpiece of this campaign was Mizuho's decision,
unilaterally implemented on June 21, 2013, to no longer process
outbound wire withdrawals from Mt. Gox's account, the Plaintiff
asserts.  That information was not shared with the world either by
Mt. Gox's owner, Defendant Mark Karpeles, or by Defendant Mizuho.
Mr. Lack contends that this information was material to the
decision to invest in bitcoin on the Mt. Gox exchange, and that
Mizuho intentionally did not disclose this information because it
wanted to avoid appearing culpable for difficulties Mt. Gox users
encountered.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Clark Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Clark, on behalf of Stephen A. Clark, deceased, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00450 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 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:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: 913 451 3433
          E-mail: kogoza@gohonlaw.com

MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Henderson Files Suit for Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Henderson, Natasha Patterson and Mychelle Sneed-Jacobs,
Plaintiffs v. Montgomery County Community College, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01064-JD (E.D. Penn., March 14, 2019) is a civil action
seeking compensatory, punitive and non-pecuniary damages based on
pattern and practice of race discrimination and retaliation in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act (PHRA).

Plaintiff Henderson began working for Defendant in March 2008 at
the Director of Upward Bound Partnership for Student Success. Over
time, she was promoted to Dean of Academic Affairs. As a Dean, she
faced constant oversight, harassment and scrutiny by the
administration and the faculty union, none of which was experienced
by her Caucasian counterparts.

Plaintiff Natasha Patterson was initially hired by Defendant in
2014 as a Diversity Fellow. Throughout her tenure she was denied
promotion after promotion despite being more qualified than other
non-African-American candidates.

Plaintiff Mychelle Sneed-Jacobs began working for Defendant in
October 2017 as the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs.
She was summarily terminated less than four months later for no
apparently justifiable reason. Once she was terminated, the
Defendant could not wait to replace her with the under qualified
Caucasian female they sought to hire in the first place.

The Defendant has and is engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice
of race discrimination and knowingly employs company-wide policies
and practices that have a disparate impact on African-Americans.
The Defendant's systemic discrimination against African-Americans
include, but is not limited to, the practices described above, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs are Africana-American female adults.

Montgomery County Community College is a college of higher
education located at 340 Dekalb Pike, Blue Bell, PA 19438.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Edward McCain III, Esq.
     Zakia E. Moore, Esq.
     McCain Law, P.C.
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 236-1086
     Fax: (215) 543-3343
     Email: jmccain@mccain-law.com
            zmoore@mccain-law.com


MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Prelim. Nod of $470,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER FOR GARY
MIDDLE RIDER, an individual, ROBERT GARZA, an individual, ALBERT
ARELLANO, an individual, JOSE DON CORONADO, an individual,
PLAINTIFFS AND PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, a
California Corporation MANAGED FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company and CHARTWELL STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York Corporation licensed to do business in
California, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

This is a class action complaint filed on behalf of nonexempt
movers against the Defendants.

After a full day of mediation, the Parties agreed to settle this
case for $470,000 to be paid by the Defendants.  The Settlement Sum
includes attorney's fees, costs and expenses directly related to
the case.  The Settlement Administration costs are estimated to be
$16,000.

Subject to Court approval, Class Representatives Barbara Middle
Rider, Robert Garza, Albert Arellano, and Jose Don Coronado shall
receive Service Awards of $5,000 each.  Subject to Court approval,
Class Counsel will be paid up to $117,500 for attorneys' fees, and
an additional amount for reasonable litigation costs not to exceed
$8,500.

The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the
number of work weeks they worked during the class period.  The net
settlement is an estimated $290,183.  If every potential claimant
returns a claim form, then a total of approximately 17,225 work
weeks will be paid.  In that case each claimant shall be paid
approximately $16.85 for every week they worked for the
Defendants.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com

               - and -

          Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com


NATERA INC: Hale Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
Teresa Hale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01402 (N.D. Cal., March 15, 2019) is a class action
complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Natera in sending text messages to Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

By sending unauthorized text messages to Plaintiff and individuals
throughout the nation, Natera violated federal law and caused them
concrete harm. Specifically, by effectuating these unauthorized
text messages, Natera has violated individuals' statutory and
privacy rights and has caused individuals actual harm, not only
because individuals were subjected to the aggravation and invasion
of privacy that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also
because individuals frequently have to pay their cell phone service
providers for the receipt of such wireless spam, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Teresa Hale is a citizen residing in Kansas City,
Missouri.

Natera is a provider of numerous genetic tests to doctors with
patients who are pregnant or wishing to become pregnant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
     Tanya S. Koshy, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone (510) 254-680
     Facsimile (202) 973-0950
     Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
            tkoshy@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
     Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile (202) 973-0950
     Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
            agold@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Rachel Soffin, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile (865) 522-0049
     Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com


NEWELL BRANDS: Still Defends Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit entitled, Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc.,
et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other
relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NHS PENNSYLVANIA: Brown's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin L. C. Feldman denies without prejudice as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA
collective action in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SR.,
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. NHS
PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and MERAKEY PENNSYLVANIA, Case No.
2:18-cv-01617-MLCF-JVM (E.D. La.).

The Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and advised that the
parties would file pleadings for dismissal within 20 days.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
is denied without prejudice as moot.[CC]


OJKAV INC: Fears Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Dione Fears, Jose Gomez, and Francisco Bermudez, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Ojkav, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01827 (N.D. Ill., March
15, 2019) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action in the State of Illinois
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), based upon the
Defendants' failure to properly or fully compensate them for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants did not pay the Named Plaintiffs or any member of
the putative FLSA or IMWL Classes any additional compensation for
time that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, notes the
complaint.

The Defendants' policies and practices with regard to their failure
to properly classify drivers as non-exempt employees, track and
record drivers' hours, and/or accurately pay its drivers overtime
workweek-by-workweek, were applied uniformly with respect to the
Named Plaintiffs and all members of the putative FLSA and IMWL
Classes, adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs reside in Chicago, Illinois and have worked as delivery
drivers for the Defendants beginning in or around March 2016
through approximately February 2019.

Ojkav, Inc. is a Contractor Service Provider ("CSP") of Fedex
Ground, and employs pickup and delivery drivers throughout the
nation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
     Madeline Engel, Esq.
     Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
     S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action
suit in New York is still pending.  

On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), Case No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB.  

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.  

Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by
various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the
two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff
Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the "Securities
Class Action"). The Securities Class Action purports to be a class
action brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's
securities between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017.  

The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and
by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and
operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of
such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of
certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain
receivables.  

The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018.  Briefing on the Motion
to Dismiss is complete, and the Court heard Oral Argument on
February 13, 2019.

Although the Company denies the material allegations of the
Securities Class Action and intends to vigorously pursue its
defense, we are in the early stages of this litigation and are
unable to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount
of potential costs.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies.


ONLY NY: Delacruz Claims Website not Blind-friendly
---------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Only NY Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01345 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Only NY Inc., operates a retail location at 176 Stanton Street, New
York, NY including the Only NY website, www.onlyny.com. Delacruz
claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


OTTO CLIPS: Bennington Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Bennington, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Otto Clips Company, Lorraine Stockberger,
individually and George Stockberger, individually, Case No.
19-cv-05367 (D. N.J., February 11, 2019), seeks to recover to
recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants operate a beauty salon where Bennington worked as a
stylist. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that she
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


PATTERSON COS: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that an amended complaint
has been filed in the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel
Kramer.

On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser
litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc.
and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States District Court
for the District of Northern District of California.

The purported class action complaint asserts violations of the
California Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act
based on an alleged agreement between Schein, Benco, and Patterson
(and unnamed co-conspirators) not to compete as to price and
margins.

Plaintiff alleges that the agreement allowed the defendants to
charge higher prices to dental practices for dental supplies and
that the dental practices passed on all, or part of, the increased
prices to the consumers of dental services. Subject to certain
exclusions, the complaint defines the class as all persons residing
in California purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental services
from California dental practices. The complaint seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Faces Hatchett Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company has been
named as defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by R.
Lawrence Hatchett, M.D.

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company, and unnamed
co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Schein, Benco and
Patterson. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy
overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and
dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in
turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the
class.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a federal securities class action suit entitled, lymouth
County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P.
Anderson and Ann B. Gugino.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth")
filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson’s revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.  

