CAR_Public/190402.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 66

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Torres Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ABM INDUSTRIES: Agreement Reached With Opt-Out Members in Hussein
ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing
ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 20
AKAL SECURITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Alonzo FLSA Suit

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Notice of Appeal in Maryland Class Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Parties Agree to Stay Hibbard Class Suit
ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees

AVATEL TECH: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Jones Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Bevinal Hits Share Price Drop
BANNER HEALTH: Ariz. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Ansley Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Still Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Ongoing

BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit
BIG PICTURE: Order on Data Transfer in Williams RICO Suit Entered
BON WORTH INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE: Sued over Collection of Biometric Data
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Short Seeks Prelim. Approval of $3.5-Mil. Deal

BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
BUKHARA INDIAN: Prabir FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval
CAPITAL MGMT: Dismissal of Kolbasyuk's Claims in FDCPA Suit Upheld
CAS MEDICAL: Torreano Balks at Sale to Edwards Lifesciences
CATERPILLLAR INC: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, Archuleta Says

CHEN'S BUFFET: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CHESTERTON, IN: Firefighters Seek Unpaid OT, Accrued Vacation Pay
CHRISTOPHER KANE: Dawson Says Website not Blind-friendly
CLEVELAND, OH: Williams Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of 6th Cir. Ruling
CLIENT SERVICES: Summary Judgment in Steffek FDCPA Suit Granted

CMRE FINANCIAL: Crooks Sues over Background Checks
COMPETENTIA US: Juarez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Inmates Certified in Whitney Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Flips Dismissal of Gassman Suit as Moot
COSTY'S INC: Ventura Labor Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages

CRANE & RIGGING: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
CREATIVE WERKS: Brown Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Sharing
DG STRATEGIC VII: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
DIGITAL MEDIA: Thrower Sues over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
DRIZLY INC: Traynor Files Class Suit under ADA in New York

ELLIE MAE: Faces Epstein Securities Suit Over Sale to Thoma Bravo
ENSIGN UNITED: Faulkner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Partial Approval
FARMERS GROUP: Grigson Moves to Certify Auto Policyholders Class
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Freeman Suit Challenges Wage and Hour Policies
FROST RESTAURANT: Salto Brings Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations

GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Certification in Booth Suit Recommended
GCA SERVICES: Faces Cisneros Suit over Background Checks in Calif.
GOLDEN WOKS: Chen Seeks Overtime Pay
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in SunEdison Suit Granted
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dropped as Defendant from Snap Inc. IPO Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit to Defend Suit over Sea Limited IPO

GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
GONCALVES & FERREIRA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREAT WALL: Zheng Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
GRUNT STYLE: Dixon Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

HEALTH NET: W. Poe Suit Remains in California District Court
HIBU INC: Cooley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
HILL'S PET: Sued Over Toxic Levels of Vitamin D in Pet Food
HOME DEPOT: Hankey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
HOME PRODUCTS: Pedroza Asserts BIPA Violation

HOUSTON FOODS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
HSBC BANK: Antonicic Moves to Certify Two Classes and 1 Subclass
HYATT CORPORATION: Denies Equal Access to Web Site, Kiler Claims
IBM CORP: Wants Supreme Court to Review Revival of Jander Suit
IKEA US: Cahilig Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

INDEPENDENT HOME: FLSA Settlement in Mitchell Suit Wins Final Nod
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTEL: Restaurant Staff Seek OT Wages, Damages
INTUIT INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Initial Okay
JEFFREY GREENE: Maceda Sues Over Unsolicited Text Under TCPA
JONATHAN NEIL: Reconsideration of Attys' Fees Order in Brown Denied

JP MORGAN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in McShannock Suit
KAY WATERPROOFING: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Files ERISA Suit v. Board
LA BOOM DISCO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Duran TCPA Suit
LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation

LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG: Nguyen Moves to Certify 6 Consumer Classes
M-I LLC: $556K Settlement in Syed FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
MACY'S WEST: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bhatia Hits Employees' Fund Mismanagement
MDL 2672: Court Amends Order Granting ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand

MEDICAL VITALITY: Guerra Sues over Marketing Text Messages
METALS USA: $2.8MM Settlement in Wilson Suit Has Prelim Approval
MICROCHIP TECH: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in Schuman ERISA Suit
MILWAUKEE HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Collect Wages Under WARN Act
MISSION VALLEY: Lengyel Suit Alleges Conspiracy and Fraud

MISSOURI: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in T. Watson's Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Koenitz Sues over Debt Collection
NEW YORK FISH: Melgarejo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
NS INVESTMENTS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NUSRET MIAMI: Compere Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees

NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Relate and Consolidate Securities Suits Granted
OCWEN LOAN: Court Resolves 1st Discovery Dispute in Franklin Suit
OHIO: Dismissal of 2nd Amended Vance Suit w/o Prejudice Upheld
OHIO: Mays Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees and Detainees
OWL INC: Supervisors & Drivers Subclasses Certified in Perez Suit

PELL'S POINT: Denies Workers Overtime Pay & Wage Slips, Says Cruz
PERMANENT GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Breach
PNGI CHARLES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Barrick FLSA Suit
PRIME WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Amador Says
PRUCO LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Behfarin Pending

PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit
REGIS CORPORATION: Boyack Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
RITE AID CORP: Nucci Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RMJV LP: Amador Suit Remanded to California State Court

ROKU INC: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-friendly
S & D CARWASH: Faces Crum Labor Suit in Sacramento
S & F SUPPLIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SECURITAS SECURITY: Merritt Alleges Labor Code Violations
SENTRY CENTERS: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY

SEQUENOM INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay Stockholder Suit
SINCERE CLIENT CARE: Blackshire Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SIXTYONE READE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Campos Says
SKYTEL SYSTEMS: Padilla Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
SOLED ENERGY: Krum et al Seek Wages & OT Pay for Material Handlers

SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Newman Files Securities Class Action in Del.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Deceives Public Shareholders, Wagner Suit Claims
STARLING CHEVROLET: Troup Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
STATE FARM: Appeals Opinion and Order in Hicks Suit to 6th Cir.
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Udeen Suit

SUTTER HEALTH: Saini Sues over Deceptive Hospital Emergency Fees
SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Weber Securities Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TATE & KIRLIN: Burnes Disputes Collection Letter
TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Wins Bid to Certify Owners Class
TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Bid for FLSA Class Cert. Filed in Freeman Suit

U.V.S. INC: Obiefuna Sues over Kickback & Price Fixing Scheme
ULTIMATE SOFTARE: Weinstein Challenges Go-Private Deal
ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Murray Files Securities Class Action in Del.
UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Statements
UNITED NATIONS: Laventure Seeks More Time to File Writ

UNITED STATES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fletcher Civil Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Martinez Sues Over Data Breach
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Gunderson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Danfoss Sale
US BANK: Fails to Acknowledge Requests Under RESPA, Gibson Claims
VAPOR 4: Metzler Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

VENNPOINT REAL: Pine Hill Residents Sue Over Units' Decreased Value
VENTURE EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss/Transfer Ratliff FCRA Suit Denied
WALKING COMPANY: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
WASTE PRO USA: Helpers Class Certified Under FLSA in Thomas Suit
WELLS FARGO: Rivera Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Managers

WESTERN DENTAL: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suits in NY and Colorado
WOLF & SHEPHERD: Traynor Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
YOSSI'S FISH: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ZUMBA FITNESS: Traynor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act

ZUTANO GLOBAL: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Torres Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, NOEL TORRES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-21001-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 14, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for Plaintiff's personal injuries incurred while in
training and/or on active military duty, resulting from Defendant's
defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended Combat
Arms (TM) earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2) ("Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM)
earplugs"), and to establish a Court-supervised fund to provide
medical monitoring to active-duty and veteran service members of
the armed forces of the United States of America due to their
increased risk from using 3M's defective products, and to extend
some of the claims deadlines for fraudulent tolling.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff joined the military in
1982 and was discharged in 2005. Prior to joining the military, the
Plaintiff had no signs or symptoms of hearing loss. The Plaintiff
was deployed for active duty in Iraq from 2003 to 2005 and fought
on behalf of our country during those years.

At the time of Plaintiff's deployment and during his pre-deployment
training, the 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were standard
issue and issued to Plaintiff. The Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM)
earplugs were provided and used by the Plaintiff. The Dual-ended
Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were provided for single use while the
Plaintiff was deployed and during his pre-deployment training.

The Plaintiff now suffers from hearing loss as a direct result of
3M's admittedly defective product.

The Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were standard issue in
certain branches of the military (including Plaintiff's) between at
least 2003 to at least 2015.

3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO
          Telephone: 314 241-8111
          Facsimile: 314 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

ABM INDUSTRIES: Agreement Reached With Opt-Out Members in Hussein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company has
reached a tentative agreement to resolve the claims of the opt-out
members in the Hussein case for $1.2 million.

The Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed on January 20,
2016, pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle (the "Hussein case"), was a
certified class action involving a class of certain hourly Air Serv
employees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in SeaTac,
Washington.

The plaintiffs alleged that Air Serv violated a minimum wage
requirement in an ordinance applicable to certain employers in the
local city of SeaTac (the "Ordinance"). Plaintiffs sought
retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.
This matter was removed to federal court.

In a separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines,
and several other employers at SeaTac Airport, the King County
Superior Court (the "Superior Court") issued a decision that
invalidated the Ordinance as it applied to workers at SeaTac
Airport. Subsequently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the
Superior Court’s decision.

On February 7, 2017, the Isse et al. v. Air Serv Corporation filed
on February 7, 2017 in the Superior Court of Washington for King
County (the "Isse case"), was filed against Air Serv on behalf of
60 individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be members of the
Hussein class), who alleged failure to comply with both the minimum
wage provision and the sick and safe time provision of the
Ordinance. The Isse plaintiffs sought retroactive wages and sick
benefits, double damages for wages and sick benefits, interest, and
attorneys' fees. The Isse case later expanded to approximately 220
individual plaintiffs.

In mediations on November 2 and 3, 2017, and without admitting
liability in either matter, the company agreed to settle the
Hussein and Isse cases for a combined total of $8.3 million,
inclusive of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and employer
payroll taxes. On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court approved the
settlement agreement for the 220 Isse plaintiffs, and the company
subsequently made a settlement payment of $4.5 million to the Isse
plaintiffs in January 2018.

On July 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle preliminarily approved the
settlement in the Hussein case.

At the final approval hearing on December 4, 2018, the court (i)
accepted opt-out notices from 78 Hussein class members (the
"opt-out members") indicating their intent to participate in
separate lawsuits (leaving 386 class members in the Hussein class),
(ii) directed the parties to recalculate the settlement amount by
deducting the settlement funds attributable to the 78 opt-out
members, and (iii) requested other minor changes, but indicated
that the court intended to grant final approval of the settlement
with these changes.

On December 20, 2018, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the Hussein class action settlement in the amount of
$2.1 million. The Hussein settlement funds were distributed to the
class on March 6, 2019. In January 2019, the company reached a
tentative agreement to resolve the claims of the opt-out members
for $1.2 million.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the consolidated
cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco the "Bucio case", is still ongoing.

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges we failed to provide legally required meal
periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods,
pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for
travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May
11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied.

The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial
court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the
appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First
Appellate District (the "Court of Appeal"), heard oral arguments on
November 7, 2017.

On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter
for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement,
and split shift class.

The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on previous
automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites.

On February 1, 2019, the Superior Court held that the discovery
related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would
be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 had been tried.

ABM Industries said, "This matter has not been set for trial. Prior
to trial, we will have the opportunity to move for summary
judgment, seek decertification of the classes, or mediate, if we
deem such actions appropriate."

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the court in the
case, Castro and Marmolejo v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., filed
on October 24, 2014, pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, has set a hearing to
consider final approval of the parties' settlement on August 20,
2019.

On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marley Castro filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that ABM did not reimburse janitorial employees in
California for using their personal cell phones for work-related
purposes, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802.

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Lucia Marmolejo was added to the
case as a named plaintiff. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved
for class certification seeking to represent a class of all
employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of
California with the Employee Master Job Description Code "Cleaner"
(hereafter referred to as "Cleaner Employees") beginning from
October 24, 2010.

ABM filed its opposition to class certification on November 27,
2017. On January 26, 2018, the district court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The court rejected plaintiffs'
proposed class, instead certifying three classes that the court
formulated on its own: (1) all employees who were, are, or will be
employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who
used a personal cell phone to punch in and out of the EPAY system
and who (a) worked at an ABM facility that did not provide a
biometric clock and (b) were not offered an ABM-provided cell phone
during the period beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of
notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this
action; (2) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM
in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal
cell phone to report unusual or suspicious circumstances to
supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or
(b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to
the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the
date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified
in this action; and (3) all employees who were, are, or will be
employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who
used a personal cell phone to respond to communications from
supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or
(b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to
the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the
date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified
in this action.

On February 9, 2018, ABM filed a petition for permission to appeal
the district court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was
denied on April 30, 2018. On March 20, 2018, ABM moved to compel
arbitration of the claims of certain class members pursuant to the
terms of three collective bargaining agreements.

In response to that motion, on May 14, 2018, the district court
modified the class definition to exclude all claims arising after
the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining
agreements (which is June 1, 2016 for one agreement and May 1, 2016
for the other two agreements). However, the district court denied
the motion to compel arbitration as to claims that arose prior to
the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining
agreements.

ABM has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district court's order
denying the motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
periods preceding the operative dates of the collective bargaining
agreements.

After a court-ordered mediation held on October 15, 2018, the
parties agreed to a class action settlement of $5.4 million,
subject to court approval. The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement was filed on January 4, 2019, and the
court held a hearing on the motion on February 12, 2019. On
February 14, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

In connection with the settlement, the company modified its
existing written policies for California to expressly confirm that
ABM service workers are not required to use personal cell phones
for work purposes and began centralizing the process and
implementing technology for such employees to request reimbursement
for personal cell phone use due to work.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled to be
held on August 20, 2019.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


AKAL SECURITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Alonzo FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ed E. Alonzo, Plaintiff, v. Akal Security
Incorporated, Defendant, No. CV-17-00836-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge
John T. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Defendant is a federal government contractor, and the Plaintiff
worked for it as an Aviation Security Officer ("ASO").  ASOs are
responsible for the supervision of persons being expelled from the
United States, or "deportees," during both domestic travel between
holding facilities and international travel to the deportees' home
countries.  Once the deportees are transported abroad, ASOs travel
on a return flight to the United States.

The Defendant maintained a written Timekeeping Policy for ASOs, and
the Plaintiff testified that he read and understood the Timekeeping
Policy.  In pertinent part, the Policy provided for a one-hour
unpaid meal period during certain return flights when no deportees
were present, with a few exceptions not relevant in the case.  The
Plaintiff signed an Employee Offer Letter with the Defendant that
similarly set forth a one-hour unpaid meal period policy.
Moreover, the Defendant and the International Union, Security,
Police and Fire Professionals of America entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement that included a comparable unpaid meal period
policy.  The Plaintiff was a party to that Collective Bargaining
Agreement as a member and officer of the Union.

The Defendant's Timekeeping Policy instructed ASOs to completely
disengage from all work duties during the meal period.  The
Defendant required ASOs to record time worked during meal periods
if special circumstances necessitated that an ASO perform work
during these periods.  The Policy further mandated that the ASO
notify his/her supervisor if such a situation arose.  The Plaintiff
testified that he never recorded any time worked during a meal
period.  However, at least in the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged
that an ASO may not take any lunch break and the Defendant deducted
one hour of compensation from his/her pay anyway.

The Plaintiff brought the case as a hybrid class action, and the
Court denied his Motion to Certify a Conditional Class because he
failed to show that other ASOs alleged that they worked without
compensation during their meal breaks.  Additionally, the Court
dismissed two counts of the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to
state a claim.

In the remaining count-- Count II -- the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's automatic one-hour pay deduction for meal periods,
deducted regardless of whether he took a meal period or worked
through the hour, violated the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Defendant now moves for summary
judgment on the remaining claim.

The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claim
for unpaid overtime wages accrued during one-hour meal periods.  In
support, it argues that the evidence undisputedly demonstrates that
the Plaintiff received bona fide meal breaks of at least one hour
on the designated flights and that, under the parties' agreements,
the Plaintiff's meal period was non-compensable.  The Defendant
thus contends that the Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show
that the meal periods are compensable.  It also maintains that, if
Defendant is liable for an FLSA violation, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to liquidated damages because Defendant relied in good
faith on the advice of counsel.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that a genuine dispute of fact
exists as to whether he worked during the unpaid meal period on the
designated flights, precluding summary judgment.  As such, the
Court must determine if the Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute
regarding whether he received one-hour bona fide meal periods or
whether he performed work for which he was not compensated under
the FLSA.

Judge Tuchi finds that the Plaintiff's denial of performing work
during an unpaid meal period, lack of written records, and lack of
knowledge or recollection as to encountering special circumstances
in which he worked during a meal period is not evidence from which
a reasonable jury could conclude that the Plaintiff was required to
work during an unpaid meal period.

Under the FLSA, the Judge finds taht bona fide meal periods are
permissible, and an employer need not permit employees to leave the
premises during meal periods so long as they are freed from their
duties.  To resist summary judgment, the Plaintiff has the burden
to proffer at least some evidence that creates a genuine dispute of
material fact, as to whether the Defendant did not compensate him
for time he actually worked.  In his Response to the Defendant's
Motion, the Plaintiff has pointed to irrelevant facts and, at most,
generalized, conclusory allegations, but the Plaintiff has not met
his burden of proffering evidence that he actually engaged in work
related duties during an unpaid lunch period or that he did not get
at least one hour of free time on the relevant flights -- indeed,
his deposition testimony is precisely the opposite.

Because the Plaintiff has not raised a genuine dispute as to
whether the Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for an FLSA violation,
the Judge need not reach the Defendant's Motion as to liquidated
damages.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Tuchi granted the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment.  He directed the Clerk of Court to enter
judgment for the Defendant and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6qSGea from Leagle.com.

Ed E Alonzo, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Seth Sarelson -- msarelson@kymplaw.com --
Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin &
Enoch PC & Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch PC.

Akal Security Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derek H.
Sparks -- Derek.Sparks@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Jenna
Rinehart Rassif -- Jenna.Rassif@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
PC & Sonya K. Boun -- Sonya.Boun@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
LLP.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. 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 motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard is still pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders as a class. On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and
abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR
Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, rescission of the company's advisory agreement
(or severable portions thereof) which became effective when the
Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain
provisions of the company's advisory agreement are void.

The company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intend to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018,
plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.
Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument
was held on September 26, 2018. That motion is now pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Notice of Appeal in Maryland Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. 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 plaintiffs notice
of appeal of the court's order of dismissal in the Maryland class
action suit, is still pending.   

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of  Retail
Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against the company, RCA, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA
and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on the proposed merger of us and RCA and an
amendment to RCA's charter.  

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the merger transaction, which was voted on and approved by
stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017,
together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual
damages, and costs and disbursements of the action. On April 26,
2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named
additional individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong,
Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick ("Additional Director Defendants"),
Nicholas Radesca and American Realty Capital Retail Advisor, LLC),
added counts under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act in connection with the Registration Statement for the proposed
merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and counts for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The company, in addition to RCA, the Director Defendants, the
Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing
and liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. On August
14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On
March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the amended complaint.

On April 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order, which appeal is pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses
are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for the year ended December 31, 2018 or 2017."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Parties Agree to Stay Hibbard Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. 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 parties in the
purported class action lawsuit initiated by Terry Hibbard have
agreed to stay this litigation pending a decision on the motion to
dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the company's common
stock during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.  

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of our sale
of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

The company believes the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend vigorously.

American Finance said, "We have not yet answered or moved to
dismiss the complaint. The parties have agreed to stay this
litigation pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the St.
Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Due to the early stage
of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably
possible losses are determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
----------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Anker Technology Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01427 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 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 manufacturer and retailer of computer and mobile
accessories and owns and operates the website, www.anker.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


APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK THOMPSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED SERVICES AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00127 (W.D.N.C., March 14, 2019),
alleges that Applied Services Augmentation Partners, Inc. has
failed to pay Jack Thompson and other workers like him, overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Instead, ASAP pays Thompson, and other workers like him, the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek, the lawsuit states. Thompson brings this collective
action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages.

According to the complaint, Thompson is an hourly employee of ASAP.
Thompson started working for ASAP in December 2015. ASAP's failure
to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by the
FLSA results from generally applicable, systematic policies, and
practices which are not dependent on the personal circumstances of
the Putative Class Members.