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received requests under Minnesota Business Corporation Act
Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records relating to
the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust
matters."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Settlement Agreement Inked in Dental Supplies Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the parties in the
case entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, have
executed a settlement agreement.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and
exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all private dental practices and laboratories who
purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from
any of the defendants, during the period beginning August 31, 2008
until March 31, 2016.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a class-wide basis.

Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all
persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from
Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco and Burkhart, or any combination
thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including
March 31, 2016.

Patterson said, "As a result, we recorded a charge of $28.3 million
in our first quarter 2019 results in our Corporate segment."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action lawsuit entitled, Arnold
Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company' subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

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

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PBF HOLDING: Kendig Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case, Michelle Kendig
and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., has
been removed to the Federal Court, California Central District.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic
damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
interest, attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."  

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PETE AND GERRY'S: Lugones Files False Ad Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LUGONES, TRICIA RIZZI, MARCUS SIEZING, and CLAUDIA
VASSALLO, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals v. PETE AND GERRY'S ORGANICS, LLC and NELLIE'S FREE
RANGE EGGS, Case No. 1:19-cv-02097-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants knowingly lied to the Plaintiffs and
potential Class members and perpetuated their deception through the
sale of falsely advertised free range eggs to millions of consumers
in order to pad their bottom line.

The Plaintiffs aver that they believed they were buying and eating
eggs from laying hens that enjoyed lives free from unnecessary pain
and distress, had access to green fields, space to spread their
wings and engage in natural behaviors, and the opportunity to
thrive in functional social groupings, as advertised by the
Defendants.  The harsh reality, the Plaintiffs contend, is that
Nellie's crams and stuffs hens into sheds up to 20,000 at a time,
which overcrowding prevents the hens from extending their wings,
foraging, or making their way to the outdoor space Nellie's
advertises so prominently.

Pete and Gerry's Organics, LLC, is a New Hampshire corporation
headquartered in Monroe, New Hampshire.  Pete and Gerry's is one of
the nation's largest sellers of eggs, with $177 million in reported
sales revenue in 2017.

Nellie's Free Range Eggs is an entity controlled by Pete and
Gerry's Organics and has the same corporate address.  Pete and
Gerry's Organics uses the Nellie's Free Range Eggs corporate
identity to conduct various business, including a new partnership
with the Boston Red Sox.  Nellie's is one of the largest sellers of
eggs from free-range laying hens.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
          Julia Elmaleh-Sachs, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
                  jelmaleh-sachs@wigdorlaw.com

               - and -

          Asher Smith, Esq.
          PETA FOUNDATION
          1536 16th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 483-7382
          Facsimile: (202) 540-2208
          E-mail: AsherS@petaf.org


PPG INDUSTRIES: Certification of Stockholders Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cammarata, Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TREVOR MILD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPG
INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL H. MCGARRY, VINCENT J. MORALES, and MARK
C. KELLY, Case No. 2:18-cv-04231-RGK-JEM (C.D. Cal.), moves the
Court for an order certifying this Class:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     PPG Industries, Inc. common stock between January 19, 2017
     through May 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who
     were damaged thereby.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants PPG Industries, Inc.,
Michael McGarry, Vincent Morales, and Mark Kelly; the officers and
directors of the Company, at all relevant times; members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as Class Representative and
for the appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 29, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

Lead Plaintiff Joe Cammarata is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Peter A Binkow, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Jason L. Krajcer, Esq.
          Leanne H. Solish, 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
                  pbinkow@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  jkrajcer@glancylaw.com
                  lsolish@glancylaw.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a company subsidiary
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust &
Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that Protective Life Insurance Company  (PLICO)
required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of
insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of
universal life and variable universal life policies issued or
administered by PLICO or its predecessors that provide that cost of
insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of
future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

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

Protective Life Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
financial services primarily in the United States. The company
engages in the production, distribution, and administration of
insurance and investment products. The company was founded in 1907
and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life
Corporation is a subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc.


RALPH LAUREN: Does Not Pay Tailors Overtime Wage, Luna Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX LUNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION; BHAMBI'S CUSTOM TAILORS, LTD; HARRY
OM, LLC d/b/a BHAMBI'S CUSTOM TAILORS; H&L CUSTOM TAILORS, LLC
d/b/a/ BHAMBI CUSTOM TAILORS; HARERAM SADHWANI, (a.k.a. HARRY
BHAMBI and HARRY BHAMBI SADHWANI), an Individual; and LAL SADHWANI
(a.k.a. LAL BHAMBI), an Individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-02084
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019), alleges that Bhambi's failed to pay
overtime to its tailors, who work at its store and at Ralph Lauren
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Ralph Lauren Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a global
headquarters and a principal place of business at 650 Madison
Avenue, in New York City.  Ralph Lauren is a global apparel design,
marketing, production, and distribution company.

Bhambi's Custom Tailors, LTD, Harry Om, LLC, and H&L Custom
Tailors, LLC, are New York corporations with their principal place
of business located in New York City.  They do business as Bhambi's
Custom Tailors.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or
managers of the Bhambi Corporations.  The Bhambi Entity Defendants
have common ownership, unified operation and/or control, and
operate as a single tailoring business located at 14 East 60th
Street, Suite 610, in New York City.

Ralph Lauren engaged Bhambi to provide tailors to work at its store
beginning in about 2016. Ralph Lauren contracted with Bhambi for
Bhambi to supply employees to work as tailors at the Ralph Lauren
retail store located at 867 Madison Avenue, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Schley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
          245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10167
          Telephone: (212) 672-1848
          E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com


REALPAGE INC: Jones Sues Over Inaccurate Background Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIANE D. JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASINGDESK SCREENING, Case No.
1:19-cv-00501-JG (N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2019), is a consumer class
action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act brought on behalf of
rental applicants nationwide, who were the subjects of background
reports prepared by the Defendant.

Ms. Jones contends that the Defendant systematically violates the
FCRA by failing to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum
possible accuracy of information included on the reports it sells
to prospective landlords.  Specifically, the Plaintiff argues, the
Defendant violates fundamental accuracy requirement of the FCRA by
reporting criminal record information about consumers, including
her, that does not pertain to them and which in fact relates to a
different person with an entirely different name.

RealPage, Inc., is a consumer reporting agency that regularly
conducts business in the state of Ohio in its own name and as
"LeasingDesk Screening." RealPage maintains a principal place of
business in Richardson, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA CO., LPA
          5455 Detroit Rd.
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735.8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940.8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com


RELATED COMPANIES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE RELATED
COMPANIES, L.P., d/b/a Truffles Tribeca, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02329 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019), is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website, www.truffles.nyc, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and
other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant denies full
and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff asserts claims under
the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.  The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Blind and visually impaired users of Windows operating
system-enabled computers and devices have several screen-reading
software programs available to them. Some of these programs are
available for purchase and other programs are available without the
user having to purchase the program separately. Job Access With
Speech ("JAWS") is currently the most popular, separately purchased
and downloaded screen-reading software program available for a
Windows computer.  For screen-reading software to function, the
information on a website must be capable of being rendered into
text. If the website’s content is not capable of being rendered
into text, the blind or visually impaired user is unable to access
the same content available to sighted users.

The international website standards organization, the World Wide
Web Consortium, known throughout the world as W3C, has published
version 2.0 Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
("WCAG 2.0"). WCAG 2.0 are well-established guidelines for making
websites accessible to blind and visually impaired people. These
guidelines are universally followed by most large business entities
and government agencies to ensure its websites are accessible.

The Defendant owns and manages buildings throughout the United
States, including the building, Truffles Tribeca, located at 34
Desbrosses Street, New York, New York. It rents within this
building, studio apartments, and apartments with one or more
bedrooms. The Defendant's Website is heavily integrated with this
apartment building, serving as its gateway. Through the Website,
Defendant's tenants and prospective tenants are, inter alia, able
to: learn information about the building, including its location,
apartment features and building amenities; view images and floor
plans of the apartments; search availabilities; learn about
pricing, and contact a leasing agent through a form contained on
the Website.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: 212 392 4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com

REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's
January 2017 initial public offering (IPO).

A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, each
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in or traceable to its January 2017 initial public offering
(IPO) and of purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock
in October 2017, as well as, for the federal action, purchasers
from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.

The actions also name certain of the underwriters for the Company's
IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state
courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before
them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions
allege certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for
the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs. The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of
their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to
the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with
respect to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do
the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the
October 2017 offering.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously. Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may
have on the Company or its operations.

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

REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It
operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and
Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty
Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November
2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Hubner Files Securities Class Action in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hubner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc.,
Robert V. LaPenta, Charles J. Schafer, and James A. DePalma,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02308 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Revolution Lighting securities between March 14,
2014, and November 14, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 17, 2018, Revolution Lighting reported preliminary
financial results for third quarter 2018, with revenue expected to
be $33 million, compared to previous guidance of $40-$41 million.
On this news, Revolution Lighting's stock price fell $0.98 per
share, or over 38%, to close at $1.58 per share on October 17,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Revolution Lighting was improperly
recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (ii) as a result,
Revolution Lighting's financial statements were misstated; (iii)
Revolution Lighting lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; (iv) as a result, Revolution Lighting would be
subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Revolution Lighting's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Revolution Lighting securities and suffered
damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and
false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions
alleged herein.

Revolution Lighting designs and manufactures light-emitting diode
("LED") lighting solutions for industrial, commercial, and
government markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Takata and Klapper Class Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc.,
et al. and Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al.

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-02293.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that purchased
stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business. The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed
by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain
Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot
Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively.  

On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for
administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court
entered on the same date.

On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-8031).

The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the
same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in
unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and
other unspecified relief.

On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.  

Lead Plaintiff's consolidated complaint is due on or before January
7, 2019.

Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. Riot Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based
in Castle Rock, Colorado.


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros Moves for Prelim. OK of $8MM Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled YADIR A. ONTIVEROS, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFELITE GROUP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFELITE GLASS CORP., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07118-DMG-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), move the Court for entry of an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Classes
      under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
      the majority of which have already been certified by way of
      Court Order on a motion for class certification;

   2. approving the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, in
      order to add Francisco Curiel as a named plaintiff, and in
      order to add a claim for waiting time penalties, which
      Plaintiff Ontiveros does not have standing to pursue as a
      current employee of Safelite, and which Mr. Curiel is
      already pursuing through an action in Los Angeles Superior
      Court, Case No. BC652703;

   3. preliminarily appointing Yadir Ontiveros and Francisco
      Curiel as Class Representatives for settlement purposes;

   4. confirming the appointment of Paul K. Haines, Esq.,
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq., Tuvia Korobkin, Esq., Sean M.
      Blakely, Esq., Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq., and Matthew K.
      Moen, Esq., of Haines Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel for
      settlement purposes;

   5. preliminarily approving the class action settlement based
      upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
      and Release;

   6. appointing CPT Group, Inc., as the third-party settlement
      administrator for mailing notices and otherwise
      administering the settlement;

   7. approving the proposed Rule 23 Class Notice, and directing
      that it be disseminated to the proposed Settlement Class as
      provided in the Settlement Agreement; and

   8. scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final
      approval of the Settlement Agreement, entry of a proposed
      final judgment, Class Counsel's Motion for Reasonable
      Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and the Class Representatives'
      Incentive Payments.

If this Settlement is approved, the total settlement amount paid by
Safelite will be $8,201,500, which consists of $7,475,000 in new
monies and $726,500 in monies already paid by Safelite to
Settlement Class Members as part of a Pick Up Stix settlement
campaign. Settlement Class Members, who worked as Technicians,
which is the vast majority of the Settlement Class, will be
receiving 100% of all Labor Code Section 226.7 rest period premium
wages and overtime wages that they could establish are owed under a
best-case scenario at trial, and will be receiving settlement
payments that are in excess of $8,000 on average with the highest
payment in excess of $40,000.

In addition to Technicians, other non-exempt employees, who are
alleged to have been underpaid overtime wages will also be
receiving 100% of all overtime wages underpaid to them in addition
to amounts for penalties that greatly exceed the unpaid overtime
wages at issue.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2228
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com


SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing
in the broiler chicken-related suits.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and the company's subsidiaries were named as defendants, along
with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated
companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by
direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states’ antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied.

On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers
as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also
added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with
Agri Stats.

On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On
November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28,
2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.


Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits
vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could
be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operations."

Between December 8, 2017 and February 18, 2019, additional
purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought twenty-one
separate suits against seventeen poultry producers, including
Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas.

These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct
purchaser class complaint described above. Those filed in the
Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same
judge as the putative class action lawsuits. The parties are
currently engaged in discovery.

On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the
case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. It is
possible additional individual actions may be filed.

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: North Carolina Class Action Shelved
----------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the Court has granted
in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in
the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the
action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and the company's
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other
poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation
paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing
the farmers' compensation below competitive levels.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who
were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated
amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.


On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.
On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining
defendants.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants
moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of
North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If
the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company is
awaiting a ruling on the appeal made by the plaintiff in a putative
class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on
October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and
President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws. The complaint also alleges that the material
misstatements were made in order to, among other things,
"artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson
Farms securities."

The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31,
2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal is now fully
briefed, and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on August 31,
2018.

Sanderson Farms said, "The Company is awaiting a ruling on the
appeal. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the action, the
Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material,
adverse effect on our financial position and results of
operations."

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

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SEALE MOORER: Employees Hit Unpaid Overtime, Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Campbell, Ryan Carr, Richard Conley, Nicholas Dalton, Jamie
Forsythe, Michael Hill, Terry Keith, Joseph Kobalka, Terrance
Malone, Nora Merhar, David Miller, Sharon Miller, Cameron Mokas,
Michael Schertzer, Matt Stephey, Tammy Tull Oakley, Howard Watts,
and Eric Wilder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Seale Moorer, Exceptional Innovation, Inc.,
SmarTV Company LLC, Quadriga Americas LLC, InterTouch Holdings, LLC
and ST Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00466 (S.D. Ohio,
February 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
remedies for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

Defendants are in the Information Technology industry providing a
unified platform of guestroom technology services, including
technology solutions for broadband connectivity, multimedia
services, interactive television and managed network solutions to
the hospitality and healthcare industries in 103 countries.

Defendants allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours
worked while employed and breached contracts and/or implied
contracts and/or agreements by failing to pay the agreed upon
weekly compensation, failing to reimburse employees and failing to
pay out unused vacation time upon separation.

Moreover, Exception Innovation and Seale Moorer failed to pay the
premiums to the employees' insurance policies despite deducting a
portion of the premium from their paychecks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
      Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
      Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Tel: (614) 610-4134
      Fax: (513) 826-9311
      Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
             Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
             Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com


SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SENTRY ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00178-WOB (S.D.
Ohio, March 6, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sentry Electrical Group, Inc., is a foreign corporation doing
business in multiple states, including Ohio.  The Company provides
high and medium voltage electrical construction and maintenance
services of electrical infrastructure for private owners and public
utilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Cassels and Cadenas Suit Transferred to Fresno County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the Court in the
class action lawsuit initiated by Donald Cassels and Jose Cadenas
has transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco
County to the Superior Court in Fresno County.

On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald
Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose
Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County,
California alleging representative claims on a purported class
action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep
Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the
alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil
penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims
the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or
underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the
plaintiffs' choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the
Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno
County.

Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter"

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SLEEP NUMBER: Spade Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the company
intends to seek court dismissal of the purported class action
lawsuit initiated by David and Katina Spade.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations.

It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in
any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions.
Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey
purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to
recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with
attorneys' fees and costs.

Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep
Number's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims.

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and
on April 16, 2018, ruled in the company's favor on one of the two
questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a
claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by
the defendant's conduct.

The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court,
which initially allowed the plaintiffs to file its proposed amended
complaint, but thereafter rescinded its order and then denied
Plaintiffs' request to file the amended complaint.

Sleep Number said, "We plan to ask the Court to dismiss the case."


Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SOLDIER TRUCKING: Barricelli Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Barricelli, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v.
Soldier Trucking, LLC and Travis Smith, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00136, (M.D. Tenn., February 11, 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.

Soldier Trucking receive and deliver packages for Amazon, where
Barricelli worked as a delivery 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:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             nbishop@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Certified in Quinn Suit; April 29 Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry in the case styled Thomas Quinn, et
al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E.
Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted;

   -- Memorandum Opinion and Order entered;

   -- Defendant's motion for leave to file sur−reply memorandum
      in further opposition to motion to certify classes is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to withdraw is granted;

   -- Attorney Lloyd J. Brooks, Esq., is terminated;

   -- Status is hearing set for April 29, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC]


STAMPS.COM: Karinski Files Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Karinski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Stamps.com, Inc., Kenneth McBride, Kyle
Heubner, and Jeff Carberry, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01828
(C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019) asserts violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's purportedly strong
financial results and relationship with USPS. However, these
statements were false and misleading because the Defendants failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's financial results depended on
the manipulation of a USPS reseller program that cost USPS an
estimated $235 million per year; and (ii) as a result, the
Company's business was unsustainable and its financial results were
highly misleading, says the complaint.