The defendant operates an employment agency.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Tamara L. Huckert, Esq.
          Christopher Strianese, Esq.
          STRIANESE HUCKERT LLP
          3501 Monroe Rd.
          Charlotte, NC 28205
          Telephone: 704-966-2101
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
                  tamara@strilaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

AVATEL TECH: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Jones Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONES REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a JONES REALTY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AVATEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE CIT GROUP INC., and
CIT BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1949(PKC)(S.D. N.Y.),
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC").

Jones entered into a lease agreement with CIT Bank to lease
telephone equipment supplied by Avatel.  The Lease identifies the
Lessor as "CIT Bank, N.A." and the Lessee as Jones.  The equipment
that Jones leased would have cost approximately $644 if Jones had
purchased the equipment instead of leasing it.  The Lease required
Jones to use the equipment only for business purposes.  

The Lease also required Jones to obtain insurance related to the
leased equipment.  In the event, Jones failed to provide proof of
acceptable insurance, CIT Bank had the right (but not the
obligation) to obtain insurance and the full costs of obtaining
that insurance may be added to the charges to be paid by Jones
under the Lease.  The present motion requires a construction of
this provision of the Lease, which will be deferred to the section
analyzing Jones' breach of contract claim.

It suffices to note that Jones did not obtain or provide any proof
of insurance to CIT Bank.  As a result, CIT Bank obtained $10,235
in insurance coverage, which is $0.61 less than the amount that
Jones would be expected to pay to CIT Bank over the course of the
Lease.  CIT Bank charged the premiums for this insurance policy
directly to Jones by adding $19.58 to Jones' monthly Lease
invoices.

Jones voices a variety of complaints about the $19.58 per month
charge.  It filed its SAC against the Defendants, alleging seven
causes of action for breach of contract (Counts I and IV), breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Counts II and
V), a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count
VI), and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Counts VII and VIII).

In Counts I and II it asserts breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims against CIT
Bank, arguing that the additional insurance charge was inflated
because CIT Bank obtained insurance for a value higher than the
Lease allowed.  Jones also claims in Count VI that CIT Bank and CIT
Group did not adequately disclose what Jones would be charged for
insurance in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349(a).  In
Count VII, it asserts a violation of the ("FDUTPA"), against CIT
Group for, among other things, charging inflated premiums for the
insurance and related misrepresentations.  Avatel's Service
Protection Plan and the Equipment Warranty.

Apart from the insurance provision of the Lease between Jones and
CIT Bank, Jones complains about a Service Protection Plan ("SPP")
offered by Defendant Avatel.  In Count VIII (against CIT Group and
Avatel), Jones alleges violations of FDUTPA, based on the marketing
of the SPP.  It asserts, among other things, that the SPP does not
become effective until the manufacturer's warranty expires and that
the SPP overlaps with protections offered by the warranty.

The telephone equipment leased by Jones comes with a manufacturer's
warranty, which covers hardware for 12 months, and software for 90
days.  The SPP provides benefits to those who lease or purchase
office equipment from Avatel.  Pursuant to the SPP, a customer is
entitled to services and assistance related to software and
hardware failures to be provided by Avatel within certain
designated response times.

The Defendants have moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.
P., to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff has withdrawn Counts IV and V, which deal with an
alleged "negative option contract."

Judge Castel granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  He denied the motions with respect to Count I
(as asserted against CIT Bank) and granted with respect to the
remaining claims and parties, including CIT Group and Avatel.

Among other things, the Judge finds that the state of the briefing
by the parties on the proper construction of the terms of the Lease
leaves him with the preliminary conclusion that the language is
ambiguous and susceptible to more than one plausible
interpretation.  For this reason, the motion to dismiss is denied
as to so much of the breach of contract claim as alleges that Jones
was charged premiums in excess of the amount allowed by the Lease.
The issue, of course, may be revisited at the summary judgment
stage.

To the extent Jones seeks to recover on the more generalized
assertion that "CIT Bank, N.A. has further breached the terms of
the Lease Agreement by charging borrowers for force-placed
insurance premiums that are not reasonable or appropriate to
protect the noteholder's interest in the equipment and rights under
the security instrument," it cites no law for the proposition that
the provision of the Lease is unlawful or otherwise violates any
public policy of the state of New York.  If Jones means nothing
more than the premiums were not "appropriate" because they were not
authorized by the Lease, then similarly (and subject to the same
considerations on contract construction) the allegation states a
claim.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Y2NDaX from Leagle.com.

Jones Real Estate, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated doing business as Jones Realty, Plaintiff,
represented by Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C.
& Jason Kyle Whittemore -- jason@wagnerlaw.com -- Wagner
McLaughlin, P.A., pro hac vice.

The CIT Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory William
Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP,
Cynthia G. Burnside -- cynthia.burnside@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory J. Digel -- greg.digel@hklaw.com
-- Holland & Knight LLP.

Avatel Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Randall Jay
Love, Randall J. Love, P.A., pro hac vice.

CIT Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Cory William Eichhorn,
Holland & Knight LLP, Cynthia G. Burnside, Holland & Knight LLP &
Robert Joseph Burns, Holland & Knight LLP.


AVON PRODUCTS: Bevinal Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------
Manzoor Bevinal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Avon Products, Inc., Sherilyn S. McCoy,
James S. Wilson and James S. Scully, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01420 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2019), seeks compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and
such other and further relief under the Exchange Act.

Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products. Bevinal alleges that Avon significantly loosened its
credit for its distributors in Brazil, its largest market, in order
to inflate its reported revenue and growth. However, it failed to
increase its allowance for doubtful accounts to account for the
changes to its credit terms in the Brazil market. Avon's stock
price on August 4, 2017 fell 40% from the previous year's closing.
Bevinal purchased Avon common stock and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      Garam Choe, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 292-5690
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      scotth@johnsonfistel.com


BANNER HEALTH: Ariz. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Ansley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WALTER ANSLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. BANNER HEALTH NETWORK, et
al., Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV
17-0075 (Ariz. App.), Judge Diane M. Johnsen of the Court of
Appeals of Arizona, Division One, (i) affirmed the superior court's
order enjoining the liens; (ii) reversed the court's summary
judgment against the Patients on their third-party-beneficiary
claim for breach of contract; and (iii) vacated and remanded for
further consideration a portion of the attorney's fee award to the
Patients.

Banner Health Network and other hospital groups each contracted
with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System ("AHCCCS") to
serve AHCCCS members.  The Plaintiffs in the case ("Patients")
received settlements or damage awards from third-party tortfeasors
for injuries that required treatment at the Hospitals.  The
Patients sued to enjoin the Hospitals from enforcing liens on their
tort recoveries for the balance between the rates the Hospitals
agreed to accept from AHCCCS and what the Hospitals would have
charged non-AHCCCS patients.

The Hospitals recorded their liens pursuant to two statutes,
Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 33-931 (2019) and
36-2903.01(G)(4) (2019).  The former allows a health-care provider
to file a lien for its "customary" charges against a patient's tort
recovery.  The latter specifically applies when a hospital has
served an AHCCCS member and allows that hospital to collect any
unpaid portion of its bill from other third-party payors or in
situations in which the general medical-lien statute applies.

In their complaint, the Patients alleged federal Medicaid law
preempts the Arizona lien statutes in cases such as theirs, and
sought an injunction barring the Hospitals from recording liens on
their tort recoveries.  They argued the liens constitute
impermissible "balance billing," a term describing a health-care
provider's effort to collect from a patient the difference in the
amount paid by Medicaid, or a state plan like AHCCCS, and the
amount the provider typically charges.

Early in the litigation, the superior court dismissed a group of
the Plaintiffs who had settled their lien claims with the Hospitals
and entered partial final judgment as to those Plaintiffs pursuant
to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).  Those Plaintiffs
appealed, arguing their settlements lacked consideration because
federal law preempted the Hospitals' liens.  

The Court accepted that argument, Abbott v. Banner Health Network,
but the supreme court reversed, Abbott, 239 Ariz. 409 (2016).  The
supreme court ruled the settlements were valid and made "fairly and
in good faith" because the validity of the Hospitals' lien rights
was not settled under Arizona law.

Meanwhile, the superior court certified the remaining Plaintiffs as
a class, and both sides moved for summary judgment on the
preemption issue.  The superior court ruled in favor of the
Patients on their claim for a declaratory judgment, holding that
when a hospital has accepted payment from AHCCCS for treating a
patient, 42 Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F.R.") Section 447.15
(2019) preempts the hospital's state-law right to a lien on the
patient's tort recovery for the balance between what AHCCCS paid
and the hospital's customary charges.  The court then enjoined the
Hospitals from filing or asserting any lien or claim against a
patient's personal injury recovery, after having received any
payment from AHCCCS for the same patient's care.  It granted
summary judgment to the Hospitals, however, on the Patients'
third-party-beneficiary claim, which alleged the Hospitals breached
their contracts with AHCCCS by imposing the liens.  Finally, the
superior court awarded attorney's fees to the Patients under the
private attorney general doctrine and denied both sides' motions
for new trial.

The Hospitals appealed the preemption ruling and injunction, and
the Patients cross-appealed the judgment against them on their
contract claim.

Judge Johnsen holds that applicable federal law, 42 C.F.R. Section
447.15, preempts A.R.S. Sections 33-931 and 36-2903.01(G)(4) to the
extent those statutes allow a health-care provider that has
accepted payment from AHCCCS for treating a patient to impose a
lien on the patient's tort recovery for the difference between what
the provider accepted from AHCCCS and the amount the provider would
have charged a non-AHCCCS patient.  Therefore, she affirmed the
superior court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Patients
on their claim for declaratory relief and the court's order
enjoining the Hospitals from enforcing any lien rights they may
have under state law to recover those funds.

The Judge also holds that the Patients are third-party
beneficiaries of the contracts the Hospitals entered with AHCCCS to
serve AHCCCS members.  Those contracts required the Hospitals to
comply with federal law, including 42 C.F.R. Section 447.15.
Accordingly, she reversed and remanded the dismissal of the
Patients' claim for breach of contract and direct entry of judgment
in favor of the Patients on that claim.

Finally, she affirmed the superior court's award of fees to the
Patients, excepting only the amount of $60,442, which the Patients
sought for work performed in connection with the Abbott case, and
she directed the superior court on remand to reconsider that fees
claim.  She awarded the Patients their costs on appeal and their
attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-341.01(A), contingent
upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CrQCg8 from Leagle.com.

Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC, Phoenix, By Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg,
Justin Henry, Co-Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

The Entrekin Law Firm, Phoenix, By B. Lance Entrekin, Co-Counsel
for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Richard B. Burnham --
rburnham@gblaw.com -- Cameron C. Artigue -- cartigue@gblaw.com --
Christopher L. Hering -- chering@gblaw.com -- Counsel for
Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.


BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, 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 in the
case, Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., is still
pending.

On June 16, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and
related New York law.

The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class of subscribers of
Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) who purchased DVDs or other video media
from the Barnes & Noble website, seeks damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees, among other things, based on her allegation
that B&N Booksellers supposedly knowingly disclosed her personally
identifiable information to Facebook without her consent when she
bought a DVD from Barnes & Noble's website.

On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction
requiring Barnes & Noble to change the operation of its website,
which motion B&N Booksellers opposed. On July 31, 2017, B&N
Booksellers moved to compel the case to arbitration, consistent
with the terms of use on Barnes & Noble's website.

On August 28, 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction. On January 31, 2018, the court granted B&N
Booksellers' motion to compel arbitration, and the clerk of court
closed the case on February 1, 2018.

On March 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district
court's grant of B&N Booksellers' motion to compel arbitration.

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

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, 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 company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit related to tampered PIN
pads.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.

Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the
Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification
statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.

The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed an
amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to
dismiss.

On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to dismiss,
and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so, the Court
permitted Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by October
31, 2016. On October 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, and on January 25, 2017, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.

On June 13, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 11, 2018,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision
granting the motion to dismiss the case, and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

The Company filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc; that petition was denied on May
10, 2018. The case is currently pending in the District Court.

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

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, 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 company
continues to defend the class action by cafe managers.

On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against Barnes
& Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York in which she alleges that she is entitled to unpaid
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois
law.

Ms. Brown seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager)
under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-based class under Illinois
law. On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to
add an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former
Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in
violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York law.


On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification, without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for Conditional Certification on November 17, 2017, which the Court
denied on June 25, 2018.

There are currently 24 former Cafe Managers who have joined the
action as opt-in plaintiffs.

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

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BIG PICTURE: Order on Data Transfer in Williams RICO Suit Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LULA WILLIAMS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG PICTURE LOANS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv461 (E.D. Va.),
Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Entry of Order, subject to limitation.

In the Memorandum Opinion entered on July 27, 2018, the core of the
case lies consumer loans bearing interest rates of more than 600%
that are alleged to violate Virginia's usury laws and a lending
scheme (implemented through a convoluted corporate maze) that is
alleged to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").  The corporate structure and the
lending schemes were set up by the Corporate Defendants and the
individual Defendant, Matt Martorello, in an effort to escape the
reach of state usury laws and federal credit regulating laws by
trying to put the Corporate Defendants within the sovereign
immunity of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians.  For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, the Corporate
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
under a claim of sovereign immunity was rejected.  That decision is
on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

After the Corporate Defendants appealed from the decision holding
that they were not entitled to the Tribe's sovereign immunity, the
case was set for trial on the claims against Martorello, and the
class, and the merits discovery was allowed to proceed as to the
case against Martorello. The case against Martorello was set for
trial to begin on March 18, 2019, but as explained in the
Memorandum Order entered on Jan. 23, 2019, the Corporate Defendants
have thwarted the discovery efforts of both the Plaintiffs and
Martorello by interposing rather farfetched notions of sovereign
immunity to oppose the Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain information
from non-parties and from employees of the Corporate Defendants who
formerly were employed by entities owned or controlled by
Martorello.

As part of their discovery of non-parties, the Plaintiffs issued a
subpoena duces tecum to TranDotCom Solutions, LLC, a company that
maintains Big Picture's data relating to the allegedly usurious
loans such as loan amounts, origination dates, and payments.
TranDotCom refused to comply because of its contract with Big
Picture and its concerns about whether production was prohibited by
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.  However, TranDotCom has not filed
objections to producing the documents requested in the subpoena.
Instead, the Plaintiffs and TranDotCom negotiated a resolution that
required a Court order to sanction the resolution.  TranDotCom and
the Plaintiffs informed Big Picture of the subpoena and the
agreement.  After that agreement was reached, the Corporate
Defendants, who had been informed of the subpoena but had done
nothing to oppose it, filed a pleading titled Specially Appearing
Defendants Bid Picture Loans, LLC'S and Ascension Technologies,
LLC'S Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order, in which they
object to entry of the order to which the Plaintiffs and TranDotCom
agreed.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry
of Order.  In the Motion, the Court is asked to enter an order
declaring that TranDotCom's transfer of Big Picture's data in
response to the subpoena does not violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act so that TranDotCom will provide the requested data without fear
of violating the statute.  

Corporate Defendants Ascension and Big Picture responded, and the
Court heard argument on the matter.

Judge Payne agrees that the transfer of Big Picture's data does not
violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act because a subpoena falls within
the judicial-process exception to the Act.  Further, he rejects the
other reasons advanced by the Corporate Defendants for denying the
motion: (1) that the subpoena must be served in Georgia rather than
in Virginia under Rule 45 and (2) that the motion should be
quashed, because the subpoena does not satisfy Rule 45's balancing
test.  He finds that their arguments lack merit because Section
6802(e)(8) explicitly says that Subsections (a) and (b) will not
prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to
respond to judicial process.  The Corporate Defendants' argument
that turning over the data does not satisfy the Rule 45 balancing
test is rejected because the Corporate Defendants' did not make
that argument in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Finally, considering that the Court has not yet decided Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against Defendant Matt
Martorello), the production of documents will not take effect until
the Court decides whether the plaintiffs satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P.
23's requirements to maintain a class action.  Meanwhile,
TranDotCom will segregate the requested information and preserve it
so that it can be produced when directed by subsequent order.  By
March 30, 2019, TranDotCom will certify in writing and under oath
that it has properly preserved the requested information.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Payne granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Entry of Order, subject to the limitation set forth.

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

Lula Williams, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy & Marcella P. Singh,
Administrator of the Estate of Felix M. Gillison, Jr., Plaintiffs,
represented by Craig Carley Marchiando , Consumer Litigation
Associates, Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com --
Kelly Guzzo PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
-- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Casey Shannon Nash --
casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Eleanor Michelle
Drake, Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Adams,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth W. Hanes,
Consumer Litigation Associates, James Wilson Speer -- jay@vplc.org
-- Virginia Proverty Law Center, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John Gerard Albanese, Berger
& Montague PC, pro hac vice, Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer
Litigation Associates & Matthew William Wessler, Gupta Wessler
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Gloria Turnage, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Carley Marchiando ,
Consumer Litigation Associates, Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo
PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Beth Ellen Terrell,
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Casey Shannon Nash,
Kelly Guzzo PLC, Eleanor Michelle Drake , Berger & Montague PC, pro
hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Consumer Litigation Associates,
James Wilson Speer , Virginia Proverty Law Center, Jennifer Rust
Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John Gerard
Albanese , Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice & Leonard Anthony
Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates.

Big Picture Loans, LLC & Ascension Technologies, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Craig Thomas Merritt, Christian & Barton LLP, David
Neal Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, James Edward Moore , Christian & Barton LLP, Shannan
Marie Fitzgerald, Christian & Barton LLP, Anna Marek Bruty, Rosette
LLP, Julie Diane Hoffmeister, Troutman Sanders LLP, Justin
Alexander Gray -- jgray@rosettelaw.com -- Rosette, LLP, pro hac
vice & Timothy James St. George -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com
-- Troutman Sanders LLP.

Matt Martorello, Defendant, represented by David Neal Anthony ,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Spotts Fain PC, John
Michael Erbach, Spotts Fain PC, Jonathan Peter Boughrum --
jboughrum@mmwr.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Maurice
Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC, Michael Christopher Witsch,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Lynne Alamo,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Louis Brusati, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff --
rscheff@mmwr.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy
James St. George, Troutman Sanders LLP, Tod Daniel Stephens,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice & William Ojile, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice.


BON WORTH INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly
-------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Bon Worth, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01379 (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 and accessories company that operates
www.bonworth.com. Dawson claims that the website 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


BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE: Sued over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE, INDEPENDENT
LIVING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03387 (Ill. Cir., March
14, 2019), alleges that the Defendant has implemented an invasive
program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of
their workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable
Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. The
Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to clock "in"
and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints. When
clocking in and out using the fingerprint scans, Defendant's
biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the
employee "in" or "out."

Unlike traditional time clock punch cards which can be changed or
replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with eachCounsel for the employee.
This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-201-0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 726 3400
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Short Seeks Prelim. Approval of $3.5-Mil. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DIANE G. SHORT, JUDITH
DAVIAU, and JOSEPH BARBOZA, Individually and as representatives of
a class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the
BROWN UNIVERSITY DEFERRED VESTING RETIREMENT PLAN, and the BROWN
UNIVERSITY LEGACY RETIREMENT PLAN v. BROWN UNIVERSITY in Providence
in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Case No.
1:17-cv-00318-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), move the Court for an order:

   (1) preliminarily approving the parties' proposed $3,500,000
       class action settlement;

   (2) approving class certification for settlement purposes;

   (3) establishing a plan for providing the notice of the
       Settlement to Class Members;

   (4) appointing Class Counsel;

   (5) appointing a Settlement Administrator; and

   (6) setting a hearing for final approval of the Settlement and
       consideration of Co-Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
       attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

As reflected in the Settlement Agreement, the parties want to
compromise and settle all issues and claims relating to the
allegations made in this action on behalf of all members of the
proposed Classes.  The Plaintiffs' proposed plan of allocation will
fairly and compensate Class Members in proportion to the relative
losses resulting from Defendants' alleged imprudent investment of
their assets and other claims as described in the Complaint in this
case, and taking into account Defendant's proffered defenses, says
the complaint.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
          395 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 864-5877
          Facsimile: (401) 354-7464
          E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net

               - and -

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0145
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

Defendant Brown University is represented by:

          Steven M. Richard, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Citizens Plaza, Suite 500
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 454-1000
          E-mail: srichard@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Charles M. Dyke, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8315
          E-mail: cdyke@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          H. Douglas Hinson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          The Atlantic Building
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          E-mail: doug.hinson@alston.com


BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Buckingham Property Management removed on March 11, 2019,
the lawsuit titled KEVIN FERRELL, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; CHERYL
BAKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, a California corporation; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. BC554213, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00187 to the
proceeding.

On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff Kevin Ferrell filed a complaint in Los
Angeles County Superior Court naming Buckingham Property Management
as Defendant and alleging ten causes of action for wage and hour
violations, which was recently subsequently amended to include a
claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN]

Defendant Buckingham Property Management is represented by:

          John T. Egley, Esq.
          Shirin Forootan, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: jegley@calljensen.com
                  sforootan@calljensen.com


BUKHARA INDIAN: Prabir FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL PRABIR, MUSTAFA JAMAL BHUIYAN and SYDUR RASHID,
Plaintiffs, v. BUKHARA INDIAN CUISINE, INC., d/b/a "Indigo Indian
Bistro," BASER INDIAN CUISINE, INC., d/b/a "Baser Restaurant," ANIL
KUMAR and RENU KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 3704 (HBP) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the parties' settlement
agreement in the action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Plaintiffs formerly worked as servers and/or food runners at
two restaurants allegedly owned and operated by the individual
defendants.  They allege that the Defendants (1) paid them a flat
weekly salary regardless of the number of hours they worked, (2)
failed to pay the minium wage and overtime premium pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, (3) failed to pay
"spread of hours" pay as required by the NYLL, (4) misappropriated
gratuities and (5) failed to provide the wage statements and wage
notices require by the NYLL.

Exclusive of liquidated damages, interest and statutory penalties,
the parties claim the following amounts: (i) Prabir - $74,648
(31%); (ii) Bhuiyan - $46,026.25 (19%); (iii) Rashid - $119,566
(49.8%),

The parties have reached an agreement to settle all claims of all
the Plaintiffs against all the Defendants for the total sum of
$130,000.  The $43,000, or slightly less than one-third, will be
paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel as reimbursement for out-of-pocket
costs and fees.

The parties have agreed to allocate the remainder of $87,000 as
follows: (i) Prabir - $36,000 (41.3%); (ii) Bhuiyan - $14,000
(42.5%); and (iii) Rashid - $37,000 (16%).

The action has been marked by continuing efforts on the part of the
Defendants to dissipate and/or hide their assets.  In February
2018, the Plaintiffs sought and ultimately obtained a pre-judgement
order of attachment on the theory that the Defendants with the
intent to defraud their creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a
judgment that might be rendered in the Plaintiffs' favor, have
assigned, disposed of, encumbered, or secreted property, or removed
it from the state or are about to do so.

The evidenced adduced at the hearing on the motion for an order of
attachment demonstrated that the Defendants were transferring,
encumbering and selling assets, all in an effort to frustrate a
judgment.  The discovery conducted by the Plaintiffs has also
disclosed that the Defendants failed to pay rent for one of their
restaurants for several months, resulting in a debt of $350,000 and
that the Defendants owe the State of New York $87,000 in unpaid
taxes.  The Defendants efforts to evade their creditors have been
so extensive that the Plaintiffs here were compelled to commence an
action in state court asserting fraudulent conveyance claims
against the Defendants and their family members.

The money to fund the proposed settlement in the matter has already
been paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel and is being held in escrow
pending my approval of the settlement.

Judge Pitman finds that (i) the net settlement amount represents
approximately 36% of the Plaintiffs' claimed unpaid minimum wage
and overtime pay; (ii) the settlement will entirely avoid the
expense and aggravation of litigation and the problems of
collection; (iii) the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to
avoid the risk of litigation; (iv) there is no evidence that the
settlement is anything other than the product of arm's-length
bargaining between experienced counsel; (v) here is no evidence
suggesting fraud; and (vi) the settlement agreement's fee provision
is clearly reasonable.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman approved
the parties' settlement agreement.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed, and the pending
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against
Renu Kumar is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Zv24yU from Leagle.com.

Samuel Prabir, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard -- lucas@jk-llp.com
-- Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum --
maimon@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum.

Mustafa Jamal Bhuiyan & Sydur Rashid, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP.

Bukhara Indian Cuisine, Inc, doing business as Indigo Indian
Bistro, Basera Indian Cuisine, Inc., doing business as Basera
Restaurant, Anil Kumar & Renu Kumar, Defendants, represented by
Arthur Harvey Forman -- mail@ahforman.com -- Arthur H. Forman,
Esq., Benjamin Wade Baumgartner, Gehi & Associates & Naresh M.
Gehi, Law Offices of N. M. Gehi, P.C..


CAPITAL MGMT: Dismissal of Kolbasyuk's Claims in FDCPA Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YURI KOLBASYUK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LP, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1260-cv (2d Cir.),
Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
Kolbasyuk's claims.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") regulates certain
communications from debt collectors to consumers with outstanding
debts.  Plaintiff-Appellant Kolbasyuk sought to invoke the FDCPA's
protections when he received a debt collection letter from
Defendant-Appellee CMS.

Kolbasyuk owed a debt to Barclays Bank Delaware.  Barclays hired
CMS to collect it.  In an effort to accomplish that task, CMS sent
Kolbasyuk a dunning letter dated July 21, 2017.  The letter stated
the present amount of Kolbasyuk's debt (about $6,000) as well as
the identity of the original and current creditor (Barclays).  The
letter contained CMS's address and contact information, including a
website at which Kolbasyuk could submit his payment. The letter
noted that it was a communication from a debt collector.

After receiving CMS's letter, Kolbasyuk filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  He alleged that the letter violated Sections 1692e and 1692g
of the FDCPA.  According to his complaint, the letter violated
those provisions because it failed to inform him, inter alia, what
portion of the amount listed is principal, what 'other charges'
might apply, if there is interest, when such interest will be
applied, and what the interest rate is.  Kolbasyuk also claimed
that the letter conveyed the mistaken impression that the debt
could be satisfied by remitting the listed amount as of the date of
the letter, at any time after receipt of the letter.

On April 14, 2018, the district court dismissed Kolbasyuk's
complaint, holding that CMS' letter violated neither of the two
provisions that Kolbasyuk cited.  In so doing, the district court
noted that the letter stated the amount Plaintiff owed as of its
date and stated that the amount owed may increase due to interest
and fees.

Kolbasyuk timely appealed.  He argues that CMS' letter violated
Section 1692g and Section 1692e.

Judge Livingston finds that the text of Section 1692g clearly
forecloses Kolbasyuk's argument. That provision required CMS to
inform Kolbasyuk of the "amount of the debt" in question.  And that
is exactly the figure that CMS provided: the total, present
quantity of money that Kolbasyuk was obligated to pay Barclays as
of the date of CMS' letter.  Nothing in Section 1692g required CMS
to inform Kolbasyuk of the constituent components of that debt or
the precise rates by which it might later increase.

To the extent that Kolbasyuk attempts to state a claim under
Section 1692e based on CMS' failure to provide him with a precise
breakdown of his debt or to inform him of the precise interest he
might incur going forward, the Judge rejects that claim too.  CMS
has provided Kolbasyuk with the total, present quantity of his debt
and informed him that this amount might increase due to additional
fees and interest.  A failure to provide the additional detailed
disclosures that Kolbasyuk seeks does not transform CMS'
otherwise-straightforward letter into a "false, deceptive, or
misleading" one.

Kolbasyuk presents no other theory under which CMS might have
violated Section 1692e.  Nor can the Judge imagine one.  Absent
additional facts not present on the record, nothing about CMS'
letter could be fairly characterized as "false, deceptive, or
misleading."  Accordingly, the district court did not err in
concluding that Kolbasyuk's complaint fails to state a claim that
CMS "used any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
means in connection with the collection" of the debt at issue.

Judge Livingston has considered Kolbasyuk's remaining arguments and
concludes that they are waived or without merit.  For the foregoing
reasons, she affirmed the district court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wt5ABV from Leagle.com.

LEVI HUEBNER, Levi Huebner & Associates, PC, Brooklyn, New York,
for Yuri Kolbasyuk, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

KIRSTEN H. SMITH -- ksmith@sessions.legal -- (Bryan C. Shartle --
bshartle@sessions.legal -- on the brief), Sessions, Fishman, Nathan
& Israel LLC, Metairie, Louisiana, for Capital Management Services,
LP., for Defendant-Appellee.


CAS MEDICAL: Torreano Balks at Sale to Edwards Lifesciences
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS TORREANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., THOMAS M.
PATTON, ALAN W. MILINAZZO, PAUL A. MOLLOY, GREGORY P. RAINEY, JAMES
E. THOMAS, KATHLEEN A. TUNE, KENNETH R. WEISSHAAR, EDWARDS,
LIFESCIENCES HOLDING, INC., CROWN MERGER SUB, INC., and EDWARDS
LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00510-UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of the public stockholders of CAS Medical Systems, Inc.
against CASM's Board of Directors for their violations of Section
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out
of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Edwards Lifesciences
Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Edwards
Lifesciences Holding, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Crown
Merger Sub, Inc.

The Proxy recommends that CASM shareholders vote in favor of a
proposed transaction whereby CASM is acquired by Edwards. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on February 12, 2019, when
CASM and Edwards announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which Edwards will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of CASM for $2.45 per share. The
deal is valued at approximately $100 million and is expected to
close in the second quarter of 2019.

CASM undertook a multi-year transition to make the Company a leader
in tissue oximetry, which monitors oxygen levels in brains and
other tissues. Yet just as that transition was coming to an end,
the Board decided to try and sell the Company. Edwards was an early
contender for a potential transaction, but decided to pursue a
commercial collaboration with CASM instead. This collaboration
would make it easier for hospitals to integrate the Company's
products into its existing systems, which would expand the market.
Well over a year later, after gaining insight into the Company,
Edwards made an offer to purchase CASM. The Board agreed, despite
the fact that doing so limits CASM's ability to collaborate with
other companies in a similar way as with Edwards.

Furthermore, the Proxy is materially incomplete and contains
misleading representations and information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by
CASM management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., CASM's financial advisor.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction, including filing a definitive
proxy statement with the SEC or otherwise causing a Definitive
Proxy to be disseminated to CASM's shareholders, unless and until
the material information discussed below is included in the
Definitive Proxy or otherwise disseminated to CASM's shareholders.

CAS, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and
markets non-invasive patient monitoring products worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

               - and -

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

CATERPILLLAR INC: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, Archuleta Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Archuleta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Caterpilllar, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00121 (E.D. Ark., February 14, 2019), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure
to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Caterpillar is a manufacturer of construction and mining equipment,
diesel and natural gas engines, industrial turbines and
diesel-electric locomotives where Archuleta worked as a production
worker in Caterpillar's manufacturing facility in North Little
Rock. She complains that Caterpillar did not include the bonuses
and cash awards in their regular rates when calculating their
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Sanford Law Firm
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
             steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CHEN'S BUFFET: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yun Lin, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chen's Buffet City II Inc., Tom
"Doe" (Last Name Unknown) and Qi Se Chen, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01585 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is an action brought
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising
from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek
and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees,
including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and
wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Yun Lin was employed as a waitress in Defendants'
restaurant from November 6, 2018 to March 3, 2019.

Chen's Buffet City II Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organization and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rui Ma, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718  353-8588
     Fax: (718  353-6288
     Email: rma@hanglaw.com


CHESTERTON, IN: Firefighters Seek Unpaid OT, Accrued Vacation Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Camel, Chad Compton, Heather Compton, Anthony Coslet, Aimee
Gilbert, Stephen Himan, Rudolph Jimenez, Evan Jones, Joshua Mohlke
Miguel Plazola, Stephen Sloan, Brandon Smith, Bradford Tyskiewicz,
Brent Valpatic, Stephen Williams and Chesterton Firefighters Local
4600, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Town of Chesteron, Indiana, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00043,
(N.D. Ind., February 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
compensation, including overtime wages and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are firefighters with the Town of Chesterton, Indiana.
They rendered four 24-hour shifts and claim overtime and accrued
vacation leaves. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angela M. Jones, Esq.
      Kevin C. Smith, Esq.
      SMITH SERSIC
      9301 Calumet Avenue, Suite 1F
      Munster, IN 46321
      Phone: (219) 936-7600
      Fax: (219) 836-2848
      Email: ajones@smithsersic.com;
             ksmith@smithsersic.com


CHRISTOPHER KANE: Dawson Says Website not Blind-friendly
--------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Christopher Kane US, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01382 (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.christopherkane.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


CLEVELAND, OH: Williams Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of 6th Cir. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tynisa Williams filed with the Supreme Court of the
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled Tynisa Williams, Petitioner v. City of Cleveland, Ohio,
Case No. 18-1172.

Response is due on April 10, 2019.

The questions presented are:

   -- Whether the Appeals Court erroneously held that the
      physical delousing of all detainees entering the Cleveland
      Workhouse, whereby delousing solution was sprayed onto the
      genitals and anus of naked pre-trial detainees with a
      pressurized spray canister, was constitutional under the
      Fourth Amendment given reasonable de minimis alternatives
      to this procedure, including self-application of the
      solution; and

   -- Whether the Appeals Court erroneously held that routine
      group strip searches and physical delousing of all
      detainees entering the Cleveland Workhouse, whereby
      detainees were strip searched and deloused in groups of
      three, were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment given
      reasonable de minimis alternatives to this procedure,
      including the utilization of privacy partitions recommended
      by state regulators.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the case
styled TYNISA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF
CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-4237/17-3508 (6th
Cir.), Judge Eugene Edward Siler, Jr., (i) reversed the District
Court's summary judgment and permanent injunction orders; and (ii)
remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of
the City on all counts and to vacate the permanent injunction.

In 2009, Williams brought suit against the City, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  She alleged that the City's intake procedures
conducted at its House of Corrections ("HOC"), consisting of strip
searches and mandatory delousing, violated the Fourth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Tynisa Williams is represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Telecopier: (518) 770-1558
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Telecopier: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Telecopier: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLP
          700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Telecopier: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Summary Judgment in Steffek FDCPA Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH M. STEFFEK and JILL VANDENWYNGAARD, Plaintiffs,
v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-C-160
(E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, and (ii)
granted CSI's motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Steffek and Vandenwyngaard filed the class action
against CSI and a number of John Does, alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiffs
allege that CSI violated Section 1692g(a) by failing to disclose
the current creditor's name in the required notice of debt it sent
to them regarding a Chase Bank USA, N.A. debt.  In addition, they
claim the notice violated Section 1692e because it is false,
deceptive, and misleading.

On Feb. 22, 2017, CSI mailed a form debt-collection letter to
Steffek in an attempt to collect a debt.  Similarly, on Feb. 22,
2017, CSI mailed a form debt-collection letter to Vandenwyngaard in
an attempt to collect a debt.

The last payment for the account identified in Steffek's letter
occurred on June 4, 2014, and the account was charged-off by Chase
Bank on Jan. 30, 2015.  The last payment for the account identified
in Vandenwyngaard's letter occurred on Dec. 7, 2014, and the
account was charged-off by Chase Bank on March 31, 2015.  The
parties do not dispute that Chase Bank was in fact the original
creditor of the debts.  The Plaintiffs claim the letters violated
Section 1692e and 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA by failing to expressly
identify Chase as the current creditor.

Although they object to the affidavit filed by CSI that states
Chase is also the current creditor, the Plaintiffs have offered no
evidence suggesting that the debt was ever sold or assigned to a
different creditor.  Instead, they argue that the court should not
consider additional facts not contained in the parties' stipulated
facts.

On Aug. 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, seeking
responses to certain discovery requests.  CSI failed to respond to
the motion to compel, and the Court accordingly granted the motion
on Aug. 31, 2018.  On Sept. 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an
unopposed motion to vacate the order compelling discovery.  They
noted that the parties entered into a stipulation on Aug. 24, 2018
that obviated the need for any further oral and written discovery
into CSI's liability.

In particular, the parties agreed that, in order to streamline the
litigation, they would stipulate to all facts they believe are
necessary for the Court, or a jury, to decide the issue of
liability in the litigation (by dispositive motions or trial) which
would enable the parties to forego undertaking any further
depositions or discovery.  They further agreed that the ten facts
listed in the stipulation would be the only facts that will be used
by the Parties in support of, or in opposition to, a finding of
liability by way of any dispositive motion filed by the Parties or
at trial.

On Sept. 11, 2018, the Court granted the motion to vacate the order
compelling discovery and ordered that, in the event the Court
enters an order either finding CSI liable or setting the case for
trial, the Plaintiffs will be allowed 45 days from the date of that
order to take oral and written discovery regarding damages.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should only consider the ten
facts enumerated in the parties' stipulation because they would be
highly prejudiced if it considered any additional information
beyond that contained in those facts.  The Plaintiffs do not
dispute that they had the opportunity to conduct discovery and
decided to forgo additional discovery to streamline the litigation
and resolve the matter in the most efficient and economical manner
possible.  They have failed to offer any evidence on summary
judgment to dispute, contradict, or undermine CSI's assertion that
Chase Bank is the current creditor, thereby forfeiting any argument
that it is not.

Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment.  There is no dispute that CSI is a debt collector
and the letters were mailed in connection with the collection of a
debt.  The sole issue before the court is whether the Plaintiffs
have produced evidence from which a jury could conclude that the
letters violated one or more provisions of the FDCPA.

Judge Griesbach concludes on the record before him that CSI is
entitled to summary judgment.  There is no evidence that Chase Bank
is not the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and the letters
comply with Section 1692g(a)(2) in that they provide the debtor a
written notice that clearly contained Chase Bank's name as the
source of the account CSI was attempting to collect.  The letters
stated the required information clearly enough that the recipient
is likely to understand it.  Because the letters did not violate
Section 1692g, it follows that, under the facts of the case, the
letter did not violate Section 1692e.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach granted CSI's motion for
summary judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability.  The Clerk is directed to enter
judgment of dismissal in favor of CSI accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Pt4fad from Leagle.com.

Sarah M Steffek & Jill Vandenwyngaard, Plaintiffs, represented by
Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP,
Philip D. Stern -- philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP
& Andrew T. Thomasson -- andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern
Thomasson LLP.

Client Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Eugene X. Martin,
IV, Malone Akerly Martin PLLC, Patrick A. Watts --
pat.watts@wattslawfirmpa.com -- Watts Law Group LLC & Robbie L.
Malone, Malone Akerly Martin PLLC.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Crooks Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CMRE Financial
Services, Inc. The case is captioned, JEREMY CROOKS, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CMRE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00529-H-BGS
(S.D. Cal., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Crooks seeks damages and
injunctive relief for the CMRE's violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Crooks alleges that CMRE is engaged in deceptive
business practices with its systematic unauthorized credit
inquiries and inaccurate credit reports.

CMRE, registered in the State of California, provides collection
and A/R management services for the healthcare industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


COMPETENTIA US: Juarez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. COMPETENTIA US INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00846 (S.D. Tex.,
March 8, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Competentia is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas.

Competentia is engaged in providing professional services in the
oil and gas industry throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Inmates Certified in Whitney Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled DEMETRIUS WHITNEY v.
FAUZIA KHAN, THOMAS DART, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Case No.
1:18-cv-04475 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

     all persons assigned to be treated by the Residential
     Treatment Unit dental clinic from January 1, 2017 to the
     date of entry of judgment, who submitted a written "Health
     Service Request Form" processed as "urgent" by the RTU
     dental assistant and did not receive an evaluation by a
     dentist for at least 14 days after submitting the request.

The Court also appoints Patrick William Morrissey, Esq., and Thomas
Gerard Morrissey, Esq., as class counsel.

Demetrius Whitney is a former inmate at the Cook County Jail, who
repeatedly requested treatment for dental problems at the jail's
Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) dental clinic while in custody.
He sued the dentist at the RTU, Dr. Fauzia Khan, as well as the
county and Sheriff Thomas Dart, alleging that the RTU's scheduling
and staffing policies caused unreasonable delays in dental care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, according to the Court's
memorandum opinion and order.[CC]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Flips Dismissal of Gassman Suit as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Gassman and A&G Foods, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
1-17-1543 (Ill. App.), Judge Mary Anne Mason of the Appellate Court
of Illinois for the First District, First Division, reversed the
trial court's order dismissing the case as moot and remanded for
further proceedings.

Section 27.2a(g)(2) of the Clerks of Courts Act imposes a fee for
filing a petition to vacate or modify any final judgment or order
of court.  In separate underlying cases, the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook County charged Plaintiffs Gassman and A&G, a fee for
filing a petition to vacate a nonfinal order.  They brought the
suit for mandamus and other relief against the Clerk, arguing that
such fees were not authorized under the Act.

In Gassman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court ("Gassman I"), the Court
agreed with the Plaintiffs, holding that the word "final" modifies
both of the terms "judgment" and "order," and therefore the statute
does not authorize the Clerk to charge a fee for filing a petition
to vacate a nonfinal order.  On remand, the Clerk tendered to the
Pplaintiffs a refund of the disputed fees, and she also represented
to the trial court that the Clerk's office had changed its
fee-collection policies to comply with Gassman I.  On this basis,
the trial court dismissed the complaint as moot.

The Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that (i) there is still an
active controversy between the parties because the Clerk continues
to collect improper fees notwithstanding her alleged change in
policy, (ii) the Clerk's tender was defective because the check she
provided was not negotiable and it otherwise failed to provide
plaintiffs the full relief they sought, and (iii) the
public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

JUdge Mason agrees with the Plaintiffs' first two contentions.  She
finds that the Clerk's tender to Novoselsky Law Office was
defective.  The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the tender,
Jonathan was representing the laintiffs as Jonathan Novoselsky,
P.C.  The Clerk provides no record citation to the contrary, and
she was apparently aware of Jonathan's status as the Plaintiffs'
counsel, since she correctly sent notice of her motion to dismiss
to Jonathan at his firm.  Moreover, if there was any uncertainty as
to whom the tender should be made, it was incumbent upon the Clerk
to clarify that fact before making the tender.  Thus, because the
check was made payable to the wrong law firm and was not
negotiable, there was no "actual production" (internal quotation
marks omitted) of the amount due, and the Plaintiffs' claim was not
mooted.

The Clerk argues that even if the check was made payable to the
wrong law firm, David could have signed the check over to Jonathan
Novoselsky, P.C.  The Plaintiffs argue that such an action would
have been contrary to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
specifically, Rule 1.15 requires that all client funds be deposited
in a client trust account.  Notably, the Clerk does not respond to
this contention, much less cite any authority as to why Rule 1.15
would not apply in the case.  Even more fundamentally, the Court
fails to see why, if a defendant proffers a tender to the wrong
entity, that error would be cured by the possibility that the
entity might later deliver the tender to the correct entity.
Consequently, the Judge finds that the Clerk's tender was defective
and did not moot the Plaintiffs' action.

Judge Mason concludes that the present action is not moot, since
(i) there is evidence that the Clerk's policy and practice with
regard to fee collection do not comply with our mandate in Gassman
I and (ii) the Clerk's tender of funds to the Plaintiffs was
deficient, insofar as the check could not be negotiated.
Therefore, she need not decide whether the public-interest
exception to the mootness doctrine applies.  Accoridngly, she
reversed the trial court's order dismissing the case as moot and
remanded for further proceedings.

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


COSTY'S INC: Ventura Labor Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Brito Ventura, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Costy's Inc., Agatha Kim and Raquel Kim,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00934 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours wages,
earned wages and overtime compensation together with liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Dashin Diva," a nail salon where Ventura
worked as a manicurist at their Nassau County salon. Ventura
reports 10 minutes before the nail salon opened and remained at the
salon 10-15 minutes after the nail salon closed. She never received
any meal breaks, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

             - and -

      Yale Pollack, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
      66 Split Rock Rd.
      Syosset, NY 11791
      Tel: (516) 634-6340


CRANE & RIGGING: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Vinicio Andrade Narvaez, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Crane & Rigging,
LLC and Thomas Auringer, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02394 (S.D.
N.Y., March 18, 2019) seeks redress against the Defendants for
unpaid wages in which Plaintiff was deprived of regular and
overtime wages for his complete number of hours worked, and the
Defendants' failure to provide proper statements with each payment
of wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Plaintiff was paid solely for his hours worked at construction
sites and was not paid any wages for his hours worked at
Defendants' yard and transporting materials and equipment between
the yard and worksites. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of
approximately 21 hours of regular and overtime wages per week
throughout his employment, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a rigger on various construction
projects in the State of New York from in or around July 2014
through January 11, 2018.

U.S. Crane and Rigging, LLC is a heavy industrial crane and rigging
company that provides various services to clients in the New York
metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
     SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
     445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 420-9300
     Email: MMadzelan@sssfirm.com


CREATIVE WERKS: Brown Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------
Leon Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Creative Werks LLC, Case No. 2019CH02030
filed in Cook County Circuit Court on February 15, 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.

Defendant operates a packaging company with warehouses in Elk Grove
Village, Bensenville, and Bartlett, Illinois where Plaintiff worked
through a staffing agency, Metro Staff, as an hourly general
laborer. Creative used a biometric time clock system to record
their time worked. Brown alleges that Creative improperly disclosed
employees' biometrics data without their informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


DG STRATEGIC VII: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Wade G. Brown, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DG Strategic VII, LLC, DG
Strategic II and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-341180 filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on
January 17, 2019, was removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on February 15, 2019, under
Case No. 19-cv-00833.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of wage and hour violations for
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly
wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements and
failure to timely pay all final wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      Farrah Grant, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212

DG Strategic is represented by:

      John A. Van Hook, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
      Telephone: (310) 315-8200
      Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
      Email: jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

             - and -

      Joel S. Allen, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      2000 McKinney Ave, Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 932-6400
      Email: jallen@mcguirewoods.com


DIGITAL MEDIA: Thrower Sues over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GENE THROWER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. JOBCASE, INC., and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10486 (D. Mass., March 14, 2019),
seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices.

In violation of the TCPA, JobCase hired the co-defendant, Digital
Media, Inc., who made automated telemarketing calls to a cellular
telephone number of Mr. Thrower for the purposes of advertising
JobCase goods and services using an automated dialing system and a
pre-recorded message, which is prohibited by the TCPA.

Digital Media made these calls because of an agreement with
JobCase, who hired Digital Media Solutions, LLC to generate
business through telemarketing and maintained interim control over
their actions.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to
receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing
purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC
          1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234-2727
          E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com

DRIZLY INC: Traynor Files Class Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Drizly, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen
Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Drizly, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02457 (S.D.
N.Y., March 19, 2019).

Drizly, Inc. develops an iPhone application for local liquor
retailers. The company offers Drizly, an iPhone application that
enables users to get on-demand beer, wine, and liquor deliveries to
their doorsteps in Austin, Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Denver,
Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, St. Louis, Vail,
Hoboken, Franklin, Nashville, Jersey City, and Washington, D.C.
Drizly, Inc. was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ELLIE MAE: Faces Epstein Securities Suit Over Sale to Thoma Bravo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLE EPSTEIN, 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-00486-UNA (D. Del., March 11, 2019), stems 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 held.

The Plaintiff contends that with respect to the Company's financial
projections, the proxy statement relating to the sale fails to
disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate Adjusted Earnings
Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization ("EBITDA");
(ii) all line items used to calculate Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and
(iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP ("Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles") to GAAP metrics.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Ellie Mae is a leading cloud-based platform provider for the
mortgage finance industry offering services which include
Encompass(R) education, certification, professional consulting,
implementation, and business writing.  The Company was founded by
Limin Hu and Sigmund Anderman in August 1997 and is headquartered
in Pleasanton, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Encompass(R) is a digital lending platform that allows lenders and
investors to engage homebuyers and efficiently originate, close,
sell and purchase loans that maximize return on investments across
their business from a single system of record.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gregory Nespole, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: gnespole@hrsclaw.com


ENSIGN UNITED: Faulkner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Partial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKIE FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES
DRILLING INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-cv-03137-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part the
parties' Stipulated Motion to Approve Settlement.

The Defendant is an oilfield services company located in Denver,
Colorado that has operations in North Dakota.  The Plaintiff has
worked for defendant as a rig manager in North Dakota.  The
Plaintiff claims that rig managers typically worked more than 40
hours each week.  As compensation, he claims that he and other rig
managers were paid a day rate regardless of the number of hours
they worked.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly or
recklessly classified him and other rig managers as exempt
employees, and therefore not eligible for overtime pay, in order to
avoid compensating them for all hours worked.  he claims that, had
rig managers been appropriately classified, they would have been
entitled to overtime premium pay.

On Dec. 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the case against the
Defendant, bringing a claim for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a claim for violation of North Dakota
Administrative Code Section 46-02-07.  He brings his FLSA claim as
a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  He
alleges that he and the Defendant's other rig managers are
similarly situated because they performed the same or similar work
and were subject to the same compensation scheme.

On Jan. 15, 2018, the parties jointly moved for and stipulated to
conditional certification of a collective action.  The Court
granted the motion on Feb. 9, 2018, conditionally certifying a
class of all current and former rig managers of Ensign United
States Drilling Inc. classified as exempt from overtime under the
FLSA for at least one week during the two-year period prior to the
date the Court authorizes notice to the present.  It further
approved the Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Collective Action.

Following receipt of the court-authorized notice, three individuals
joined the collective action as opt-in Plaintiffs, bringing the
total number of members of the putative collective action to four.
The parties advised Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix that they had
reached a settlement on July 16, 2018.   On July 31, 2018, the
parties jointly moved for a court order approving the settlement
agreement and dismissing the matter with prejudice.

The Plaintiff contends that the requirements for final collective
action certification are satisfied because (1) the opt-in
Plaintiffs all worked as rig managers for the Defendant, performing
the same job duties and performing the same training; (2) the
Defendant's defenses apply equally to all the Plaintiffs; and (3)
proceeding as a collective action provides a fair and procedurally
efficient resolution of the Plaintiffs' claims.  Judge Brimmer
agrees that the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated for
purposes of final certification.  Moreover, the parties' settlement
in this case will only affect the rights of those individuals who
have affirmatively opted in to the lawsuit.  Therefore, he will
grant final collective action certification.

Although the parties' motion states that the three opt-in members
of the collective action were "extensively counseled," the parties
provide no evidence that the opt-in members were given notice of an
opportunity to object.  Notably, the settlement agreement provided
to the Court is only signed by Faulkner.  The Judge finds that,
without evidence that the parties have provided the opt-in
Plaintiffs with notice of the settlement and an opportunity to
object, he must deny the motion.


To be fair and reasonable, an FLSA settlement must provide adequate
compensation to the employees and must not frustrate the FLSA's
policy rationales.  The Judge finds that the parties did not reach
a settlement in the matter until after they had engaged in
meaningful discovery, and engaged in motions practice in the
Court.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees
to pay $50,000, which consists of (1) $25,121.34 in individual
settlement payments; (2) a $2,500 service payment for Mr. Faulkner;
and (3) a $22,378.65 fee and expense award to the class counsel.
The parties represent that the parties' settlement takes into
account the time worked and compensation paid to each Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff contends that the settlement constitutes a fair
compromise of the claims in the case, given the risks of protracted
litigation, the uncertainty surrounding the nature and amount of
recoverable damages, and the Defendant's defenses to liability.
Based on this information, and upon consideration of the relevant
factors, the Judge finds the parties' proposed settlement to be
fair and reasonable.

The settlement also provides for a $2,500 service payment to the
named Plaintiff, Mr. Faulkner, which represents 5% of the total
settlement amount.  The Judge finds that the parties' motion
provides no argument or evidence that would allow him to evaluate
these factors and determine whether the award is reasonable.
Accordingly, he does not have sufficient evidence to approve the
requested service payment for Mr. Faulkner.

As there is no evidence in the record that the Defendant's
non-compliance with the FLSA constitutes a continuing violation,
and the settlement agreement does not contain a confidentiality
provision, the parties' settlement does not undermine the purposes
of the FLSA.

Considering whether the counsel's requested award of $16,666.65
plus expenses of $5,712 is reasonable, the Judge holds that he
lacks sufficient information to determine whether the fees and
costs requested are reasonable.  The counsel has not shown that the
case involved particularly novel or difficult legal issues, or that
the time and labor required justifies a higher award.  The parties
also fail to address how the attorney's fees were negotiated in
relation to the class members' settlement. Any future motion should
therefore address this issue.

The cited deficiencies preclude approval of the parties' settlement
agreement at this time.  For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer
granted in part and denied in part the parties' Stipulated Motion
to Approve Settlement.  

The parties' joint request for final collective action
certification for a collective of all current and former rig
managers of Ensign United States Drilling Inc. classified as exempt
from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for at
least one week during the two-year period prior to the date the
Court authorizes notice to the present, is granted.

The Judge denied without prejudice the remainder of the parties'
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Q4n1XB from Leagle.com.

Rickie Faulkner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Simiarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Wayne Hodges, Kennedy
Hodges, L.L.P., William M. Hogg -- whogg@schneiderwallace.com --
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Don J. Foty --
DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP.

Ensign United States Drilling Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth
Ann Lennon -- blennon@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
& Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C.

Brent Heim, Interested Party, represented by Don J. Foty, Kennedy
Hodges, LLP & William M. Hogg, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.


FARMERS GROUP: Grigson Moves to Certify Auto Policyholders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES GRIGSON, LISA HOING,
and DAVID KELLY, Individually and on behalf of all putative class
members v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation, Case No.
1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.), ask the Court to certify this class:

    "All Farmers Texas auto policyholders who had an active FA2
     policy in effect on or after January 4, 2016."

Excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding
over this action, and members of their families; (b) FGI and
affiliated entities, including but not limited to FIE and Farmers
Texas, within the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, their
employees, officers, directors, and licensed agents; (c) FGI's
legal representatives, assigns, and successors; and (d) all persons
who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from
the Class.

Charles Grigson, Lisa Hoing, and David Kelly also ask the Court to
appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint their counsel
as Class Counsel.

This case challenges an alleged pervasive, internal, discriminatory
scheme implemented by Farmers Group, Inc. ("FGI") against its
existing auto insurance customers vis-a-vis new customers,
categorically depriving the former from accessing lower rates that
would be available to them but for FGI's conduct.  The single cause
of action here, and the core common legal and factual issues
implicated, including whether FGI engaged in discrimination and
whether that misconduct was "knowing", are ideally suited to
class-wide adjudication.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Slack, Esq.
          John R. Davis, Esq.
          SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
          2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 795-8686
          Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
          E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
                  jdavis@slackdavis.com

               - and -

          Joe K. Longley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY
          3305 Northland Drive, Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 477-4444
          Facsimile: (512) 477-4470
          E-mail: joe@joelongley.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Jonathan Selbin, Esq.
          Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com
                  mlamy@lchb.com


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Freeman Suit Challenges Wage and Hour Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. FREEMAN On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., dba Fresenius
Medical Care North America, and RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-10439 (D. Mass., March 11, 2019), challenges wage-and-hour
policies of the Defendants by which they willfully violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., doing business as Fresenius
Medical Care North America, is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Fresenius
Medical Care provides coordinated health care services.

Renal Care Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Since 2006,
Renal Care Group has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Fresenius.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas T. Merrigan, Esq.
          SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP
          Greenfield, MA 01301
          Telephone: (413) 774-5300
          Facsimile: (413) 773-3388
          E-mail: tom@sweeneymerrigan.com


FROST RESTAURANT: Salto Brings Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Salto, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Frost Restaurant Inc., Rocco DePaola, and
Giuseppe Morena, Case No. 1:19-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees,
including the Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Frost Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains
its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York.  The
Individual Defendants jointly own and operate Frost Restaurant.

The Defendants operate an Italian style restaurant, located at 193
Frost Street, in Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8522
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com


GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Certification in Booth Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON BOOTH, Plaintiff., v. GALVESTON COUNTY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-00104 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate
Judge Andrew M. Edison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Galveston Division, recommended that the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification be granted.

The lawsuit concerns Galveston County's pretrial detention system.
Booth was arrested and charged with felony drug possession in
Galveston County in April 2018.  After his arrest, Booth claims his
bail was set at $20,000 in accordance with the County's standard
operating procedures.  Booth was dissatisfied with this bail
determination because he believed that the County's standard
operating procedure resulted in arrestees being routinely detained
before trial solely due to their inability to pay bail in violation
of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United
States Constitution.

Booth filed the suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, asserting that the County's pretrial detention practices
violated his substantive and procedural due process rights,
infringed Equal Protection guarantees, and undermined his
constitutional right to counsel.  Booth asserted his claims against
several categories of defendants based on their various alleged
roles in his constitutional deprivation: the County; a group of
Galveston County District Court Judges; several Galveston County
Magistrate Judges; and Galveston County District Attorney Jack
Roady.  He sued the District Court Judges and the Magistrates in
their official and individual capacities.  He sued Roady in his
official capacity as the County District Attorney.

At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court recommended the dismissal
of all claims against the Magistrates in their official capacities
and all claims against the District Court Judges in their
individual capacities.  It recommended that all other claims
survive the initial pleading challenge.

Booth has moved to certify the following class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): all people who are or will be detained
in Galveston County Jail on felony and state-jail felony charges
because they are unable to pay secured bail set at magistration.

Magistrate Judge Edison finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).  Accordingly, he
recommended that the Amended Motion for Class Certification be
granted and the following class be certified under Rule 23(b)(2):
all people who are or will be detained in Galveston County Jail on
felony and state-jail felony charges because they are unable to pay
secured bail set at magistration.

The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have 14 days from the receipt thereof
to file written objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b) and General Order 2002-13.  Failure to file written
objections within the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved
party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on
appeal.

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

Aaron Booth, on behalf of himself and all others similary situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties
Union of Texas, Adriana Pinon, American Civil Liberties Union of
Texas, Andre Ivan Segura, ACLU of Texas, Brandon J. Buskey,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Christopher Mohr Odell
-- christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, Hannah
DeMarco Sibiski -- hannah.sibiski@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold &
Porter LLP, Kali Alanna Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union of
Texas & Twyla Carter, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,
pro hac vice.

Galveston County, Defendant, represented by James Edwin Trainor,
III, Akerman LLP, Joseph M. Nixon, The Nixon Law Firm, PC, Paul A.
Ready, Ready Law Firm, PLLC & Robert Barron Boemer, Galveston
County Legal Department.

District Attorney Jack Roady, Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Mytelka -- amytelka@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz Adams LLP, Angela
Olalde -- aolalde@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz Adams LLP & Joseph R.
Russo, Jr. -- jrusso@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz et al.

Galveston County District Court Judges, Defendant, represented by
Joseph M. Nixon, The Nixon Law Firm, PC & Leah Jean O'Leary, Office
of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division.

The Office of the Attorney General - Amicus Curiae, Amicus,
represented by Emily Marie Landon, Office of the Attorney General
of TX & Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Attorney General Law
Enforcement Defense Division.


GCA SERVICES: Faces Cisneros Suit over Background Checks in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GCA Services Group,
Inc. for the alleged violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), and
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The case is
captioned GUILLERMINA CISNEROS, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01340-NC (N.D. Cal., March 12,
2019). Cisneros alleges that GCA failed to comply with federal and
California statutes that mandate very specific and particular
disclosures and conditions prior to obtaining and using background
reports for employment purposes.

Accordingly, Cisneros, individually and on behalf of all other
members of the general public similarly situated, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages based on GCA's willful and
systematic violation of the FCRA, IICRAA, and CCRAA.

GCA is a Delaware corporation that offers janitorial and custodial
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
     Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
     AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
     A Professional Law Corporation
     1156 E. Green Street, Suite 2000
     Pasadena, CA 91106
     Telephone: (213) 674-6080
     Facsimile: (213) 674-6081
     E-mail: rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com
             oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com


GOLDEN WOKS: Chen Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------
A labor-related class action has been filed against Golden Woks.
The case is captioned ZHONGMIN CHEN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER'S GOLDEN WOK,
INC. d/b/a GOLDEN WOKS AND STEPHEN LU, Defendants Case No.
1:19-cv-01436 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2019). Chen, on behalf of
himself as well as other employees similarly situated, alleges
violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and
practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff,
compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread
of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including
Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage
statements.

Christopher's Golden Wok, Inc. owns and operates a Chinese
restaurant named Golden Woks located at 159 Christopher Street, New
York, NY 10014. Defendant Stephen Lu owns and operates Golden Woks.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keli Liu, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Telephone: (718) 353-8588
     Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
     E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in SunEdison Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
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 granted the motion for class certification in the class action
lawsuit involving SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible preferred stock.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible
preferred stock.

The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and
officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017,
plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million. On March 6,
2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action was
granted in part and denied in part.

On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the class action was granted. On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018,
certain plaintiffs in the individual actions filed amended
complaints. The defendants have reached a settlement with certain
plaintiffs in the individual actions.

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: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related 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 the motion
to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the
Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.

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

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: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities 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 the
company's motion to dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities-Related
Suit is still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers
named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August
25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

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

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: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC continues to defend itself from an antitrust suit
involving securities lending practices.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.")
are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action
and two individual actions relating to securities lending practices
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York beginning in August 2017.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms
for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also
assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and
under state trade practices law and, in the second individual
action, unjust enrichment under state common law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts. Group Inc.
was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January
26, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the first individual action on June 1,
2018 and moved to dismiss the second individual action on December
21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint
was denied on September 27, 2018.  

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

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: Dropped as Defendant from Snap Inc. IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 (GS&Co.)
was voluntarily dismissed in the class action suit relating to Snap
Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering.  

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial
public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million.

The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily
dismissed from the federal action on September 18, 2018.