The truth emerged on February 21, 2019, after the market closed,
when Stamps.com held a conference call to discuss its financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018 as well
as its business outlook and "certain strategic items that impact
our business outlook for 2019", the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff acquired Stamps.com securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Stamps.com is a provider of Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 405-7190
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated cases,
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc.,
et al., and Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al.

On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements in connection
with public filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8,
2017 regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after
signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest,
attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the Company's securities between September
16, 2015 and May 2, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.

On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern California
District of California. The Hall and Sanogo complaints are
substantially similar to the Fink complaint, and seeks similar
relief against similar defendants on behalf of a substantially
similar class.

On August 23, 2017, the Fink, Hall, and Sanogo actions were
consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying
violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints (such
consolidated action referred to as the "federal court litigation").


On April 5, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
May 3, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the court again granted defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On August 8, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted in the federal court
litigation against all defendants for $2.5 million, all of which
will be funded by the Company's insurers.

The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny,
the claims alleged in the federal court litigation and the
settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability as to any defendant.

On November 20, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation,
shareholder notice and final court approval.  

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted final
approval of a settlement and entered judgment in the Baker, Cohen,
Nunez, and Pytel consolidated lawsuit.  The aggregate amount of the
settlement is $32.0 million, $30.1 million of which will be funded
by the Company's insurers and the remaining $1.9 million of which
was accrued as of June 30, 2018.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), by making false or misleading statements in
connection with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public
offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial
public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including
interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief
deemed appropriate by the court.

On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the
Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants
on behalf of the same purported class.

On February 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
including allegations related to the alleged effect of customer
cancellations on the Company's business.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false or
misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial
public offering regarding the Company's business practices and its
dependence on complex financial instruments.

The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek
similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker
actions.

On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions
were consolidated (such consolidated action referred to as the
"state court litigation"). On December 27, 2017, the court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Following a mediation on May 4, 2018, the parties entered into an
agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the state
court litigation against all defendants.

The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny,
the claims alleged in the state court litigation and the settlement
does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as
to any defendant. On December 14, 2018, the court granted final
approval of the settlement and entered judgment.  

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


T.B.G. PIZZA: Kenny Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kenny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. T.B.G. Pizza, Inc. and Malament
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a "Domino's Pizza", Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00791-PWG (D. Md., March 14, 2019) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action
under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") and the Montgomery
County minimum wage requirement ("CMW") to recover unpaid minimum
wages owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores.

Instead of reimbursing their delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their net wages to fall below the
federal and state minimum wages during some or all workweeks, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Kenny was employed by the Defendants from the
mid-1990s to about March 2018 as a delivery driver at their
Domino's Pizza store in Germantown, Maryland.

Defendants have operated a chain of about nine Domino's Pizza
franchise stores in Maryland and Virginia during times relevant to
this case.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michal Shinnar, Esq.
     GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
     1100 Wayne Ave, Ste. 900
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 608-0880
     Facsimile: (301) 608-0881
     Email: Mshinnar-efile@gelawyer.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 997-9150
     Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

          - and -

     Eli Karsh, Esq.
     LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
     230 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: (314) 862-3333, ext. 13
     Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
     Email: elikarsh@aol.com


TAMPA BAY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sellers, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Tampa Bay
Sports & Entertainment LLC, the owner of the Tampa Bay Lightning
National Hockey League team, sent unsolicited text messages to lure
customers, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

The company uses bait-and-switch tactics to entice smart phone
users to enter sweepstakes and with other opportunities, then
"floods the recipient with nearly daily advertising and
telemarketing text messages," the March 5 complaint, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, states.
[GN]


TAPESTRY INC: Garcia Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses of AMs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled NORMA GARCIA, individually,
on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation which will do
business in California as Coach Leatherware California, Inc. DBA
Coach; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:18-cv-01537-DMG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order
certifying a class and five subclasses:

   * Class:

     all current and former non-exempt employees with the titles
     of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by
     Defendant Tapestry, Inc., dba Coach in the State of
     California from June 13, 2014 to the present;

   * Security Checkpoint Subclass:

     All current and former non-19 exempt employees with the
     titles of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager
     employed by Defendant in the State of California and who
     were required to go through a security checkpoint during a
     meal period, rest break and/or at the end of a shift during
     the period from June 13, 2014 to the present;

   * Meal Break Subclass:

     All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles
     of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by
     Defendant in the State of California who worked a shift in
     excess of 6 hours during the period from June 13, 2014 to
     the present;

   * Rest Break Subclass:

     All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles
     of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by
     Defendant in the State of California who worked a shift of
     at least 3.5 hours during the period from June 13, 2014 to
     the present;

   * Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

     All current and former employees with the titles of
     Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by
     Defendant in the State of California and who separated from
     their employment with Defendant during the period from
     June 13, 2015 to the present; and

   * Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:

     All current and former non-exempt employees with the titles
     of Associate Manager and/or Assistant Manager employed by
     Defendant in the State of California during the period from
     June 13, 2017 to the present.

Ms. Garcia also asks the Court to appoint her as the Class
representative and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 31, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          Misty M. Lauby, Esq.
          Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320-1444
          Facsimile: (951)320-1445
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com
                  mml@fernandezlauby.com
                  pjc@fernandezlauby.com


TENNESSEE: Harris Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned RICKY HARRIS, RANDY JONES,
RONNIE ARMSTRONG, JACK NUNLEY, RAYMOND TEAGUE, MICHAEL STEWART,
JOHN BOATFIELD, STACY RAMSEY, CHARLES MOSLEY, WILLIAM LEDFORD,
BRUCE SMILEY, LAMONT JOHNSON, ANDREW MANN, EDDIE MURPHEY, et al.,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PRISONERS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STATE OF
TENNESSEE, SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE
BOARD OF PAROLE, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, CANDICE
WISEMAN, DIRECTOR OF SENTENCE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES, et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Tenn.), moves for class
certification.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order determining that this
action may be maintained as a class action.

Ricky Harris, et al., in Pikeville, Tennessee, appear pro se.[CC]


TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: Stein Sues Over Unremitted Lien Filing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Stein, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v.
Titlemax of Georgia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19A73124 (N.D. Ga.,
February 5, 2019), seeks damages in the form of having certain
loans be deemed void ab initio; three times the amount of any
interest or other charges charged or collected on the loan; plus
reasonable attorney's fees for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of Georgia Payday Loan Statutes.

Titlemax charged Stein a lien filing fee yet did not remit it and
charged interest rates on amounts allegedly loaned for the purpose
of registering a lien. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
      2244 Henderson Mill Rd, Suite 108
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Tel: (678) 699-1938
      Fax: (678) 609-1482
      Email: swexleresq@gmail.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion
to dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by Eric Weiner
remains pending.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On August 3, 2018, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a
memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal on
grounds that the first amended complaint fails to plead any
actionable statement or omission (the "Motion to Dismiss").

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

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company offers SilverSneakers
senior fitness program to the members of Medicare advantage,
Medicare supplement; and Prime fitness, a fitness facility access
program through commercial health plans and employers. The company
was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to
Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was
founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Faces Toro Private Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 5, 2019,
that the plaintiffs in the merger related suits agrees to the
dismissal of their case in exchange of a supplemental disclosure.

On December 9, 2018, Travelport Worldwide Limited, a Bermuda
exempted company (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Toro Private Holdings
III, Ltd., a private limited company organized under the laws of
England and Wales ("Parent"), and, following execution of a
joinder, Toro Private Holdings IV, Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company
and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").

The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with
the Company continuing as the surviving company of the Merger and
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

On February 25, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00916-SCJ (the "Bushansky Litigation") was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors (the "Board of Directors") pursuant to
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule 14a-9 and against the members of the Board of Directors
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On February 26, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Anthony Franchi v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01802-ER (the "Franchi Litigation") was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 and against
the members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

On February 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Melvyn Klein v. Travelport Worldwide Limited et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01863-LGS (the "Klein Litigation" and, together with the
Bushansky Litigation and Franchi Litigation, the "Merger
Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, the members of
the Board of Directors, Merger Sub and Parent pursuant to Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 and against the
members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Merger Litigation relates to the definitive proxy statement
filed by the Company with the SEC on February 13, 2019 (the "Proxy
Statement") in connection with the Merger. The complaints in the
Merger Litigation generally allege that the Proxy Statement omitted
certain material information regarding the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The Merger Litigation seeks,
among other remedies, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, or in the event that an injunction is not
awarded, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorney's
fees.