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: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 a putative class action suit related to
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a
putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest
rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the district court
issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted
by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise
limiting the state common law claim in the putative class action
and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to
2016.

On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a
third consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the
surviving claims. On October 26, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative
class action filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint.

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.

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: Unit to Defend Suit over Sea Limited IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
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 Goldman
Sachs (Asia) LLC continues to defend itself from a securities class
action involving Sea Limited's initial public offering.  

GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed on November 1, 2018 in the Supreme
Court of New York, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's
$989 million October 2017 initial public offering of American
depository shares.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote
28,026,721 American depository shares representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $420 million. On January 25, 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

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: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
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 Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., together
with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., continue to
defend a putative class action lawsuit in Canada.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters
and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors
and officers of Valeant and Valeant’s auditor. As to GS&Co. and
GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013 public offering
of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering
of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November
2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal amount of senior
notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act
and the Civil Code of Quebec.

On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only
non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings. Defendants' motion for leave
to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $453
million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of
sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in
principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013
Rule 144A offerings.

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

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.


GONCALVES & FERREIRA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Maximino Gildardo Martinez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goncalves & Ferreira Restaurant
Corp. d/b/a O Lavrador Restaurant & Bar, Edgar Ferreira, Manuela
Ferreira, and Joao Ferreira, Defendants, Case No. 704696/2019 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., March 18, 2019) alleges, pursuant to New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff and Class members regularly worked over 40 hours per
week, but the Defendants failed to pay the proper overtime
compensation in violation of New York Labor Law.

The Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff Martinez and Class
Members' rights by paying them on a salary basis, because Plaintiff
Martinez and Class Members are non-exempt employees who must be
paid on an hourly basis under the New York Labor Law, including
proper overtime premium for all hours over 40 in a week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Martinez worked for Defendants until in or about February
2014.

Defendants operate a food and beverage establishment under the
trade name "O Lavrador Restaurant & Bar" located at 138-40 101st
Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11435.[BN]

The Plaintiff is repreesented by:

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


GREAT WALL: Zheng Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
QIN WEN ZHENG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GREAT WALL IN EAST ELMHURST INC. d/b/a GREAT WALL, and
Rong Ping Lin, Case No. 1:19-cv-01332 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Great Wall in East Elmhurst Inc., doing business as Great Wall, is
a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
state of New York.  Rong Ping Lin is the owner, chief executive
officer, and/or managing agent of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant located at 87-12
Astoria Blvd., in East Elmhurst, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRUNT STYLE: Dixon Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------
Christopher Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Grunt Style LLC, Case No.
2019CH01981 (Ill. Cir., February 14, 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 under
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Dixon worked for Grunt Style and was required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges
that Grunt improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without
informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hall Management
Corp for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned ERIKA
MARTINEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. HALL MANAGEMENT CORP., a California
corporation; HALL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00937 (Cal.
Super., Fresno County, March 12, 2019).

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
brings this action for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under
California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 226 et seq., 226.7, 510,
512, 558, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, and Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 et. seq., and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order 13-2001, in addition to seeking declaratory
relief and restitution.

Defendants maintains its business operations within the County of
Fresno and the State of California by employing seasonal farm labor
employees to process and pack produce (such as melons, oranges, and
lemons).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
     Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
     Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (424) 292-2350
     Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
             bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


HEALTH NET: W. Poe Suit Remains in California District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM POE, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH NET, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV 18-9792-R (C.D. Cal.), Judge Manuel L. Real
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand, filed
on Dec. 20, 2018.

On Aug.31, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, filed a purported Class Action Complaint
against the Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.  The Plaintiff's Complaint
asserted five causes of action, including: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of
Contract; (3) Violation Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.
(Unfair Competition); (4) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750
et seq. (Consumer Legal Remedies Act); and (5) statutory negligence
under California law.

On Nov. 21, 2018, all five named Defendants -- Health Net, Inc.;
Centene Corp.; Centene Management Co., LLC; Health Net of
California, Inc.; and Health Net Community Solutions, Inc. -- filed
a Notice of Removal from Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff now timely moves to remand for
lack of jurisdiction under CAFA.

In his Motion, the Plaintiff does not contest the prerequisites for
CAFA jurisdiction -- namely, numerosity, sufficient amount in
controversy, and minimal diversity of parties.  Instead, he
challenges removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(4)(A) and closely related grounds, including the "local
controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff further
argues that, to the extent the jurisdiction of the Court remains
"uncertain" under CAFA, the time for parties' initial meeting under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) should be extended
"until 30 days after the issue is finally resolved" or appellate
review of the issue exhausted.

Judge Real, however, is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's arguments.
He finds the Plaintiff's contention that there exists a
"presumption against removal" of class action proceedings under
CAFA lacks merit.  Although the Plaintiff suggests the Ninth
Circuit did not explicitly consider the very specific subsection of
CAFA that is at issue, the Serrano court explicitly held that any
exception under CAFA" pertaining to remand must be proven by the
party seeking remand.

Considering the Ninth Circuit's pronouncement in Serrano and its
related CAFA decisions, the Judge is unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's
novel legal rationales concerning why the Plaintiff cannot be
expected to bear the burden of proving why this specific subsection
of CAFA's exception applies to mandate remand.  Thus, the
Defendants bear no burden of proof to keep the case before the
Court under CAFA.  In the absence of any cognizable challenge to
the minimal jurisdictional requirements of CAFA, he holds that the
Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to remand based on some
non-jurisdictional exception to the Court's proper exercise of CAFA
jurisdiction.

As established by persuasive authority of fellow federal district
courts in the State, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed
to prove "no other class action has been filed" asserting "the same
or similar factual allegations" against any of the Defendants on
behalf of the same or other individuals.  Given the Court's review
of the related cases, Harvey and Steinley, it is apparent that
Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of showing the criteria of 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii) are satisfied.  To the extent the
Plaintiff could do so, he fails to even attempt to argue that these
cases are dissimilar from his class action.

The Plaintiff's Motion fails for the foregoing reasons.  As a
result, Judge Real denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and
request to extend time for the parties' initial meeting until 30
days after the issue is finally resolved under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 26(f).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bA6BUc from Leagle.com.

William Poe, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Moest, Robert C Moest
Law Offices.

Health Net, Inc., Health Net Community Solutions, Inc., Health Net
of California, Inc., Centene Corp. & Centene Management Company,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Ileana M. Hernandez --
IHemandez@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Brendan V.
Sullivan, Jr. -- bsullivan@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven M. Cady -- scady@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice, William R. Murray, Jr. -- bmurray@wc.com --
Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice & John M. LeBlanc --
JLeBlanc@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP.


HIBU INC: Cooley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------
Blake Cooley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hibu Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00269, (D. Nev.,
January 21, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs together
with other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Hibu is a digital marketing agency servicing clients nationwide.
Its business model relies on contacting small businesses to attempt
to convince them to retain their services. Despite Cooley's
disinterest in their services, he still receives multiple calls
from Hibu without his prior express written consent. He is on the
national Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
      4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Phone: (702) 435-7968;
      Fax: (702) 825-8071
      Email: attcbf@cox.net

             - and -

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      Email: anthony@broderick-law.com


HILL'S PET: Sued Over Toxic Levels of Vitamin D in Pet Food
-----------------------------------------------------------
W. Allan Schwegmann, Jr., individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Inc. and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5
2:19-cv-02149-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., March 18, 2019) is a class action
complaint against Defendants for their negligent, reckless, and/or
intentional practice of misrepresenting, failing to test for, and
failing to fully disclose the presence of toxic levels of Vitamin D
in their Contaminated Dog Foods and for selling Contaminated Dog
Foods that are adulterated and do not conform to the labels,
packaging, advertising, and statements throughout the United
States.

The Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by
marketing foods they claim will "help enrich and lengthen the
special relationships between people and their pets." The
Defendants' website states, "Guided by science, we formulate our
food with precise balance so your pet gets all the nutrients they
need--and none they don't". The Defendants make numerous other
representations and promises about the Contaminated Dog Foods'
nutrition as well as their supply chain and quality control
measures.

However, the Defendants failed to act in a timely manner when it
learned of the broad scope of the initial Vitamin D recall in
November 2018. The Defendants further mislead consumers by
promising "Premium Dog Food" and "Clinical Nutrition", says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of California.

Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute, and
sell pet food under the brand names Hill's Prescription Diet and
Hill's Science Diet dog foods throughout the United States,
including in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
     Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
     PAUL LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 984-8100
     Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
            Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

          - and -

     Rebecca Peterson, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com
            rkshelquist@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
     Steven M. McKany, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     5040 Shoreham Place
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Phone: (619) 525-3990
     Email: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
            smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

          - and -

     Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
     Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: 202-789-3960
     Email: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
            charles@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Joseph J. Depalma, Esq.
     Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
            scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


HOME DEPOT: Hankey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled RICHARD W. HANKEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2018-01027364-CU-OE-CXC, was removed on
January 17, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-MCE-CKD to
the proceeding.

Plaintiff Richard W. Hankey is a former hourly employee of Home
Depot.  He alleges that Home Depot failed to pay hourly and
overtime wages, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and
failed to pay all wages due at termination.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
          Dorothy F. Kaslow, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  dkaslow@akingump.com


HOME PRODUCTS: Pedroza Asserts BIPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Raul Pedroza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Products International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03517 (Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 18,
2019) is a class action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") on behalf of all persons in Illinois who had their
fingerprints improperly collected, captured, received, or otherwise
obtained by the Defendant.

The Defendant failed to maintain or publicize information about its
biometric practices or policies; and failed to provide Plaintiff
or, upon information and belief, any member of the putative BIPA
Class, with information about their policies or practices, notes
the complaint.

The Defendant failed to obtain prior written consent from Plaintiff
or, upon information and belief, any putative BIPA Class member
before they collected, stored, or used those individuals' biometric
information. The Defendant did not inform Plaintiff of the specific
purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used
his fingerprint and of any biometric data retention policy
developed by the Defendant, nor has he ever been informed of
whether Defendant will ever permanently delete fingerprints, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Pedroza is an adult resident of Stickney, Illinois and
worked for Defendant from December 2017 to March 8, 2019.

HPI is a Delaware corporation that is registered to do business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
     Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
     224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880


HOUSTON FOODS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Houston Foods, Inc. and Tri City
Foods of Illinois LLC d/b/a Burger King, Defendants, Case No. 2
2019CH03586 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 19, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure,
to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs' sensitive and proprietary
biometric data.

While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking
(such as ID badges or punch clocks), the Defendants' employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens
from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect, use and store Illinois citizens'
biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendants disregard their employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights and have unlawfully collected, stored, disseminated,
and used employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Michele Johnson first worked as a Crew Member for
Defendants from February 2018 until July 2, 2018, and as a Shift
Manager until January 28, 2019.

Defendant Houston Foods, Inc. is the second largest franchisee of
the Burger King restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560!
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


HSBC BANK: Antonicic Moves to Certify Two Classes and 1 Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER J. ANTONICIC,
ANASTASIA ANTONICIC, GUST PAPAS, and AFRODITI PAPAS individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00101 (N.D. Ill.), submit
their Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiffs propose these class definitions:

   1. National Class for Count I (Breach of Contract):

      All persons who (1) within ten years prior to the filing of
      HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA insured loan
      serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject property, and
      (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC while still
      occupying the property;

   2. National Class for Count II (Unjust Enrichment):

      All persons who (1) within five years prior to the filing
      of HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA insured loan
      serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject property, and
      (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC while still
      occupying the property; and

   3. Illinois Subclass for Count III (Violation of Illinois
      Consumer Fraud Act):

      All persons in Illinois who (1) within three years prior to
      the filing of HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA
      insured loan serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject
      property, and (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC
      while still occupying the property.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA AND ASSOC.
          7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 647-2106
          Facsimile: (847) 647-2057
          E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
          Patrick J. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com
                  psolberg@andersonwanca.com


HYATT CORPORATION: Denies Equal Access to Web Site, Kiler Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-01669 (N.D. Ill.,
March 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendant is denying blind
individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods
and services it provides to its non-disabled customers through its
Web site.

Ms. Kiler brings this civil rights class action against the
Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a
Web site that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by,
blind people.

Hyatt Corporation is an American for-profit corporation organized
under the laws of Illinois with a principal executive office
located in Chicago, Illinois.

Hyatt owns and operates premium full service and lifestyle hotels
including the Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, which is a place of public
accommodation located in Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          73 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


IBM CORP: Wants Supreme Court to Review Revival of Jander Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, et al., filed with
the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the matter titled Retirement Plans Committee of IBM,
et al., Petitioners v. Larry W. Jander, et al., Case No. 18-1165.

Response is due on April 8, 2019.

The Defendants seek review of the Court of Appeals' judgment
entered on December 10, 2018, reversing the District Court's
judgment dismissing the case entitled Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of
IBM, No. 1:15-cv-3781 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2016), and remanding for
further proceedings.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 4,
2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued an Opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.  The appellate
case is styled LARRY W. JANDER, and all other individuals similarly
situated, RICHARD J. WAKSMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RETIREMENT
PLANS COMITTEE OF IBM, RICHARD CARROLL, ROBERT WEBER, MARTIN
SCHROETER, Defendants-Appellees, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-3518. (2nd Cir.).

The Plaintiffs here, IBM employees who were participants in the
Company's Employee's Stock Option Plan (ESOP), claim that the
plan's fiduciaries knew that a division of the company was
overvalued but failed to disclose that fact.  This failure, the
Plaintiffs allege, artificially inflated IBM's stock price, harming
the ESOP's members.  To state a duty-of-prudence claim, the
Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a proposed alternative action
would not have done more harm than good.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF IBM, et al.,
et al., are represented by:

          Lawrence Portnoy, Esq.
          Michael S. Flynn, Esq.
          David B. Toscano, Esq.
          Trent Thompson, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: lawrence.portnoy@davispolk.com
                  michael.flynn@davispolk.com
                  david.toscano@davispolk.com
                  trent.thompson@davispolk.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com


IKEA US: Cahilig Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Allyza Cahilig, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ikea US Retail, LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV00676 filed in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 10, 2019, was
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on February 15, 2019, under Case No.
19-cv-01182.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants for alleged wage and hour violations
over failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements
and failure to timely pay all final wages. Cahilig worked as a
non-exempt hourly employee for IKEA in their Carson CA facility
from August 7, 2013 to August 26, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Lander, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (323) 549-9100, (323) 302-9675
      Fax: (7323) 549-0101
      Website: https://www.kbarneslaw.com/

             - and -

      Raphael Albert Katri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A KATRI
      8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Phone: (310) 940-2034
      Fax Number: (310) 733-5644
      Email: rkatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com

IKEA US is represented by:

      John A. Van Hook, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
      Telephone: (310) 315-8200
      Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
      Email: jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

             - and -

      Joel S. Allen, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      2000 McKinney Ave, Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 932-6400
      Email: jallen@mcguirewoods.com



INDEPENDENT HOME: FLSA Settlement in Mitchell Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for final approval of Rule 23 class settlement and for approval of
FLSA Settlement in the lawsuit captioned Audrea Mitchell, On behalf
of herself and other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Independent Home Care, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio).

On February 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Vascura Issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for final approval of Rule 23 class settlement and for approval of
FLSA Settlement be granted.  The R&R also recommends that the
Plaintiffs counsel's unopposed motion for award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of costs be granted.

The R&R notified the Plaintiff of her right to object within 14
days and of the consequences for falling to do so.  Namely, the R&R
notified the Plaintiff that a failure to timely object would result
in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the Court, as well as
a waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the Court.

Judge Watson notes that the time for filing objections has passed,
and none were filed.  Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without
conducting a de novo review and dismisses this case with prejudice.
The Clerk shall enter final judgment and terminate this case.[CC]


INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTEL: Restaurant Staff Seek OT Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alisha Askew, Deborah Williams and Shavonna Askew, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current
and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Inter-Continental Hotels
Corporation, Lingate Hospitality (Glenn Enterprises, Inc.), Burger
Theory (Big Blue Bar, Inc.) and Glenn Higdon, individually, Case
No. 19-cv-00024, (W.D. Ky., February 15, 2019) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are locators/outlets located within Holiday Inn
Riverfront in Paducah, Kentucky where Plaintiffs were restaurant
employees.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of employees' hours worked. Their actual duties, in
payroll records, were as tipped employees instead of as a
non-tipped employee, thus allowing Defendants to pay them above the
tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage, adds the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori Keen, Esq.
      GLASSMAN EDWARDS WADE & WYATT, PC
      26 North 2nd St.
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 527-4673
      Email: lkeen@gwtclaw.com

             - and -

      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


INTUIT INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2019, that the settlement in the
consolidated class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved.

In fiscal 2015 Intuit Inc. was contacted by certain state and
federal regulatory authorities in connection with inquiries
regarding an increase during the 2015 tax season in attempts by
criminals using stolen identity information to file fraudulent tax
returns and claim refunds. Intuit provided information in response
to those inquiries and now believes those inquiries are resolved.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit was filed by
individuals who claim to have suffered damages in connection with
the 2015 events.

On May 23, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle of
this matter. The settlement has been preliminarily approved and
remains subject to final approval by the court.

The terms of the settlement are not material to the company's
consolidated financial statements.

Intuit said, "In the event the settlement does not receive final
approval by the court, the litigation may resume and we may not be
able to predict the outcome of such lawsuit. We continue to believe
that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit."

Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products
and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and
accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and
internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


JEFFREY GREENE: Maceda Sues Over Unsolicited Text Under TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA MACEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JEFFREY GREENE a/k/a JEFF GREENE, Case No.
9:19-cv-80321-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2019), alleges that in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Defendant,
using an automatic telephone dialing system, caused to be made at
least one call to the Plaintiff that delivered a text messages to
her cell phone without her prior express consent.

Ms. Maceda alleges that she received a text message on July 18,
2018, which reads as follows: "Hi, this is Democrat Jeff Greene
running for governor.  I'll stand up to Donald Trump and for
Florida's families.  Joseph, if you want world-class schools,
commonsense gun reform and to protect women's choice, please vote
for me with your absentee ballot! Can we count on your support?"

Jeff Greene is a resident of Palm Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yechezkel Rodal, Esq.
          RODAL LAW, P.A.
          5300 N.W. 33rd Ave., Suite 219
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 367-5308
          Facsimile: (954) 900-1208
          E-mail: Chezky@rodallaw.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite
          1000 White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


JONATHAN NEIL: Reconsideration of Attys' Fees Order in Brown Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's
request for reconsideration of the order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney
fees.

On Feb. 14, 2019, an order issued granting a joint motion for final
approval of a class action settlement and granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees.
On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the order granting in part and denying in part the motion for
attorney fees.

The Plaintiff contends that the Court erred by finding that the
United States Consumer Law Survey Report for 2015-2016 does not
address the relevant community here which is the Fresno Division of
the Eastern District of California.  The Plaintiff argues that the
report does reflect attorney rates for Fresno, California pointing
to page 181 of the report.  Courts in the district have disagreed
as to the appropriateness of considering the United States Consumer
Law Survey Report in determining fee awards.  A number of the
courts declining to do originate in the judicial district.

Based on review of the report, Magistrate Judge Boone finds that it
is not competent evidence of the reasonable hourly rates for
attorneys in the Fresno Division of the Court for the following
reasons.  First, while the report states that more than 4,153
fields of data calculation were included in the survey, he finds no
information regarding the number of attorneys that participated in
the survey, or particularly relevant, the number of responses, if
any, that were from attorneys that are practicing in the Fresno
Division of the Eastern District of California.  Secondly, he notes
that the report states that where two metropolitan areas are near
each other the rates can be found to be comparable.

Based on his experience with attorney fee motions from attorneys
seeking fees from these two metropolitan areas, the Judge is aware
that hourly rates in San Francisco and Los Angeles are
significantly higher than the hourly rates in the Fresno Division.
While the fees may be reflective of the hourly rates in Los Angeles
or San Francisco due to the higher cost of living in those areas,
Bratton v. FCA US LLC, the Judge finds that the report is not
competent evidence to establish the rates in the Fresno Division.

The Judge reviewed recent decisions awarding attorney fees in
similar cases and found that given the experience and skill of
counsel in the matter, a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Marcus was
$300 per hour and a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Zelman was $225
per hour.  The Plaintiff states that due to a clerical error, the
court erroneously found that Mr. Zelman had been practicing five
years, but he has actually over six years of experience.
Regardless of whether Mr. Zelman has five or six years of
experience, in the district $225 is a reasonable hourly rate.  The
Court has previously found that a reasonable rate for an attorney
with approximately seven to eight years of experience is $220 to
$225 per hour.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Boone denied the
Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the order granting in
part and denying in part the motion for attorney fees.  He vacated
the March 27, 2019 hearing on the motion.  The parties will file a
stipulation of dismissal of the action with 14 days of the date of
entry of the Order.