On March 5, 2019, the Company has reached an agreement with the
respective plaintiffs to resolve the Merger Litigation. In
connection with the resolution of the Merger Litigation, the
Company has agreed to make a supplemental disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures") to the Proxy Statement.

The Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. Each of the
plaintiffs has agreed that, following the filing of the Current
Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss the respective actions in
their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and
without prejudice to all other members of the putative classes.

The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws and that the Proxy Statement
disclosed all material information required to be disclosed
therein. However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company has agreed to
make these Supplemental Disclosures.

The Supplemental Disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to shareholders of the Company in
connection with the Merger or the timing of the special general
meeting of the Company's shareholders (the "Special General
Meeting") scheduled for March 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time
at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New
York, New York 10022.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/tXheE7.

Travelport Worldwide Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
operates a travel commerce platform that offers distribution,
technology, payment, mobile, and other solutions for the travel and
tourism industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. Travelport Worldwide Limited was incorporated in
2006 and is headquartered in Langley, the United Kingdom.


TRIVAGO NV: NY Court Rejects Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
trivago N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that a New York court has dismissed a
securities class action against the company.

The company and certain of its management board members are the
subject of two putative class actions that were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These
two actions have since been consolidated into a single action, and
an amended complaint was filed in that action on March 30, 2018.

The amended complaint asserts claims under the Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired trivago's
American Depositary Receipts pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
company's initial public offering (IPO) on or about December 16,
2016 and/or on the open market between December 16, 2016 and
October 25, 2017.

The complaint also names underwriters of our initial public
offering as defendants. On May 14, 2018, the company filed a motion
to dismiss this matter. On February 26, 2019, the court granted the
motion to dismiss as to all defendants, without granting plaintiffs
leave to further amend the complaint. The plaintiffs were expected
to appeal the decision by March 29, 2019.

trivago N.V., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a hotel
and accommodation search platform. It offers online meta-search for
hotels by facilitating consumers’ search for hotel accommodation
through online travel agents, hotel chains, and independent hotels.
The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Düsseldorf, Germany. trivago N.V. is a subsidiary of Expedia
Group, Inc.


TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Seeks Class Certification; Hearing on May 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund moves to
certify the case entitled LEON D. MILBECK, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. TRUECAR, INC., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-02612-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), as a Class Action.

The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as Class
Representative, and to appoint Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel,
and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Liaison Counsel to the Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 575-8604
          Facsimile: (310) 444-1913
          E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Jason A. Uris, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  juris@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Dianne M. Anderson, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com
                  danderson@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Kyla Grant, Esq.
          Sara DiLeo, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
                  kgrant@saxenawhite.com
                  sdileo@saxenawhite.com


U.S. XPRESS: Solak Files IPO-Related Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., Eric Fuller,
Eric Peterson, Jason Grear, Max Fuller, Lisa Quinn Pate, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC,
Stephens Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and WR
Securities, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 651535/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., March 14, 2019) is a federal securities class action
on behalf of those persons and/or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired USX Class A common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering").

On May 7, 2018, in connection with the Company's IPO, USX filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC. The registration
statement was subsequently amended, with the final amended
registration statement on Form S-1/A, and filed on June 11, 2018.
The Registration Statement was declared effected by the SEC on June
13, 2018.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus omitted material information regarding the Company's
business prospects and financial health. As such, the Offering
Documents contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted
to state the facts necessary to make the statements made therein
not misleading, thus violating the rules and regulations governing
its preparation. Because of the materially deficient Offering
Documents, Defendants have violated their independent, affirmative
duty to provide adequate disclosures about adverse conditions,
risks, and uncertainties, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased USX common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO
and has been damaged thereby.

USX operates as an asset-based truckload carrier providing services
primarily in the United States. It operates through two segments:
Truckload and Brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     Hillary M. Nappi, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 213-8311
     Facsimile: (212) 779-0028


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Commuters Plan to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
702 reports that Uber commuters are planning a class action lawsuit
against the company.

Riders who claim to have been robbed, raped and attacked while
using the e-hailing service are behind the suit.

A lawyer representing the Uber victims, Ulrich Roux says his
clients have all gone through terrible ordeals.

"Tracy Stockhall was also attacked by people who entered the
vehicle from the boot and she managed to jump out of the vehicle
and escape. She sustained severe injuries and is convinced that had
she not taken that action, she would have also been raped." Ulrich
Roux, Lawyer representing Uber victims, said.

"Another couple was also attacked by two men emerging from the boot
of their Uber and at the time the male was stabbed and raped the
female countless times and taken to a place in Tembisa and only
escaped the next morning." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Miller Thomson Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Eamonn Flaherty, Esq. -- eflaherty@millerthomson.com -- and
Margaret Sims, Esq. -- msims@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that ihe January 2, 2019
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Heller v. Uber
Technologies Inc., ("Uber Appeal Decision") has increased the risk
that arbitration clauses may be found to be invalid in the face of
a potential class action claim. Direct selling companies that rely
on such clauses in their contracts with independent salespeople
should take notice.

In a 2018 decision of Justice Perell in Heller v. Uber Technologies
Inc., a class action brought by a driver against Uber was stayed
based on an arbitration clause. The class action plaintiff appealed
and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, the result of which is
that the class action can proceed to the certification phase. While
it can be expected that Uber will seek leave to appeal the decision
to the Supreme Court of Canada, Uber has not yet done so; the
deadline for Uber to do so is in early March, 2019.

Of broader interest is that in allowing the appeal, the Ontario
Court of Appeal has called into question the enforceability of
arbitration clauses in Canada where violations of the employment
standards legislation are alleged, and has potentially opened the
door for class actions by independent salespeople. In Canada, class
action waivers have been effected by way of arbitration clauses,
which may or may not include an explicit class action waiver.

However, before a direct selling company assumes that their
particular arbitration clause will be unenforceable in the face of
an unproven class action allegation (that their independent
salespeople are employees, as opposed to independent contractors),
it should be noted that the facts at issue in the Uber Appeal
Decision were a key foundation of the decision, and most direct
selling companies will face less risk. Simply put, the context for
most direct selling companies will not be the Uber situation, which
factually put Uber on the more extreme end of the arbitration
clause spectrum. The basic facts in the Uber Appeal Decision are as
follows.

At issue in the decision was whether Heller entered into a Driver
services agreement and an UberEATS services agreement by clicking
on "Yes, I Agree" to the agreements when he first logged in to the
Driver App.

Each agreement contained an arbitration clause (the "Arbitration
Clause") which established an arbitration process before the
International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") in the Netherlands based
on the laws of the Netherlands.

If a driver wanted to pursue a dispute with Uber, the driver was
required to pay up-front ICC fees and costs of approximately
US$14,500. These fees do not cover counsel fees, travel or other
expenses related to participating in the arbitration.

This was contrasted with the evidence that, as an UberEATS driver,
Heller earned approximately $400 to $600 per week (or about
$20,800-$31,200 per year) based on 40 to 50 hours of work
delivering food for UberEATS driving his own vehicle, before taxes
and expenses.

In the Uber Appeal Decision, the panel confirmed that, under
section 7 of the Arbitration Act [1], arbitration agreements must
be enforced and stays granted, unless there is legislation
restricting recourse to arbitration. Despite this baseline finding,
for the purpose of whether the class action should be stayed, the
Arbitration Clause was found to be invalid because:

(i) the Arbitration Clause amounted to an illegal contracting out
of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41; and

(iii) the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable.

As a consequence, the stay of the drivers' class action was set
aside and the class action will proceed to the next phase, which is
a motion for certification. It is noted that the Uber Appeal
Decision does not decide that Uber drivers are employees, but
simply finds that the class action is not stayed in favour of
arbitration in the Netherlands, as required by the Uber drivers'
agreement. The issue of whether Uber drivers are employees is an
issue for determination in the class action itself.

The takeaway from the Uber Appeal Decision is that to increase the
likelihood of an arbitration clause being effective and any class
action being stayed in favour of the arbitration, direct selling
companies will want to evaluate their arbitration clause and
consider whether updating the clause is prudent. The following
aspects of the direct seller's arbitration clause and the
surrounding circumstances warrant consideration:

Location
Ideally, the arbitration clause provides that the arbitration be
held in the province where the independent salesperson operates his
or her direct selling business or, at a minimum, in Canada, but it
may be enough that the arbitration is in a somewhat proximate U.S.
state (as opposed to farther afield, as was the case in the Uber
Appeal Decision). While not the ideal, arbitration in Utah or
Arizona, for example, will likely be found to be significantly less
onerous than the Netherlands, as was required under the Uber
Arbitration Clause.

Governing Law
There will be less risk if the arbitration clause sets out that
disputes will be decided based on the law in the province where the
independent salesperson operates his or her direct selling
business. If the arbitration clause calls for determination under
another jurisdiction's law, then it will be important to provide
information on that other jurisdiction's law to the independent
salesperson, as part of entering the contract.

Cost of Arbitration
It is important to make sure that the costs of initiating the
arbitration are not out of line with the amount of the dispute. In
the Uber Appeal Decision, the high ICC fees which the Uber drivers
faced in arbitrating a dispute was a major factor. Not all
arbitration organizations have minimum fees which are as high as
the ICC. The American Arbitration Association fees are
significantly lower, for smaller claims, than the ICC's fees. To
get a sense of potential fees, most arbitration centers provide
information on their websites to assist with estimating fees.[2]

In addition to considerations of which arbitration organization may
be appropriate, direct sellers should consider the number of
arbitrators required under their arbitration clause. Arbitrations
where the governing clause mandates for three arbitrators will be
significantly more expensive than an arbitration requiring one
arbitrator.

Independent Legal Advice
As is the case with many contracts, especially standard form
contracts, it is best practice to make sure that the independent
salesperson's right to obtain independent legal advice in respect
of the agreement is brought to their attention and that there is a
real opportunity to do so.

Rebutting Presumption that Independent Salespeople are Employees
In the Uber Appeal Decision, the result was heavily based on the
presumption that the drivers were employees; this was based on the
presumption that the allegations by the drivers in their class
action pleadings were true. Such a presumption can be rebutted.
Rebutting the presumption will be important to have a court
exercise its discretionary power to stay any class action
proceeding in favour of arbitration. In contrast to Uber, which
exercises a large degree of control over Uber drivers, it will
assist if a direct seller company can demonstrate that they
exercise limited controls over their independent salespeople. For
many direct seller companies, this will not be difficult as they
provide tools to assist their independent salespeople in operating
a successful business, but do not control how their independent
salespeople run their businesses.

Know your Independent Salespeople
Finally, it will assist in overcoming arguments that an arbitration
clause should not be enforced if the direct seller can show that
the independent salesperson is a business or business person and is
not a vulnerable person. There will be a higher risk that an
arbitration clause will not be enforced if the independent
salesperson is found to be a vulnerable person; considerations
include the person's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance
of the language of the bargain, illness, senility, or disability.

While the Uber Appeal Decision does seem disruptive of arbitration
clauses, we highlight that the facts at issue in that case are on
the far end of the scale. The drivers would have had to pay a hefty
price to arbitrate in the Netherlands and they earn relatively
small sums as drivers. A finding of unconscionability is unusual.
Designing an arbitration process, which does not rise to the
egregious facts laid out in Uber, can be accomplished -- to seek to
preserve recourse to arbitration to resolve disputes between direct
seller companies and their independent salespeople on an individual
(as opposed to a class action) basis. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Victims of Attacks File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
eNCA reports that paying for a ride that might cost you your life.

Riders are raped, robbed and attacked in cars and now Uber is
facing a multimillion-rand lawsuit by survivors.

Susan Dey, mother of singer Tamara Dey, is one of them.

Ms. Dey recalled the night she was raped, robbed and beaten by her
driver and two accomplices.

"The driver wasn't very communicative so I was a little uneasy, but
I wasn't listening to that feeling," she said.

"When he should have turned right he accelerated and went
straight."

Ms. Dey said two men appeared behind her, one strangling her and
the other holding her at knifepoint.

"They threatened to kill me. It was impossible to get loose,"
Ms. Dey said.

After the hours-long ordeal, the men stopped next to the road where
they took Dey out of the boot and threw her down an embankment.

Lawyer Ulrich Roux said he has received instruction from Ms. Dey
and ten other clients to register a class action lawsuit holding
Uber responsible for the attacks.

"At the end of the day when Susan and the other clients entered the
vehicles, they were doing so under the premise that Uber promises
to offer safe and reliable service.

"Clearly in these incidents, this wasn't the case," he said.

Riders should use the following guidelines when using an Uber or
any other metered taxi service:

Ask the driver to identify you. If he is a certified Uber driver he
will have access to the certified software and the trip will be a
valid and authorised trip.

Ask the driver to open the boot of the vehicle before you enter the
vehicle. Rather have one uncomfortable minute than the
alternative.

Do not supply your destination, rather direct the driver. If you
are unsure about where you are heading, make use of your own GPS
system on your phone and direct the driver accordingly.

Make sure the number plate of the vehicle matches the one on your
app.

Make use of the "Share my ETA" option on the app. In doing so, a
friend will know where you are heading and whether everything is in
order. [GN]


UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp. 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 putative class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty
Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230, District Court of
LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay
royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The
lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims
asserted by the Plaintiff and the putative class are barred because
they have already been asserted by the putative class in the Panola
lawsuit and are subject to its reversal of class certification.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss and the company
have asked the court to certify its order so that it can be
immediately appealed. That issue is still pending before the court.


Unit Corp. said, "If we do not ultimately prevail on our claim of
issue preclusion, we have several other defenses, including that
the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of
the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty
payment was wrongfully withheld. The issue of class certification
has not been heard by the court."

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

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa.


UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola ISD Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Unit Corp. 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 Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit
Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County,
Oklahoma.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production.

The company have asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted
that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the
materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease.

On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the
trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned
the Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the
Plaintiff's petition was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners slightly smaller than their first
attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their
proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties
under certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties,
Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
besides the defenses described above, we argued that the amended
class definition is still deficient under the court of civil
appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing
arguments were held on December 2, 2014.

Unit said, "There is no timetable for when the court will issue its
ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while
class certification issues are pending.

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

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa.


UNITED ENROLLMENT: Becker Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United Enrollment Services LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-60369 (M.D. Fla., February 11, 2019), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

United Enrollment Services operates as an insurance marketing
agency. They transmitted multiple text messages with intent to
encourage its recipients to avail of its services. At no point in
time did Becker provide them with his express written consent to be
contacted using an automated dialer, notes the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Eisenband, Esq.
      EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
      515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 533-4092
      Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the appeal taken by
the so-called New England plaintiff to the 8th Circuit, in a class
action involving Supervalu Inc., is still pending.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against
Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain
trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the
Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain of Supervalu's assets to C&S that were
located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated
and are proceeding in the United States District Court in
Minnesota.

The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that
Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are divided
into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with
the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was
the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. The court granted final
approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017.

The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest
plaintiffs’ claims against Supervalu related to the allegations
and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or
could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign
distribution center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9
million.

The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is
pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims
against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote. On
February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and Daubert
motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court granted
Supervalu's motions. The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th
Circuit on August 15, 2018.

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

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UNITED NATURAL: Customer Data Security Breach Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the customer data
security breach suit against Supervalu Inc., is ongoing.

On October 22, 2018, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
equity securities of Supervalu Inc.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into
Supervalu's computer network that were previously announced by
Supervalu in its fiscal 2015.

The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu
filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20,
2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the
complaint.

On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May
31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional
arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. On August 30,
2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15
plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not
consider Supervalu's cross-appeal and remanded the case back for
consideration of Supervalu's additional arguments for dismissal
against the one remaining plaintiff.

On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the
motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and granted Supervalu's
motion to dismiss.

On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and the
oral argument occurred on February 12, 2019.

United Natural said, "Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat
insurance above a per incident deductible of $1 million at the time
of the Criminal Intrusion, which the Company believes should cover
any potential loss related to this litigation."

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UNITED STATES: 10K Federal Employees Opt Into NTEU Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ogrysko, writing for Federal News Network, reports that
after a year of proposed pay freezes, executive orders and a
historic government shutdown, the National Treasury Employees Union
is choosing to look on the bright side, even if its members
suffered a few battle scars along the way.