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

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott,
APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar, Porter Scott.


JP MORGAN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in McShannock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank NA filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Susan McShannock, et al. v. JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA, Case No. 3:18-cv-01873-EMC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward
M. Chen denied Chase's motion to dismiss and denied as moot its
motion to stay.

Plaintiffs Monica Chandler, McShannock, and Meky, filed suit
against Chase on behalf of a putative class.  The Plaintiffs assert
claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on
Chase's alleged violation of a California law requiring mortgage
lenders to pay interest to mortgagors on funds held in escrow
accounts for residential mortgages.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
took out mortgage-secured loans from Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu"), a federal savings bank, between 2005 and the end of 2007.
When WaMu failed in 2008, its assets, including the Plaintiffs'
mortgages, were acquired by Chase via the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. ("FDIC").

The mortgage agreements at issue required the Plaintiffs to make
payments into escrow accounts held by the lender, in order to cover
any potential taxes and assessments, leasehold payments, and
insurance premiums on the property.  The Plaintiffs have each made
payments into the escrow accounts as required, but have never
received any interest on the escrow funds from Chase.  The mortgage
agreement contains a provision addressing interest on escrow
accounts.

The appellate case is captioned as Susan McShannock, et al. v. JP
Morgan Chase Bank NA, Case No. 19-80030, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents SUSAN MCSHANNOCK, as Executrix of the Estate
of Patricia Blaskower, on behalf of the Estate of Patricia
Blaskower and all others similarly situated; MONICA CHANDLER, as
Trustee of the Chandler Family Trust, and all others similarly
situated; and MOHAMED MEKY, and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4006
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com

Defendant-Petitioner JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, doing business as
Chase Bank, is represented by:

          Alexander J. Gershen, Esq.
          David C. Powell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          E-mail: agershen@mcguirewoods.com
                  dpowell@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775-4746
          E-mail: bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com


KAY WATERPROOFING: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Carrillo, Edson Abel Meza Alvarez, Edwin Alejandro Moran
Salas, Israel Murgueitio Cordova, Jesus Orellana, Manuel Chuqui,
Manuel Mesias Chalco Lucero, Percy Prempeh-Mann and Raul Chavez
Diaz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kay Waterproofing Corp., Kay Sales Corp., Kay
Construction Corp., Monster Construction LLC, Galicia Construction
Co., Inc., Galicia Contracting and Restoration Corp., Barry
Grummer, Saul Gonzalez, Alex Rosenblatt, Ronald W. Hampson, Sr.,
Manuel Minnino, Steven Katz, Tony Rodriguez, Ronald Duarte, Eric
Hermosillo and Manuela Paz, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01365 (S.D.
N.Y., February 13, 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.

Defendants belong to a construction company group where Plaintiffs
were employed as construction laborers, mechanics, foremen,
scaffold workers, bricklayers and brick leaders. They worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of their hours worked, says 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


KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Files ERISA Suit v. Board
----------------------------------------------
John Osborne, Brian Coleman and Eve Coleman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Employee
Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, David Knopf, Greg
Guidotti, Shirley Weinstein, Kathi Barton, Steve Crucitt and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-AJS (W.D. Penn.,
March 19, 2019) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), against the Defendants.

On February 21, 2019, after the stock market closed, Kraft Heinz
announced its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2018. To the shock
of investors, including Plan participants, Kraft Heinz disclosed
that the Company took an impairment charge of $15.4 billion to
lower the carrying amount of goodwill in its U.S. Refrigerated and
Canada retail reporting units and the carrying amount of certain
intangible assets, including the Company's Kraft and Oscar Mayer
trademarks. The impairment charge resulted in a net loss
attributable to common shareholders of $12.6 billion and diluted
loss per share of $10.34. As a result of these disclosures, the
price of Kraft Heinz common stock declined over 27% from $48.18 per
share to $34.95 per share, erasing more than $16 billion of the
Company's market capitalization.

According to the complaint, Kraft Heinz's failure to disclose
critical, material information to the public, caused the market to
improperly value Kraft Heinz's stock price. As a result, the
Defendants, who knew that false and misleading statements were
continuously made, also knew that the Company's misrepresentations
had artificially inflated the price of Kraft Heinz stock throughout
the Class Period.

In short, the Plan participants who purchased Kraft Heinz stock
paid excessive prices for it during the Class Period. They suffered
concrete financial harm to their retirement savings by over-paying
for Kraft Heinz stock which, Defendants knew, or should have known,
would fall sharply in value when the Company disclosed its impaired
goodwill and misrepresentations, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are Plan participants within the meaning of ERISA and
were employees of Kraft Heinz.

Defendant EBAB is a committee established by the governing
documents of the Plan and is a "named fiduciary" of the Plan
according to those documents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason A. Archinaco, Esq.
     Michael A. O'Leary, Esq.
     THE ARCHINACO FIRM
     1100 Liberty Avenue, Suite C-6
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 434-0555
     Facsimile: (888) 563-7549
     Email: jarchinaco@archlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
     Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
     James Ostaszewski, Esq.
     ZAMANSKY LLC
     50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 742-1414
     Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
     Email: samuel@zamansky.com


LA BOOM DISCO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Duran TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Radames Duran filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment issued on February 27, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Duran
v. La Boom Disco Inc., Case No. 17-cv-6331, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Duran
filed the putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant on
October 31, 2017, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

The appellate case is captioned as Duran v. La Boom Disco Inc.,
Case No. 19-600, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

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

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

Defendant-Appellee La Boom Disco Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher R. Lynn, Esq.
          24-15 Queens Plaza North
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (917) 385-0368


LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Nikora IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lapeer Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00539-UNA (E.D. Mich., March 19, 2019) is an action on
behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees
who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as
part of, or as the foreseeable result of, plant closings or mass
layoffs ordered by Defendant and who were not provided 60 days
advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("WARN Act").

The Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and the Class members
written notice that complied with the requirements of the WARN Act.
The Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and each of the Class
Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following
their terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k)
contributions and provide employee benefits under COBRA for 60 days
from and after the dates of their terminations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Alex Nikora worked as a plant manager for Defendant.

Lapeer Industries, Inc. is a Michigan corporation, and conducted
business in this district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
            jarr@outtengolden.com


LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG: Nguyen Moves to Certify 6 Consumer Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LONG NGUYEN; THUY TRAN;
LUONG TRAN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public v. LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG INC. f/k/a
JADE LOTUS WAY, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
8:17-cv-01317-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order to
certifying these Classes:

   -- Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class
      (Illegal "Drug" Sales):

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products;

   -- Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class
      (Deception Claim):

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products;

   -- Consumer Remedies Legal Act ("CLRA") California-Only Class:

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products;

   -- False Advertising Law ("FAL") California-Only Class:

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products;

   -- Breach of Express Indemnity ("BEI") California-Only Class:

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products; and

   -- Breach of Implied Indemnity ("BII") California-Only Class:

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan
        Products; and

      * All consumers in California, who within the applicable
        statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola
        Products.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an Order designating them as
Class Representatives and appointing their counsel, Law Offices of
Mike N. Vo, APLC, and Mesisca Riley Kreitenberg LLP, as Class
Counsel.  The Plaintiffs also request the Court to order the
parties to meet and confer and present to this Court, within 15
days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed
notice to the certified Classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike N. Vo, Esq.
          Julie H. Lin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MIKE N. VO, APLC
          17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 103
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 221-8238
          Facsimile: (844) 394-0129
          E-mail: mvo@mikevolaw.com
                  jlin@mikevolaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis P. Riley, Esq.
          Rena E. Kreitenberg, Esq.
          MESISCA, RILEY & KREITENBERG LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 623-2300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-6600
          E-mail: dpriley@mrklawyers.com
                  rek@mrklawyers.com


M-I LLC: $556K Settlement in Syed FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARMAD SYED, an individual on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. M-I LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-00742 WBS BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a
conditional settlement class and preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

Syed brought the putative class action lawsuit against M-I and
other parties, alleging M-I violated federal credit reporting laws
while conducting pre-employment background checks.  The parties
have reached a settlement which would resolve the Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant M-I in October 2018.

Their Settlement Agreement provides for a gross settlement amount
of $556,000.  It specifies that the Defendants agree not to oppose
a motion by the class counsel for attorney's fees (up to $300,000)
and attorney's costs (up to $10,000) from the gross settlement
amount.  It also estimates the settlement administration costs of
approximately $25,000 and a class representative service award of
up to $5,000, both of which will be deducted from the gross
settlement amount.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the amount remaining after
these deductions will be equally distributed among those class
members who have not opted out of the settlement, with each one
receiving a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount.

The Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the parties'
stipulated class-wide settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).  M-I has not opposed the motion.

Judge Shubb finds that preliminary approval of the proposed class,
proposed class settlement, proposed class counsels' fee and
settlement allocation, and proposed plan of notice is appropriate.
Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
certification of a conditional settlement class and preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

The Judge provisionally certified, for the purpose of settlement in
accordance with the terms of the stipulation, the class of all
persons residing in the United States (including all territories
and other political subdivisions of the United States) as to whom
M-I L.L.C. may have procured or caused to be procured a consumer
report for employment purposes during the period from May 19, 2009
through Nov. 1, 2018, who M-I L.L.C. hired, and who have not signed
a severance agreement and release or equivalent agreement releasing
the claims asserted in the Action.

He appointed (i) Sarmad Syed as the representatives of the
settlement class; (ii) Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., 21550 Oxnard
St., Suite 900, Woodland Hills, CA 91367; and Blanchard Law Group,
APC, 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023, as the class
counsel; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement
administrator.

He approved the form and content of the proposed Notice of
Settlement, except to the extent that they must be updated to
reflect dates and deadlines specified in the Order.

No later than 21 days from the date the Order is signed, the
Defendant will provide the class list to Simpluris.

No later than 14 days from the date it receives the class list from
the Defendant, Simpluris will mail a Notice of Settlement to all
members of the settlement class in the manner provided for in the
Order.

No later than 90 days from the date the Order is signed, any member
of the settlement class who intends to object to, comment upon, or
opt out of the settlement will mail written notice of that intent
to Simpluris, pursuant to the instructions in the Notice of
Settlement.

A final fairness hearing will be held before the Court on Aug. 5,
2019, at 1:30 p.m.  The Court may continue the final fairness
hearing without further notice to the members of the class.

No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, the class
counsel will file with the Court a petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.  Any objections or responses to the
petition will be filed no later than 14 days before the final
fairness hearing.  The Class counsel may file a reply to any
objections no later than seven days before the final fairness
hearing.

No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, the class
counsel will file and serve upon the Court and the Defendant's
counsel all papers in support of the settlement, the incentive
award for the class representative, and any award for attorneys'
fees and costs.

No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, Simpluris
will prepare, and the class counsel will file and serve upon the
court and the Defendant's counsel, a declaration setting forth the
services rendered, proof of mailing, a list of all the class
members who have opted out of the settlement, and a list of all the
class members who have commented upon or objected to the
settlement.

To be heard in opposition at the final fairness hearing, a person
must, no later than 90 days from the date the Order is signed, (a)
serve by hand or through the mails written notice of his or her
intention to appear, stating the name and case number of the action
and each objection and the basis therefore, together with copies of
any papers and briefs, upon the class counsel and the counsel for
defendants, and (b) file said appearance, objections, papers, and
briefs with the court, together with proof of service of all such
documents upon counsel for the parties.

Responses to any such objections will be served by hand or through
the mails on the objectors, or on the objector's counsel if there
is any, and filed with the court no later than 14 calendar days
before the final fairness hearing.  Objectors may file optional
replies no later than seven calendar days before the final fairness
hearing in the same manner described.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6kL3qO from Leagle.com.

Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard,
III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law Group, APC &
Peter R. Dion-Kindem -- Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com -- Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, P.C.

PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Raymond Joseph Muro -- rmuro@nelsongriffin.com -- Nelson Griffin,
LLP & Thomas Joseph Griffin -- tgriffin@nelsongriffin.com -- Nelson
Griffin, LLP.


MACY'S WEST: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Yuriria Diaz, as an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Macy's West Stores, Inc.
and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01033577
filed in the Superior Court of California was removed to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
February 14, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00303.

Diaz seeks to recover statutory penalties under Labor Code for
Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage statements. Macy's
cites that the class easily exceeds the 100-member requirement
imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and Defendant are
citizens of different states, as basis for removal. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Armond Marced Jackson
      Jackson Law, APC
      16330 Bake Parkway
      Irvine, CA 92618-4667
      Tel: (949) 281-6857

Macy's is represented by:

      Fermin H. Llaguno, Esq.
      P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      2050 Main Street, Suite 900
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 705-3000
      Fax: (949) 724-1201
      Email: fllaguno@littler.com
             dbodaghi@littler.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bhatia Hits Employees' Fund Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tushar Bhatia, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the McKinsey &
Company, Inc. Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan and the McKinsey &
Company, Inc. Money Purchase Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. McKinsey &
Company, Inc., MIO Partners, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-01466 (S.D. N.Y., February 15, 2019), asserts claims
for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, failure
to monitor fiduciaries, prohibited transactions with a
party-in-interest and prohibited transactions with a fiduciary, and
seeks to recover losses to the McKinsey & Company Profit-Sharing
Retirement Plan caused by Defendants' violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

McKinsey sponsors two defined contribution retirement plans for its
employees and retained its subsidiary, MIO, to manage their
investment menu which Plaintiffs allege was a high-cost program and
failed to replace its portfolios with better alternatives.
McKinsey also failed to appropriately monitor and control the
Plans' recordkeeping expenses and has paid a portion of these
charges to itself, the complaint says. Each participant pays
approximately $95 per year or more for recordkeeping services which
is more than twice the reasonable market rate for similarly-sized
plans. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle L. Kornblit, Esq.
      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      Paul Lukas, Esq.
      Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
      Brock J. Specht, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      Email: mkornblit@nka.com
             krichter@nka.com
             cengstrom@nka.com
             lukas@nka.com
             bmcdonough@nka.com
             bspecht@nka.com


MDL 2672: Court Amends Order Granting ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: ECF No. 5989 Estenssoro v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-2724-CRB Frech v.
VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-4250-CRB Hightower v. VWGoA, No.
3:17-cv-3369-CRB Laub v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-4512-CRB Montes v.
VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-0729-CRB Pantoja v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-2305-CRB
Sanwick v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-3032-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. ("VWGoA")'s motion for partial reconsideration of the
March 8 Order, that remanded 184 cases.

On March 8, 2019, the Court issued an Order addressing ECF No.
3631, a motion to remand 184 cases to California state court.  In
the Order, the Court explained that the 184 cases at issue were
removed by VWGoA and California-based dealership Defendants only on
the basis of federal-question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331.  After determining that the cases would not necessarily raise
a federal question, the Court concluded that subject-matter
jurisdiction was lacking and granted the motion to remand.

On March 11, 2019, VWGoA filed a motion for leave to file a motion
for partial reconsideration of the Court's March 8 Order.  In its
motion, VWGoA states that seven of the 184 cases that were covered
by the ECF No. 3631 remand motion were removed based on diversity
jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), or based on both
federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.  As to those seven
cases, it has asked the Court to reconsider whether remand is
appropriate.

Breyer has reviewed the record and has confirmed that VWGoA is
correct.  The seven cases VWGoA has identified, which were among
the 184 cases subject to the ECF No. 3631 remand motion, and which
are listed in the caption to the Order, were each removed based on
diversity jurisdiction or based on both federal-question and
diversity jurisdiction.  California-based dealerships are not named
as Defendants in these cases.  The Court overlooked these facts in
its March 8 Order as the parties' briefs did not bring them to the
Court's attention.

For six of the seven cases identified, the Court in fact has
already determined that it has diversity jurisdiction over them.
These six were among 39 cases covered by two separate remand
motions that the Court previously denied, on Feb. 19, 2019, which
were filed by the same counsel who filed the ECF No. 3631 remand
motion.  These six cases appear to have been mistakenly listed by
the Plaintiffs' counsel in multiple remand motions.  The Judge
confirms that, for the reasons stated in the February 19 Orders,
the Court has diversity jurisdiction over these six cases.

For the last of the seven cases, Laub, the Judge holds that it has
diversity jurisdiction over it.  The notice of removal in Laub, and
the Laub complaint's factual allegations, causes of actions, and
requests for relief mirror those in the 39 cases that were
addressed in the February 19 Orders.  Thus, for the same reasons
articulated in those Orders, Section 1332(a)'s complete diversity
and amount-in-controversy requirements are satisfied.

Notwithstanding the Court's March 8 Order, the seven cases
identified in the caption to the Order will not be remanded to
California state court.  The Court has diversity jurisdiction over
these cases.

Judge Breyer granted VWGoA's motion for partial reconsideration of
the March 8 Order, and amended the March 8 Order.

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

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MEDICAL VITALITY: Guerra Sues over Marketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIO GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL VITALITY CLINIC, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19cv60692 (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2019), contends that, in efforts
to drum-up business, the Defendant would often send marketing text
messages providing different types of offers and savings for future
purchases without first obtaining express written consent to send
those marketing text messages as required to do so under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text
messages on Defendant’s behalf en masse. In sum, Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant owns and operates a medical practice that provides
"state-of-the-art aesthetic skin and body enhancements (including
laser, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, Botox, facial fillers,
and thread lifting)."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

METALS USA: $2.8MM Settlement in Wilson Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES WILSON, an individual, and JACK WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. METALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:12-cv-00568-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement.

Plaintiffs James Wilson and Jack White have brought the certified
class action alleging that roofing tiles manufactured by Dura-Loc
Roofing Systems Ltd. suffer from an inherent design defect, which
results in the deterioration of the tiles' outer coating upon
exposure to air and sunlight.  They bring the action against
Defendant, the alleged successor to Dura-Loc's liability.

Specifically, the Court certified the class of all individuals and
entities that own homes or other structures located in the State of
California on which Dura-Loc Roofing Systems Ltd.'s Continental,
Shadowline, or Wood Shake stone coated steel roof shingles were
installed during the period of time beginning July 1, 1996 through
May 12, 2006.

The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement, filed on Aug. 31, 2018, is before
the Court.  The Court held a hearing on the matter on Oct. 19,
2018.

Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees to
pay a gross amount of $2.8 million for all claims.  The agreement
further provides defendant will make the following payments
separate and apart from the gross settlement payment of $2.8
million: (1) settlement administration expenses; (2) attorney's
fees and costs, not to exceed $1,111,000; and (3) incentive awards
for each representative Plaintiff, as approved by the Court, not to
exceed $39,000 in aggregate.

The settlement will be allocated to class members using the
following distribution formula: Each member of the Settlement Class
may claim up to 300 affected tiles, each valued at $10, for a
maximum claim of $3,000 ($10 × 300 = $3,000).  Should the total
value of the claims exceed $2.8 million, the value of each affected
tile will be decreased on a pro rata basis.

To be eligible to receive payment from the settlement, a class
member must submit a claim form by mail or through the settlement
website by the submission deadline.  The settlement payment will be
made available on a reversionary basis, with the Defendant
retaining unclaimed funds.  Additionally, if the class members do
not cash their settlement checks within ninety days of receiving
them, those sums will be returned to the Defendant.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates a notice period for the class
members to opt out of the settlement or to file an objection
regarding its fairness.  A settlement administrator will send a
summary notice to all the putative class members.  The settlement
administrator will also provide publication notice through targeted
publication and direct class members to the settlement website,
which will contain the full notice, as well as copies of the
Plaintiffs' operative complaint and the Court's preliminary
approval order.  Once notice is sent out, class members are
automatically part of the settlement unless they opt out of the
settlement by the opt-out deadline.   The class members may also
file objections to the settlement and subsequently appear at the
second fairness hearing.

Judge Mueller finds that the Settlement Agreement offers genuine
relief in the form of payments capped at $3,000 per class member.
The parties, moreover, reached agreement just before trial after
more than six years of litigation, thereby assuring they entered
into the Settlement Agreement with a substantial grasp of the
strengths and weaknesses of the case.  The risks and uncertainty
associated with continued litigation also weigh in favor of
approving the settlement, as does the fact the parties engaged in
substantial discovery and mediation.  Therefore, the proposed
agreement hsatisfies the requirements for preliminary approval.
Nevertheless, the Judge expresses very strong reservations about
several aspects of the fairness of the proposed settlement and
warns the parties that the Court will not grant final approval if
these concerns are not resolved by the time of the final hearing on
whether to approve the settlement.

The Judge granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, and
granted approval of the proposed notice to the putative class.  She
appointed Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC as the claims
administrator.