After all, a federal district judge overturned nine key provisions
of the President's executive orders on collective bargaining and
official time.

Congress eventually reversed the President's pay freeze and passed
a 1.9 percent raise.

Lawmakers secured back pay for federal employees during this most
recent government shutdown -- and all future ones.

And the courts are moving forward with two of NTEU's recently-filed
lawsuits that challenge the 35-day government shutdown.

About 10,000 federal employees who are part of NTEU's bargaining
units have so far opted into the union's class-action lawsuit,
which argued the administration violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act when it forced excepted federal employees to work without pay
during the shutdown.

NTEU is pleased that with uptake so far from its collective
bargaining members, considering some 25,000 federal employees
joined a similar class action lawsuit following the 2013 government
shutdown.

A judge is considering a motion to consolidate NTEU's case with
about a dozen other similar ones, Paras Shah, NTEU's assistant
counsel, told reporters on March 6. Most notably, the law firm
Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch has filed a similar suit on
behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees.

The government and unions are working with an outside consultant to
calculate the amount of liquidated damages that federal employee
plaintiffs are owed. Shah said all parties are still sorting
through mountains of payroll data.

"There's still some pay data to be obtained from agencies," he
said. "The government has told plaintiffs counsel in that case that
after the damages are calculated that it intends to appeal the
Court of Federal Claims ruling to the federal circuit."

NTEU, meanwhile, is still pursuing its second shutdown lawsuit,
which it filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia during the recent lapse in appropriations.

The union's second lawsuit raises a variety of constitutional
questions that challenges the Antideficiency Act, the mechanism
that ultimately prompts agencies to shut down, furlough some and
force other federal employees to work without pay for the duration
of a lapse of appropriations.

"I wanted to do everything in my power to find an avenue to bring
shutdowns to an end," Tony Reardon, NTEU's national president, told
reporters. "If you don't have the appropriation in place to pay
employees, then they don't work. My bet is that Congress is going
to do what they have to do to make sure that there are
appropriations in place to make sure that we do not have
shutdowns."

A federal district judge will consider the government's motion to
dismiss NTEU's Antideficiency Act case.

Meanwhile, NTEU is encouraging its members to build off the
momentum they earned during the recent shutdown to educate and
engage members of Congress about their work.

"That connection is what we're going to build," Reardon said on
March 6 at the union's annual legislative conference in Washington.
"We're going to strengthen our existing relationships. We're going
to continue to find common ground with those members of Congress
who do not always stand with us. We're going to create new
relationships with freshman legislators."

NTEU fearful of further pay freezes, familiar retirement cuts
Still, many of the challenges NTEU faced over the past year will
likely resurface again.

The Trump administration is appealing the federal judge's decision
on the President's executive orders.

And while federal employees are still waiting for the 2019 pay
raise, Reardon said he has a feeling the White House won't shy away
from another proposed pay freeze for the following year.

"I'm concerned that we're going to see much of the same," he said
of the president's 2020 budget proposal.

The president's 2019 budget proposal suggested a pay freeze and a
familiar series of cuts for current and future retirees and federal
employees.

The White House is expected to release its "skinny" budget
proposal.

NTEU is also preparing for the prospect of more proposed cuts to
agency budgets. Preserving the Office of Personnel Management from
a proposed reorganization, for example, is another priority for the
union.

"I'll be the first to tell you, OPM does have some faults," Reardon
said. "But that said, it's an independent agency that shields our
workforce from direct political control, and that must be
maintained."

Reardon and other federal employee unions have largely said the
past year did little to improve their relationships with the Trump
administration. But he said NTEU has struck up positive working
relationships with some agency leaders.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was
particularly helpful in finding flexibilities for food and safety
inspectors during the shutdown, who were otherwise forced to pay
for work travel out of pocket, Reardon said.

The union also had positive and productive conversations with
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to
resolve challenges for CBP officers who had called to take
temporary duty assignments along the southern border.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig stepped in personally to resolve
problems that NTEU bargaining members experienced when they tried
to file for unemployment benefits during the shutdown.

"I'm not interested in having a battle with the administration,"
Reardon said. "I'm not interested in having a battle with any
agencies. I'm interested in finding a way to work -- whether it's
with the administration or whether it's with individual agency
heads. I want the best possible working environment for my
members." [GN]


VEOLIA: AG Defends Decision to Remove Counsel in Flint Water Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Radio reports that in the wake of Flint's lead in water
crisis, there have been a number of criminal and civil lawsuits
filed against both public officials and private companies. One of
the class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the people of Flint
was against the French company Veolia and the Texas-based
engineering firm Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam -- or LAN.

The civil lawsuit was filed by Noah Hall, an independent special
prosecutor appointed by former Michigan Attorney General Bill
Schuette. It seeks to hold these companies financially accountable
for their involvement in the Flint water crisis.

But Mr. Hall was let go by Attorney General Dana Nessel last month
for comments he made on Stateside in January, Ms. Nessel told host
Cynthia Canty on March 6. Now, in-house attorneys in the AG's
office are leading the case against the two private firms.

"I think to suggest that I am not going to handle these cases
properly when there's really nothing to base that on, I would say
is inappropriate, is improper," said Attorney General Dana Nessel
in response to comments made by former special prosecutor Noah
Hall.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel talked to Stateside about why
Hall was let go, and her response to Hall's assertion that the
people of Flint should be represented by an independent legal team,
not state attorneys.

Ms. Nessel said she chose to move some of the civil lawsuits,
including the one against Veolia and LAN, to the attorney general's
office because she wasn't satisfied that they were being properly
handled. She said she wanted to make sure that the lawyers
prosecuting those cases were directly accountable to the voters of
Michigan.

"I thought in order to make certain that these cases were properly
investigated, properly charged, properly prosecuted, I needed to
have career prosecutors who were dedicated civil servants and who
were working on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan," Ms.
Nessel explained.

Ms. Nessel said she removed Noah Hall from his role as independent
special prosecutor because he violated rules of professional
conduct by publicly discussing ongoing investigations with the
media.

"And in doing so, quite frankly, it jeopardizes those
investigations and it jeopardizes the prosecutions as well," she
added.

Mr. Hall spoke with Stateside about concerns regarding the ongoing
Flint water crisis investigations, and also in January. Hall had
plenty of opportunity to bring concerns about the Veolia and LAN
case to her privately, says Ms. Nessel, but failed to do so. Hall
also failed to respond to a letter sent directly to him after his
interview in January with Stateside, according to Ms. Nessel.

The attorney general said she is confident that her team, which is
defending the state against class action civil suits filed on
behalf of Flint residents, would be able to adequately represent
those same residents in the case against Veolia and LAN.
Ms. Nessel said that her office consulted extensively with their
ethics officer to ensure that they could oversee the case without
violating ethical guidelines.  

Plus, Ms. Nessel added, she will be personally overseeing the civil
lawsuit against Veolia and LAN. She said any concern on Hall's part
that she would be defending actions taken by former Governor Rick
Snyder or the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality or any
other state officials is unfounded and improper.

"I'm working as hard as I can, and as industrious as I can, to
ensure that these cases are being handled properly. And ultimately,
the voters will be able to hold me accountable for that in 2022.
And see if I have ultimately kept my promises and honored my
commitment that I made to the residents of this state," Ms. Nessel
said.

If the state wins the case against the two companies, there could
be tens, or even hundreds, of millions of dollars in payouts to the
state. That money, as dictated by state law, would go into the
general fund.

What ultimately happens to that money will be decided by state
lawmakers, but Ms. Nessel said she has been vocal about her
commitment to making sure the residents of Flint are properly
compensated for the harm caused by the city's lead in water crisis.
[GN]


VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Faces Labor Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Beckwith-Cohen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VibrantCare Rehabilitation,
Inc., Patsy Neumann and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. RG19006376, (Cal. Super. Ct., February 11, 2019), seeks
unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under the California Labor Code and applicable
and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

VibrantCare provides outpatient hand, physical and occupational
therapy. Plaintiff worked as a hand therapist at two of
VibrantCare's facilities located in Castro Valley and Fairfield,
California. Cohen claims to be uncompensated for off-the-clock meal
and rest periods and hours doing paperwork.  She was terminated
because of her complaints.  She has yet have to receive her last
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      401 West A Street, Suite 2550
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 235-2416
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: csekino@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Mary E. Wright, esq.
      Oriet Cohen-Supple, esq.
      WRIGHT & SUPPLE LLP
      660 Key Route Boulevard
      Albany, CA 94706
      Telephone: (510) 495-5749
      Email: oriet@wrightandsupple.com
             mary@wrightandsupple.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia over alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received
certain telephone calls.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.


Vivint Solar said, "The Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint, has retained counsel and intends to vigorously defend
itself in the litigation. The Company is unable to estimate the
amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this time."

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

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as
solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known
as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar,
Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Resolves Customers' Suit over Power Purchase Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has entered into a
settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit involving the
customers' power purchase agreements.  

In June 2018, four of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and
requesting relief pursuant to Section 1689 of the California Civil
Code.

The complaint sought (1) rescission of their power purchase
agreements' (PPAs) along with restitution to the plaintiffs
individually and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend itself.

On November 14, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the four customers whereby the customers agreed to
dismiss the putative class action in exchange for rescission of
their contracts, removal of the systems that the Company installed
on their properties, immaterial compensation payments to each
customer and an immaterial payment for attorneys' fees and costs.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as
solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known
as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar,
Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a purported class action lawsuit involving employees wage and hour
violation.

In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and
a purported class, named the Company in a putative class action
alleging that the Company misclassified those employees and
violated other wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties for
the alleged violations. The Company disputes the allegations and
has retained counsel to defend it in the litigation.

Vivint Solar said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this
case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the
Company's results of operations in the period or periods in which
any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company also sells photovoltaic installation products, as well as
solar renewable energy certificates. The company was formerly known
as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar,
Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


WAKE COUNTY, NC: Smith Appeals E.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Lee Smith filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled David Smith v. County of Wake, Case No.
5:03-ct-00561-BO, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh.

The appellate case is captioned as David Smith v. County of Wake,
et al., Case No. 19-6330, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the case.  That appellate
case is styled David Smith v. County of Wake and Donnie Harrison,
Sheriff, Case No. 18-6703.

The nature of suit is stated as prison condition.

David Lee Smith is currently incarcerated at the Pender
Correctional Center, in Burgaw, North Carolina.  He, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN]


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Mays Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 7, 2019, the Hon.
Judge Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify Final Wage
      Statement Subclass;

   2. directing parties to meet and confer and submit a joint
      proposed class notice within 14 days of the date of the
      Order, along with a proposed order approving the notice

   3. certifies a Wage Statement Class of:

      "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received
       one or more wage payments during the period from Friday,
       December 16, 2016 to January 31, 2018.

   4. appointing Lerna Mays as Class Representative; and

   5. appointing Harris & Ruble as Class Counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Case No. 19-80029, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

Defendant-Petitioner WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq.
          Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell, Esq.
          Paloma Peracchio, Esq.
          Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
                  cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com
                  pperacchio@bwslaw.com
                  mwrosch@bwslaw.com

               - and -

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7726
          E-mail: TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Waterstone Mortgage
Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action suit
entitled, Herrington et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements. On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award
finding Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum
wages, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated
damages under the FLSA.

On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in
large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount
of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in attorney fees
and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff Herrington,
plus post-judgment interest.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court awarded post-arbitration
fees and costs of approximately $98,000. The judgment was appealed
by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral
argument was held on May 29, 2018.  

On October 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating
the District Court's order enforcing the arbitration award.  

Waterstone Financial said, "If the District Court determines the
agreement only allows for individual arbitration, the award would
be vacated and the case sent to individual arbitration for a new
proceeding. If the District Court determines the arbitration
agreement nevertheless allows for collective arbitration, the
District Court could confirm the prior award."

On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed her post-remand brief. In it,
Plaintiff asks the Court to reaffirm the arbitration award entered
by Arbitrator Pratt in full. Alternatively, she asked the Court to
affirm her individual damage award and the awards of 123 other
opt-ins whose arbitration agreements permit joinder or class
actions. Lastly, Plaintiff asked the Court to have 154 opt-ins
intervene and file an amended complaint for individual relief in
court.

Waterstone opposed the motion on January 28, 2019, and asked the
Court to vacate the prior Final Award in full because Herrington's
arbitration agreement only allows for individual arbitration.
Plaintiff filed its reply on February 14, 2019.

Waterstone Financial said, "If the judgment is upheld in full, the
Company has estimated that the award, which includes attorney's
fees, costs, and interest, could be as high as $11 million.
However, Waterstone has meaningful appellate rights and intends to
vigorously defend its interests in this matter, including arguing
for complete reversal on appeal. Although the Company believes
there is a strong basis to vacate the award, there remains a
reasonable possibility that the Court's judgment will be affirmed
in whole or in part, with the possible range of loss from $0 to $11
million. We do not believe that the loss is probable at this time,
as that term is used in assessing loss contingencies. Accordingly,
in accordance with the authoritative guidance in the evaluation of
contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to
this matter."

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Werner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the
case, Werner et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, have
reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a putative
collection action lawsuit that was filed on August 4, 2017 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin,
Werner et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation. Plaintiffs allege
that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay loan officers minimum and
overtime wages.

On October 26, 2017, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification
and to provide notice to the putative class. On February 9, 2018,
the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
and notice.

On July 23, 2018, Waterstone filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the claims. It sought to (1) dismiss the time-barred
claims of 4 opt-ins and (2) dismiss all other opt-ins due to the
denial of conditional certification. In response, all but Werner
and Wiesneski filed motions to withdraw their consents to join the
case.

The Court denied the summary judgment motion on the basis that it
was moot due to the opt-in plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing their
case.

On October 17, 2018, Werner and Wiesneski asked the Court to send
their claims to arbitration. On December 13, 2018, the Court denied
the request, finding they had waived their right to arbitrate based
on litigating the case in Court for over a year. Thus, the case
remained in Court as a two-Plaintiff case.

As of February 2019, the parties have reached a settlement in
principle to resolve the claims.  

Waterstone Financial said, "The amount of the settlement would not
have a material impact to the financial statements. The parties are
working on finalizing the terms of settlement."

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.


WELCH FOODS: Jones Files Fraud Class Action in New York Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welch Foods Inc., A
Cooperative et al. The case is styled as Charles Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative, Promotion in Motion,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01532 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 18,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Welch Foods Inc. processes and produces grape-based products that
include juices, jams, jellies, and spreads.

Promotion In Motion, Inc. manufactures and markets confections,
fruit snacks, fruit rolls, and snack foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Fax: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com



WILLOW CREEK COMPANIES: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Garcia, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Willow Creek Companies, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00005, (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Willow Creek Companies is primarily engaged in the construction,
replacement and repair of natural gas pipelines, crude oil
pipelines, storage facilities and civil site work where Garcia
worked as a safety inspector. He claims to have worked in excess of
40 hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


WORLD FINANCIAL: Abtahi Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Fatemeh Abtahi, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Financial Group,
Insurance Agency, Inc., World Financial Group, Inc., Transamerica
Financial Advisors Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00065683, filed on December 28, 2018,
was removed from California Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on February
12, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00306.

Abtahi alleges unlawful deductions, failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation and failure to furnish
timely and accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor
Code.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad Fessenden Edwards, Esq.
      ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC
      10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Tel: (619) 232-1826
      Fax: (619) 232-1859

             - and -

      David Rosenberg, Esq.
      ROSENBERG SHPALL AND ASSOCIATES
      750 B St., Suite 3210
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 232-1826
      Fax: (619) 232-1859

             - and -

      Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq.
      FARNAES AND LUCIO APC
      2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
      Encinitas, CA 92024
      Tel: (760) 942-9431
      Fax: (760) 452-4421

Defendants are represented by:

      Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
      Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
      Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
      San Diego, CA 92122
      Telephone: (858) 652-3100
      Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
      Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
             marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
             tim.johnson@ogletree.com


ZIPRECRUITER INC: Alvarado Sues to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Alvarado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZipRecruiter, Inc., an Arizona Corporation,
Ian Siegel and Jane Doe Siegel and Joe Edmonds and Jane Doe
Edmonds, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00865, (D. Ariz., February 11,
2019, seeks unpaid wages for overtime compensation due, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this
action and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ZipRecruiter offers job board advertising and career recruitment
tools to fill customers' job vacancies. Alvarado work for the
defendants as an account manager, cold-calling and emailing current
and potential customers to solicit ZipRecruiter's services. He
claims premium for time spent working in excess of 40 hours in a
given workweek. Defendants allegedly misclassified him as
"exempt."

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com




                            *********

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 ***