The Judge adopted the parties stipulated schedule, as follows:

     (1) Within two days of the Order, the class counsel must
submit the class list to the claims administrator;

     (2) Within 32 days of the Order, the claims administrator must
(a) mail the summary notice, (b) publish the publication notice,
and (c) post the full notice, the Plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, a copy of the Order, and the claim form on the
settlement website;

     (3) Within 80 days of the Order, the Plaintiffs must file
their anticipated motion to approve attorney's fees and costs,
administration expenses, and incentive awards;

     (4) Within three days of the filing of the motion for
attorney's fees and costs, administration expenses and incentive
awards, the claims administrator must post the motion on the
settlement website;

     (5) Within 94 days of the Order, the class members must
postmark their claim forms, objections to the settlement, or
requests for exclusion;

     (6) The Plaintiffs must file their motion for final approval
of the class action settlement no earlier than 150 days after the
entry of the Order; and

     (7) The final hearing on whether to approve the settlement
will be held no earlier than 28 days after the filing of the motion
for final approval of the class action settlement, with the hearing
date set by the Plaintiffs upon the filing of the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aAdKh2 from Leagle.com.

James Wilson & Jack White, Plaintiffs, represented by Crystal Lee
Matter -- crystal@matterlawapc.com -- Stonebarger Law APC, Gene
Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- and
Richard David Lambert, Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com --
STONEBARGER LAW.

Rita White, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger,
Stonebarger Law & Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law.

Metals USA, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Adrian J. Sawyer, Esq. -- sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- KERR &
AGSTAFFE, LLP -- Bartholomew Dalton, Esq. --
Bdalton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON,
LLP


MICROCHIP TECH: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in Schuman ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER SCHUMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP
TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants Atmel Corp. and
Microchip's counterclaim, without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs Schuman and William Coplin originally filed the putative
class action in September 2016, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").  In short, the Plaintiffs
claimed that their former employer Atmel Corp., its merger partner
Microchip, and the Atmel Corp. U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit
Program ("Plan") failed to honor the terms of an employee severance
agreement.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Atmel.  In 2015, Atmel made
a guarantee to its employees that if their employment was
terminated and certain conditions were met, it would pay them
severance benefits.  This was the original "Atmel Plan," which was
governed by ERISA. Id.

Microchip acquired Atmel on April 6, 2016.  After the acquisition,
some Atmel employees claimed that they were eligible for benefits
under the Atmel Plan.  But in the Defendants' view, the Atmel Plan
had expired.  Nevertheless, to resolve the continuing dispute with
these Atmel employees, the Defendants offered employees the
opportunity to receive different severance benefits if they were
terminated.  This was the "Second Atmel Plan."  The Employees had
45 days to decide whether to accept it.  In exchange for accepting
the Second Atmel Plan, these employees agreed to execute a release
of any claims they might have against Microchip, Atmel, and their
affiliates, and subsidiaries.

The Plaintiffs signed the severance agreement and release. Between
April 6, 2016 and March 18, 2017, Atmel terminated the Plaintiffs'
employment.  After their termination, the Plaintiffs were paid
according to the terms of the Second Atmel Plan.

Even though they signed the severance agreements and releases (and
accepted severance benefits) under the Second Atmel Plan, the
Plaintiffs still brought suit.  They did not tender back their
benefits and never intended to keep their promises; rather, they
intended to deceive the Defendants.  The Defendants reasonably
relied on the Plaintiffs' promises, but the Plaintiffs have kept
their benefits despite not honoring their promises.  The Defendants
have been financially injured by the Plaintiffs' fraudulent
promises, but ERISA does not allow them to obtain money damages.
The Defendants have reasonably concluded that the Plaintiffs are
dissipating the benefits they received under the Second Atmel Plan.


Based on these allegations, the Defendants brought a counterclaim
for equitable relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3).  They seek an
injunction to prevent the Plaintiffs from dissipating benefits
received, an order equitably estopping them from continuing to
pursue their claims, interest on any sums awarded, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs moved to dismiss.

Judge Gilliam finds that, as a matter of law, the Defendants have
not alleged (nor could they allege) that the Plaintiffs violated
any provision of the Second Atmel Plan.  Therefore, they have
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
ERISA.  The Judge granted the motion to dismiss the Defendants'
counterclaim, without leave to amend.

The Judge set a further case management conference for 2:00 p.m. on
April 2, 2019.  At the case management conference, the parties
should be prepared to discuss a schedule for the prompt resolution
of the matter and the proposed form and timing of ADR efforts,
including the possibility of a magistrate judge settlement
conference.  The parties are directed to file a joint case
management statement addressing these and any other issues by March
26, 2019.

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

Peter Schuman & William Coplin, Plaintiffs, represented by Cliff
Michael Palefsky -- CP@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky,
Connie K. Chan -- cchan@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael
Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Raphael N.
Rajendra -- rrajendra@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon, William B.
Reilly -- bill@williambreilly.com -- Law Office of William Reilly &
Keith A. Ehrman -- keith@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn, Hillsman &
Palefsky.

Microchip Technology Incorporated, Atmel Corporation & Atmel
Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program, Defendants,
represented by Mark E. Schmidtke , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak,
Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth M. Soveranez , Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Kristina Holmstrom ,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark
Gerard Kisicki , Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean
Patrick Nalty , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Microchip Technology Incorporated & Atmel Corporation,
Counter-claimants, represented by Mark E. Schmidtke, Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Gerard
Kisicki, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick
Nalty, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

William Coplin & Peter Schuman, Counter-defendants, represented by
Cliff Michael Palefsky, McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Michael Rubin,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, William Bernard Reilly, Law Office of William
Reilly & Keith A. Ehrman, McGuiMICROCHIP TECHnn, Hillsman &
Palefsky.


MILWAUKEE HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Collect Wages Under WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA JONES on behalf of herself and all others Similarly situated
v. MILWAUKEE HEALTH CARE, LLC d/b/a Wellspring of Milwaukee,
WILLIAM NICHOLSON and WILLIAM KOSKI, Case No. 2:19-cv-00355 (E.D.
Wisc., March 8, 2019), is a civil action for collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and for unpaid
wages and benefits under state law.

The Plaintiff was an employee of MHC until she was terminated as
part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closure
ordered by MHC.

MHC was a Delaware corporation, which maintained a facility in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The Individual Defendants are owners of
MHC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara J. Geenen, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: sjg@previant.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: stuart@lankmill.com

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com


MISSION VALLEY: Lengyel Suit Alleges Conspiracy and Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Richard Schlander, Lori
Broussard, and Mission Valley Bank for alleged breach of fiduciary
duty, fraud, and conspiracy to convert funds. The case is captioned
LAD S. LENGYEL, an individual; derivatively on behalf of TOWN &
COUNTRY FARM SCHOOL, INC.; WILLIAM M. LENGYEL, an individual;
STEVEN A. LENGYEL, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD SCHLANDER,
an individual; LORI BROUSSARD, an individual; MISSION VALLEY BANK;
and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08504 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles County, March 12, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Elizabeth Allen White.

In addition to massive embezzlement, upon information and belief,
Schlander has now stopped managing Town & Country Farm School, Inc.
(T&CFS) or performing any other function for the corporation yet he
still receives a salary from T&CFS. This has resulted in citations
filed by the California Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS
cited T&CFS for numerous violations relating to child safety
including operating the facility with no licensed director. These
actions and inactions by Schlander have left T&CFS exposed to
liability by putting children in harm’s way. To cover up their
conspiracy, Defendants failed to conduct any of the mandated annual
meetings for T&CFS and insured that the business records of T&CFS
are almost nonexistent, including deliberately cooking the
financial records. Lengyel, through this complaint, seeks to
correct these injustices and to examine the business records of
T&CFS. Lengyel has attempted in vein to convince Defendants to
cease and desist their unlawful activities.

T&CFS is based in the City of Newhall, County of Los Angeles, State
of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Kirk J. Retz, Esq.
        Retz & Aldover, LLP
        2550 ViaTejon, Suite 3A
        Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
        Telephone: (310)540-9800
        Facsimile: (424)218-1175


MISSOURI: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in T. Watson's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY G. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. KAREY L. WITTY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16CV71 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward
Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Action.

In his "Motion for Class Action," the Plaintiff states that the
number of disabled and elderly persons affected by the
unconstitutional bedding incarcerated at Missouri Department of
Corrections ("MDOC") is so large that it is impractical for each
claimant to bring suit and appear in Court; that the violations of
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et
seq. Title of the ADA; Section 504 Federal Rehabilitation Act;
Missouri Human Rights Act, are violations and questions of law and
fact common to the class; the claims made by the Plaintiff are
similar to the claims of all the class members; and the Plaintiff,
through a court appointed attorney is able to fairly and adequately
protect the interest of the class.

As the Defendants correctly argue, Judge Autrey finds that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is based on Count II of
the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.  On Jan. 7, 2019, the
Court granted summary judgment on Count II, which was brought
against the MDOC's employees for failing to accommodate the
Plaintiff's alleged back, neck, and leg pain disabilities in
relation to bunk beds and mattresses at the Couth Central
Correctional Center and at the Moberly Correctional Center.  Since
Count II is no longer a viable claim, the Plaintiff cannot
establish that he can fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class, as required by Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Opinion, Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/SVMrAn from Leagle.com.

Terry G. Watson, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jeff Allen, Cari D. Collins, ADA Site Coordinator & Chris Sweeten,
MDOC Director of ADA, Defendants, represented by John W. Taylor,
Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Will Jones, ADA Site Coordinator, Defendant, pro se.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Koenitz Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR KOENITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07001-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., Feb. 26, 2019)
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The
case is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti and referred to
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts. The company was founded in 1947 and is based in Tempe,
Arizona. Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF &KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


NEW YORK FISH: Melgarejo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florentino Melgarejo, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. New York
Fish & Vegetable, Inc., d/b/a "NY Fish and Vegetable" and Lee's
Fish & Fruit, Inc., and David Lee, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02439 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is a civil action for
damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that
Defendants committed of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in
fact work, in excess of forty hours for each week or virtually each
week, yet the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate
of pay, much less at the rate of one and one half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours that he worked in excess of forty each
week, and instead paid him on a flat weekly basis for all hours
worked that operated by law to cover only the first forty hours
that he worked in a week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a stocker from May 2012 until
January 4, 2019.

Defendants are two corporate entities that consecutively operated a
single deli and grocery store located in the Bronx, New York, as
well as the entities' owner who was Plaintiffs direct
supervisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 679-5000
     Fax: (212) 679-5005


NS INVESTMENTS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NS INVESTMENTS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08026
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal
periods.

NS Investments, Inc., is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.  The
Company is a business entity conducting business in numerous
counties throughout the state of California, including in Los
Angeles County.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[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
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


NUSRET MIAMI: Compere Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MELISSA COMPERE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. NUSRET MIAMI, LLC d/b/a
Nusr-et Steakhouse, a Florida limited liability company, and NUSRET
GOKCE, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-20277-KMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks
collective-action certification of this class of similarly situated
persons:

     All front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked at
     Nusr-et Steakhouse in Miami within the two years preceding
     this lawsuit and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of
     requiring Class Members to share tips with non-tipped
     employees and to work without being paid an hourly wage,
     earned less than the applicable minimum and/or overtime wage
     for one or more weeks.

Ms. Compere also asks the Court to issue an order:

    (i) directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned
        counsel within twenty (20) days a list containing the
        names and last known addresses of putative Class Members
        who worked for the Defendants during the last two years;
        and

   (ii) authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a notice to
        all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
        by the Defendants' counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Relate and Consolidate Securities Suits Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: NVIDIA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendants'
administrative motion to relate and consolidate cases and to
appoint the co-lead counsel.

The following three derivative actions: (i) Han v. Huang, et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00341; (ii) Yang v. Huang, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00766, (iii) The Booth Family Trust v. Huang, et al., Case
No. 3:19-cv-00876; and the consolidated securities class action, In
Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case. No.
4:18-cv-07669-HSG, currently pending before Judge Gilliam, involve
substantially similar parties and events; conducting them before
different judges would create the risk of potentially unduly
burdensome duplication of labor and expenses and inconsistent
results.  Accordingly, the Derivative Actions are related to the
Consolidated Class Action and reassigned to Judge Gilliam.

Each of the Derivative Actions also involve substantially similar
parties and events and there is a risk of unnecessary duplication
of labor and expenses or conflicting results if they were to be
conducted separately before different judges.  Accordingly, the
Derivative Actions are also related to each other.

The Derivative Actions involve a common question of law and fact.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Derivative
Actions are consolidated with each other for all purposes,
including pre-trial proceedings and trial, under Case No.
3:19-cv-00341, which will serve as the lead case.  The Consolidated
Derivative Action will not be consolidated with the Consolidated
Class Action.

Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Derivative Action will
bear the following caption: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re NVIDIA CORPORATION Case No.
4:19-cv-00341 CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Judge: Hon.
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Courtroom: 2 _______________ This Document
Relates to: Related Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG ALL ACTIONS

All papers filed in connection with the Consolidated Derivative
Action will be maintained in one file under Lead Case
4:19-cv-00341.

The Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs for the conduct of the
Consolidated Derivative Action will be:

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

        -- and --

     THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     Timothy Brown, Esq.
     240 Townsend Square
     Oyster Bay, NY 11771
     Telephone: (516) 922-5427
     Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
     Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net

        -- and --

      WEISSLAW LLP
      David C. Katz, Esq.
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      Email: dckatz@weisslawllp.com

The Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel will have the sole authority to
speak for the Plaintiffs in all matters regarding pre-trial
procedure, trial, and settlement negotiations and will make all
work assignments in such manner as to facilitate the orderly and
efficient prosecution of the litigation and to avoid duplicative or
unproductive effort.

The Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for coordinating all
activities and appearances on behalf of the Plaintiffs.  No motion,
request for discovery, or other pre-trial or trial proceedings will
be initiated or filed by any Plaintiffs except through the Co-Lead
Counsel.

The Defendants' counsel may rely upon all agreements made with the
Co-Lead Counsel, or other duly authorized representative of the
Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements will be binding on all the
Plaintiffs.

For all shareholder derivative actions subsequently filed in,
removed to, reassigned to, or transferred to the Court that are
related to the Consolidated Derivative Action by the Court, the
parties (including the parties to the subsequently filed action)
will meet and confer regarding potential consolidation.  If the
parties ultimately stipulate to consolidation, such action will be
consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action.  If the
parties are unable to agree on consolidation, the parties will
bring the matter to the Court's attention within 10 days after the
subsequently filed or transferred action is related to the
Consolidated Derivative Action.

The parties will submit a proposed schedule within 30 days of entry
of the Order.  The Defendants are not required to answer, move, or
otherwise respond to the respective complaints filed in the Han,
Yang, or Booth actions until the deadline set forth in the Court's
order on the parties' proposed schedule.  The Court's scheduling
order will supersede any and all deadlines previously set in the
individual Derivative Actions.

The parties are not waiving any rights, claims, or defenses of any
kind except as expressly stated, and the parties reserve the right
to seek further extensions of time as circumstances may warrant,
subject to the Court's approval.

Judge Gilliam directed the clerk to administratively close the
later-filed civil actions, Case Nos. 19-cv-00766 and 19-cv-00876.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gF9Frf from Leagle.com.

Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et al
& David Ronald Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann.

Michael Oto, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II
-- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

NVIDIA Corporation, Jensen Huang & Colette Kress, Defendants,
represented by John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Brett Hom De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Claire Andrea McCormack, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP,
Emily Brooke Harrington -- eharrington@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP &
Patrick Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County
Voluntary Employees' Benefit Association Trust & Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System Trust, Defendants, represented by Adam
J. Zapala -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP.

Henry Keller, Dennis Horanic & Jack Cravens, Movants, represented
by Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C.

Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., Movant, represented
by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Shelly Weiss, Movant, represented by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Wagstaffe, von
Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP.

Julius Myron Rosen, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abado, Kahn Swick
Foti LLP.

NVDA Investor Group, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato,
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, Movant, represented by Darren J. Check ,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Lauren
Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher
Browne, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro
hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, pro
hac vice & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Movant, represented by Darren J.
Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Lauren Joost,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner,
Bernstein Litowitz et al, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check,
LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP.


OCWEN LOAN: Court Resolves 1st Discovery Dispute in Franklin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan
Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has issued an order resolving the parties' first
discovery dispute: the information the Plaintiffs requested related
to the number of California residents whose conversations with the
Defendant were recorded.

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Franklin sues the
Defendant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.  He brings one claim for relief, for illegal recording of
cellular phone conversations pursuant to California Penal Code
Section 632.7.  He brings the suit on behalf of himself and a
proposed class consisting of all persons in California whose
cellular telephone conversations were recorded without their
consent by Defendant and/or its agent/s from Nov. 11, 2011 through
the date of filing the Complaint.

By their joint letter, the parties identify the following
outstanding dispute: in Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 14, the
Plaintiff requested information related to the number of California
residents whose conversations with the Defendant were recorded.
The parties have not attached the Plaintiff's written requests for
discovery or the Defendant's answers or objections, but the
Defendant does not contest the Plaintiff's characterization of the
request.  Rather, the Defendant objects that the request is unduly
burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case because
responding to them would take thousands or hundreds of thousands of
hours of work.

The Defendant states that to comply it would have to examine each
account with a California address or area code, determine if any
calls were made on that account, attempt to locate those calls and
any recordings of those calls, and then listen to the recordings to
determine whether the person being called answered the call and was
recorded rather than a message being left on voicemail or someone
else answering the call.  It has proposed that the parties
stipulate that it called and recorded a minimum number of persons
in California, such as over 100 persons.  The Plaintiff has
rejected the offer and states that the requested information is
vital to class certification.

Judge Illton agrees with the Plaintiff that information regarding
the number of recorded calls the Defendant made is relevant to his
motion for class certification, going not only to numerosity but
also to the question of whether a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.  It is also relevant, among other things, to the
question of damages, particularly in light of the Court's ruling
that the Plaintiff may seek a class-wide award of statutory damages
in an amount up to $5,000 per class member.  It will not suffice
for the Defendant to stipulate to an arbitrary number such as over
100 persons.

In light of the relevance of the information that the Plaintiff
seeks, the Judge orders that the Defendant will respond to
Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 14, with, at minimum, information
regarding the total number of phone calls the Defendant made during
the relevant period to California residents (including any account
associated with a California address and any account containing a
California area code).  

The Defendant will provide the information no later than March 26,
2019.  Also no later than March 26, 2019, the parties will
stipulate to a method for extrapolating the total number of
recorded phone calls the Defendant made to California residents
during the relevant period.  This may be an agreement to sample
some subset of the data to extrapolate a class-wide number or some
other method such as a stipulation that the ratio of calls received
to calls recorded that the Plaintiff experienced is representative
of the typical class member.  Because the parties did not attach
their discovery requests and responses, the Judge is unable to give
more specific guidance at this time.  The intent of the Order is
that the Defendant will respond to the interrogatories with
information regarding the number of calls made, and the parties
will agree to a process for estimating the number of calls
recorded.

The Judge is concerned about the amount of time that has elapsed
since the Plaintiff served his discovery requests in September
2019.  It thus appears that defendant unilaterally stayed its
discovery responses during the nearly two-month period during which
the Plaintiff's motion for clarification was pending.  The
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on Oct. 11, 2019.
The Judge expects the Defendant to timely meet its discovery
obligations so that the other deadlines in the case may proceed
apace.

The Plaintiff also states that he served a deposition notice dated
Dec. 12, 2018, but that he had to withdraw its deposition notice
because the Defendant failed to timely produce documents.  To date,
the Defendant has not provided alternative dates for a deposition.
Presumably, the Plaintiff is waiting on the above discovery before
deposing the Defendant.  The Judge will therefore not issue any
order on deposition scheduling at this time.  If the parties
continue to be unable to resolve this issue, they may file another
joint letter with the Court, after complying with the Court's
standing order requiring that, prior to filing such a letter, the
parties will meet and confer to attempt to resolve their dispute
informally.  A mere exchange of letters, e-mails, telephone calls,
or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet
and confer.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Illston ordered that no later than
March 26, 2019: (1) the Defendant will respond to Interrogatory
Nos. 12, 13, and 14, with, at minimum, information regarding the
total number of phone calls the Defendant made during the relevant
period to California residents (including any account associated
with a California address and any account containing a California
area code); and (2) the parties will stipulate to a method for
extrapolating the total number of recorded phone calls the
Defendant made to California residents during the relevant period.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/d7T3RD from Leagle.com.

Gregory Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Lee McBride --
ryan@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Emily C. Headlee --
emily@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Seyed Abbas
Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward Dean
Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Mandy Chan
-- mandy.chan@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Perrie Michael
Weiner, Esq. -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP.


OHIO: Dismissal of 2nd Amended Vance Suit w/o Prejudice Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bruce A. Vance et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State
of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18AP-484 (Ohio App.), Judge
Lisa L. Sadler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth
District, Franklin County, affirmed the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of
the Defendant-Appellee, State of Ohio; and dismissing the
Appellants' second amended class action complaint ("SAC") due to
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

On June 26, 2015, Appellants, Vance, G. Fredrick Pierce-Ruhland,
and the Joseph K. Blystone Trust, filed a class action complaint on
behalf of the more than 100,000 owners of Ohio lands devoted to
agricultural production, alleging that the state, by and through
Joseph W. Testa, Commissioner of the  Ohio Department of Taxation
("ODT"), "illegally collected" more than $1 billion of property
taxes from the Appellants by failing to calculate Current
Agricultural Use Valuation ("CAUV") taxes in accordance with Ohio
law.  The complaint further alleges that commencing in 2005 and
increasingly during the Kasich Administration, CAUV taxes have
doubled, tripled and quadrupled, threatening the future of
agriculture, Ohio's largest industry.  It alleges a claim for
unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as
well as the certification of a class action under Civ.R. 23(B)(2)
and (3).

In an amended class action complaint filed in the Ashtabula County
Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2015, the Appellants identified
several other named Plaintiffs, added the Hon. John R. Kasich,
Governor of the state of Ohio, as a Defendant and added claims for
equitable restitution and for compensatory damages based on certain
alleged statutory and constitutional violations.

In the SAC filed by the Appellants with leave of court on Nov. 9,
2015, the Appellants identified the state of Ohio as the Defendant,
removed the tax commissioner and governor as the Defendants, and
deleted the claims for injunctive relief and for compensatory
damages based on alleged statutory and constitutional violations.
Thus, the remaining claims for relief alleged in the SAC are
equitable restitution and declaratory judgment.  The SAC seeks an
award against the State of Ohio for equitable restitution to the
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class, entitling them to the
difference between what they paid in property taxes since 2005 and
what they would have paid had the ODT properly and lawfully
calculated CAUV.

On Feb. 24, 2016, the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas
granted the state's motion to transfer the action to Franklin
County.  On Nov. 2, 2016, the trial court denied the state's motion
to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.

On May 12, 2017, the state filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing the Court of Claims of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction of
the Appellants' second amended complaint because any claim for
monetary relief against the state asserted therein sounded in legal
rather than equitable restitution.  In opposing the state's motion,
they abandoned their allegation that the state assessed and
retained the illegitimate property taxes paid as a result of the
tax commissioner's misapplication of CAUV.  Rather, the Appellants
claimed the respective county auditors and county treasurers acted
as agents of the tax commissioner for purposes of assessing and
collecting CAUV property taxes.  The Appellants' further contended
the state was unjustly enriched by the retention of overpaid taxes
which directly reduce the state's burden of local school funding.

On May 17, 2018, the trial court granted the state's motion for
summary judgment as to the Appellants' claim for equitable
restitution and "dismissed" their class action complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Appellants
timely appealed to the Court from the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant assigns the following as trial court error: (i) the
trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the
Appellees, and (ii) the trial court erred in holding that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the Appellants' claims.

Pursuant to the CAUV property tax scheme at issue in the case,
Judge Sadler finds that the CAUV property taxes are assessed
locally by county auditors, collected locally by the respective
county treasurers, and distributed locally.  The fact that the CAUV
is determined pursuant to the Land Tables drafted by the tax
commissioner does not change the local character of the assessment
and collection of the tax.  Accordingly, consistent with the
reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in Ohio Utilities Co. v.
Collins, she holdd that local county treasurers are not agents of
the tax commissioner or the state treasurer for purposes of the
CAUV property tax.

She agrees with the trial court that the relief sought by the
Appellants in the case is legal in nature rather than equitable.
Unlike the Plaintiffs in Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., the
Appellants cannot identify specific funds belonging in good
conscience to them that can clearly be traced to specific funds in
the possession of the state.  The fact that the amount of the
alleged overpayment to the county treasurers is calculable does not
change the character of the claim.  Accordingly, she holds that the
trial court did not err when it determined that the Appellants
failed to produce evidence to support a claim for equitable
restitution against the state and granted the state's motion for
summary judgment as to that claim.

Furthermore, because the Appellants' claim for monetary relief
against the state sought either legal restitution or compensatory
damages at law, the trial court did not err when it determined the
Court of Claims had exclusive, original jurisdiction of the second
amended complaint.  Accordingly, she holds that the trial court did
not err when it dismissed the Appellants' SAC, without prejudice,
due to the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Salder overruled the Appellants'
two assignments of error, and accordingly affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Decision is
available at https://is.gd/IG19s9 from Leagle.com.

On brief: Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer LLP, and Joshua R. Cohen --
jcohen@crklaw.com; The Roberts Law Firm, and Kevin T. Roberts --
ktr@kevinrobertslaw.com; Murray & Murray Co. L.P.A., Dennis E.
Murray, Jr., and William H. Bartle; Mansour Gaven LP, Anthony J.
Coyne -- acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- and Edward O. Patton --
epatton@mggmlpa.com -- for appellants. Argued: Kevin T. Roberts.

On brief: Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Robert A. Hager --
rahager@bmdllc.com -- Justin M. Alaburda -- jmalaburda@bmdllc.com
-- Daniel J. Rudary -- djrudary@bmdllc.com; Dave Yost, Attorney
General, Daniel W. Fausey -- Daniel.Fausey@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
-- Christine Mesirow -- Christine.Mesirow@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
-- and Daniel Kim -- Daniel.Kim@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- for
appellee. Argued: Daniel J. Rudary.


OHIO: Mays Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees and Detainees
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TOMMY RAY MAYS II and
QUINTON NELSON SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State, Case No. 2:18-cv-01376-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
move the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Named Plaintiffs Mays and Nelson seek to serve as Class
Representatives and represent a class pursuant to Counts One and
Two of Plaintiffs' Complaint, to be defined as:

     All individuals arrested and held in detention in Ohio on or
     after close of business for the county election board on the
     Friday prior to the Election who (1) are eligible to vote in
     Ohio and are registered to do so, (2) did not vote absentee
     in person or by mail prior to their detention, (3) were
     provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a
     voting center nor access to any other method of voting while
     held in detention, and (4) will remain in detention through
     close of polls on Election Day.

According to the Plaintiffs, in Ohio, qualified voters who are
arrested after the deadline to request an absentee ballot and held
in detention through Election Day are not permitted to vote, in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Gaber, Esq.
          Danielle M. Lang, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Diaz, Esq.
          CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER
          1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-2200
          E-mail: mgaber@campaignlegalcenter.org
                  dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org
                  jdiaz@campaignlegalcenter.org

               - and -

          Locke E. Bowman, Esq.
          Alexa Van Brunt, Esq.
          Laura C. Bishop, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW
          375 East Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 503-1271
          E-mail: l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu
                  a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu
                  laura.bishop@law.northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Naila S. Awan, Esq.
          DEMOS
          80 Broad Street, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 485-6055
          E-mail: nawan@demos.org

               - and -

          Chiraag Bains, Esq.
          DEMOS
          740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 864-2746
          E-mail: cbains@demos.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Voigt, Esq.
          Damian Sikora, Esq.
          OFFICE OF OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
          30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466-2872
          Facsimile: (614) 728-7592
          E-mail: Steven.Voigt@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
                  damian.sikora@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

               - and -

          Jack Christopher, Esq.
          DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND LEGAL COUNSEL
          180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466-2655
          E-mail: jchristopher@ohiosecretaryofstate.gov


OWL INC: Supervisors & Drivers Subclasses Certified in Perez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Issuance of Notice in the lawsuit styled JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO
SANTOS and DOUGLAS RICHEY v. OWL, INC., Case No.
6:17-cv-01092-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.).

These collective subclasses are conditionally certified:

   a. Road Supervisors:

      Drivers employed by Owl, Inc. since June 15, 2014, who
      have been labeled as "road supervisors" and paid on a
      salary basis; and

   b. Hourly Drivers:

      Drivers employed by Owl, Inc. since June 15, 2014, who
      have been paid on an hourly basis.

Judge Mendoza rules that on or before April 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs
shall issue notice to potential plaintiffs by first-class mail and
by electronic mail, informing them of their right to opt in to this
case in the form of the proposed Notice and Opt-In Consent Form
attached to the Plaintiff's Motion.

The opt-in period shall be 90 days from the first issuance of the
notice.  Within 45 days of the first issuance of the notice, the
Plaintiffs are authorized to send a reminder to all potential
plaintiffs, who received notice but have not yet responded by
first-class mail and electronic mail.

On or before March 25, 2019, the Defendant shall produce to the
Plaintiffs a list of all drivers, who worked more than 40 hours a
week without receiving overtime pay since June 15, 2014, including
their names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone
numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment.

The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply is
denied.[CC]


PELL'S POINT: Denies Workers Overtime Pay & Wage Slips, Says Cruz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Cruz, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pell's Point LLC, Clayton
Bushong, individually, and Brenan Hefner, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-01425 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 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.

Defendants operate the restaurant, "Cantina Lobos," where Cruz
worked as a chef, dishwasher, cleaner, kitchen worker and server.
He claims to have 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, and terminated him without
a 30-day written notice, says the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galen J. Criscione, Esq.
      CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP
      250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10177
      Tel: (212) 920-7142
      Fax: (800) 583-1787
      E-mail: GCriscione@lawcrt.com


PERMANENT GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Williams-Diggins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Permanent General Assurance
Corporation of Ohio, Defendant, Case No. CV-19-912705 filed in
Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas on March 19, 2019, is a lawsuit on
behalf of all persons insured under a Permanent General Ohio
private passenger auto ("PPA") insurance policy who suffered a
total loss covered claim and were not paid the full sales tax,
title fees, and registration fees due under their policies.

Plaintiff suffered a total loss on a vehicle insured under
Permanent General's PPA policy of insurance. Plaintiff made a
covered claim for physical damage. The Policy requires payment on
first-party total loss physical damage claims of Actual Cash Value
("ACV"). ACV is defined by the Policy, in relevant part, as the
fair market value of the insured vehicle at the time of accident or
loss.

Permanent General breaches the Policy by refusing to pay ACV sales
tax, title fees, and registration fees on covered total loss
claims. Permanent General also breached the policy by failing to
pay Plaintiff sales tax, title transfer fees ("title fees"), and
registration fees due under the policy, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an Ohio resident who entered into a Policy agreement
to be insured by Permanent General under policy form
PA001-0416-OH.

Permanent General is a subsidiary of American Family Insurance, and
is one of several American Family entity insurance companies
providing PPA insurance coverage in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
     Kenneth P. Abbamo, Esq.
     Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     7556 Mentor Avenue
     Mentor, OH 44060
     Phone: 440-953-8888
     Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
            kabbamo@dicellole vitt.com
            ihawal@dicellolevitt.com

          - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
            dferri@dicellolevitt.com

          - and -

     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
     NORMAND PLLC
     Post Office Box 1400036
     Orlando, FL 32814-0036
     Phone: 407-603-6031
     Email: iacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com
            ed@ednormand.com

          - and -

     Andrew Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14N.E 1st Ave Ste. 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: Scott@edelsberglaw.com


PNGI CHARLES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Barrick FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Linda Barrick filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Linda Barrick v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00138-GMG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Martinsburg.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and
violations of the West Virginia Payment and Collection Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Linda Barrick v. PNGI Charles
Town Gaming, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1257, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 22, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on May 22, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA BARRICK, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
          114 South Maple Avenue
          P. O. Box 2281
          Martinsburg, WV 25402
          Telephone: (304) 262-4436
          E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

               - and -

          Robert Scott Oswald, Esq.
          Nicholas Woodfield, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC
          888 17th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 261-2883
          E-mail: soswald@employmentlawgroup.com
                  nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees PNGI CHARLES TOWN GAMING, L.L.C., d/b/a
Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races, and PENN NATIONAL GAMING,
INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Kimberly Jeanne Gost, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1601 Cherry Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3007
          E-mail: kgost@littler.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Wallace, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          Chase Tower
          707 Virginia Street East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 599-4628
          E-mail: rwallace@littler.com


PRIME WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Amador Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO AMADOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRIME WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08032
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' alleged California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices, including failure to pay minimum and straight
time wages, and failure to pay overtime wages.

Prime Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. is a California corporation
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
The Plaintiff does not currently know the true names or capacities
of the Doe Defendants.

Prime Waterproofing is a full service Commercial and Industrial
Roofing and Waterproofing Contractor serving the Southwest region
of the United States.[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
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


PRUCO LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Behfarin Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company 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 motion for
class certification filed in the putative class action lawsuit
entitled, Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, is
pending.  

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard
Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal
life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are
inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.

The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2017, the Company
filed its answer to the complaint.

In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Pruco Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries,
provides various individual life insurance and annuity products in
the United States. It offers term life insurance, variable life
insurance, and universal life insurance, as well as variable
annuities. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in Newark,
New Jersey. Pruco Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of The
Prudential Insurance Company of America.


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EARL WRIGHT, RAMONA HOLDEN, ETTA WILLIAMS, MICHAEL
HAMILTON, JOSEPH EKO, LINDA PHILLIPS, ELAINE WILHELM, ANTHONY
GILLESPIE, MARK CARLISLE, VERNITA JESSIE, CHERYL RIFE, SANDY
SAMENS, RUTHIE ORTIZ SOUDJIAN, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING
HOUSE, INCORPORATED and PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02373 (ADS)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (i)
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot
the Defendants' motions to strike and to compel arbitration and
stay the present action.

On April 23, 2018, the named Plaintiffs brought the putative class
action against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants engaged
in unlawful, unfair and deceptive marketing practices in violation
of the federal Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act
("DMPEA"), the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act ("CAN SPAM"), and New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 369e.

The Defendants operate the nationally recognized sweepstakes and
marketing brand Publisher's Clearing House ("PCH").  PCH advertises
sweepstakes over national television networks, direct mail, and
internet and email marketing campaigns.  The Plaintiffs are various
residents of states outside of New York who claim that they
purchased goods based on the Defendants' misrepresentations that
doing so would increase their chances of winning a sweepstakes,
prize, or drawing.

Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(f), to strike the class
allegations, and in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay
the present action.

Judge Spatt finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a
cause of action under CAN SPAM.  CAN SPAM makes it unlawful for any
person to initiate a transmission, to a protected computer, of a
commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or
relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header
information that is materially false or materially misleading.
However, the statute contains no provisions expressly creating a
private right of action for consumers aggrieved by such violations.
Citing Alexander v. Sandoval, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to infer
one based on a congressional finding that spam may be used to
perpetrate fraudulent schemes.  Nothing about this finding supports
the inference that Congress intended to create a private remedy.
Indeed, it appears that Congress contemplated that the Federal
Trade Commission and related regulatory agencies would carry out
the enforcement of the statute.  Therefore, the Judge granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' CAN
SPAM claims.

He also granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to
the Plaintiffs' DMPEA claims.  He finds that the DMPEA prescribes a
set of requirements for mailed documents that constitute "entry
materials for a sweepstakes."  However, the DMPEA provides private
rights of action only if an individual receives one or more
mailings after he or she has elected to be excluded from the list
of names and addresses used by a promoter of a sweepstake.  As the
Plaintiffs do not allege that they elected to be excluded in
accordance with 38 U.S.C. Section 3017(d)(a), they lack standing to
bring a cause of action under the DMPEA.

Next, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 369e claims.  He finds that
implying a private right of action in the case would contradict the
intentions of the New York legislature, because Section 369e makes
no reference to a private remedy and instead explicitly assigns
enforcement of the statute to the state attorney general.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Complaint lacks the specific
factual allegations necessary for the Plaintiffs to possess
standing or state a claim under Section 349.  He finds that none of
the Plaintiffs are New York residents.  They assert that their
claims fall within Section 349 because a substantial amount of the
acts and omissions complained of occurred in the District (New
York).  However, they support this conclusory assertion with no
specific facts showing that any part of the transactions occurred
in New York.  As a result, the Complaint fails to articulate a
sufficient connection to New York even under the more lenient Cruz
standard.  The Judge will provide the Plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint addressing the problems identified by the Court.

He also finds that the Complaint generally asserts that the
Defendants engaged in materially misleading behavior without
setting forth any facts tying that behavior to the Plaintiffs'
specific claims.  It fails to identify the specific advertisements
seen by each Plaintiff and provides no explanation why those
advertisement created a mistaken belief that purchasing a product
would increase that Plaintiff's chance of winning.  Without this
information, the Plaintiffs cannot state a Section 349 claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Spatt granted the Defendants
motion to dismiss as follows.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' CAN
SPAM, DMPEA, and Section 369e claims with prejudice.  He dismissed
the Plaintiffs' Section 349 claim without prejudice.  Because the
Plaintiffs have no surviving claims, the Judge denied the
Defendants' motions to strike and compel as moot.  The Plaintiffs
are directed to file an amended complaint consistent with the
Opinion no later than 30 days from the issuance of the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/5wyCyc from Leagle.com.

Earl Wright, Ramona Holden, Etta Williams, Michael Hamilton, Joseph
Eko, Linda Phillips, Elaine Wilhelm, Anthony Gillespie, Mark
Carlisle, Vernita Jessie, Cheryl Rife, Sandy Samens & Ruthie Ortiz
Soudjian, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Schwaba --
ADMIN@VERDICTNC.COM -- Schwaba Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice & John
S. Selinger, Zeccola & Selinger, LLC.

Publishers Clearing House, Incorporated & Publishers Clearing
House, LLC, Defendants, represented by Erica Adina Barrow --
ebarrow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, John Siegal --
jsiegal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Paul Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


REGIS CORPORATION: Boyack Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lauren Boyack and Jennifer Leaf filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Lauren Boyack, et al. v. Regis
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01233-AG-DFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as Lauren Boyack, et al. v. Regis
Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-55279, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 10, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 10, 2019;

   -- Appellants Lauren Boyack and Jennifer Leaf's opening brief
      is due on June 19, 2019;

   -- Appellees RG Salon Management, LLC, Regis Corp. and Regis
      Corporation's answering brief is due on July 19, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants LAUREN BOYACK and JENNIFER LEAF, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees REGIS CORPORATION, REGIS CORP. and RG SALON
MANAGEMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as Salon Management Corporation,
are represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Julie G. Yap, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 498-7025
          E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com


RITE AID CORP: Nucci Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------
Kristal Nucci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rite Aid Corporation, Thrifty Payless,
Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01434
(N.D. Cal., March 19, 2019) is a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, against the Defendants' unlawful practices.

The Defendants have required, by company-wide policy, that their
store employees, including Plaintiffs, wear only "royal" blue
shirts and khaki pants while working. The Defendants do not
reimburse employees for the expense of obtaining these required
clothing items. These clothing items are of a "distinctive design
or color" and are not generally usable in the occupation, and
therefore constitute a uniform under the Wage Order. By failing to
pay for these uniforms, the Defendants violate this provision of
the wage order, notes the complaint.

Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendants' failure to reimburse
necessary business expenditures, and failure to pay for required
work uniforms, as required by California law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Nucci has been employed by Rite Aid since May of 2015,
and has worked as a non-exempt retail employee in Rite Aid stores
in Capitola and Aptos, California.

Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, who operates retail
stores throughout the United States, including approximately 550
stores in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
     Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
     Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
     Carey A. James, Esq.
     Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
     7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
     Oakland, CA 94621
     Phone: 510.817.2711
     Fax: 510.562.6830
     Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
            rwlm@asmlawyers.com
            hvr@asmlawyers.com
            caj@asmlawyers.com
            bar@asmlawyers.com


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00480 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2019) is action pursuant to
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA") to recover
from the Defendant's unpaid overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.

The Defendant impermissibly excluded certain remunerations or
undervalued the "regular rate" of pay, upon which all forms of
Plaintiff's overtime compensation is based. The Defendant's
practice of computing Plaintiff's overtime has impermissibly
reduced the amount being paid to Plaintiff by failing to compute
all statutorily required amounts into Plaintiff's "regular rate" of
pay, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Salvador Rodriguez is currently employed by the Defendant
as a Correctional Officer with the Riverside County Probation
Department.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael P. Stone, Esq.
     Muna Busailah, Esq.
     Robert Rabe, Esq.
     STONE BUSAILAH, LLP
     1055 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 320
     Pasadena, CA 91106
     Phone: (626) 683-5600
     Facsimile: (626) 683-5656
     Email: d.danial@police-defense.com


RMJV LP: Amador Suit Remanded to California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California remanded the case, AMADOR,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RMJV, LP, an unknown business
entity d/b/a Fresh Creative Foods, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02351-BTM (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), to the San Diego County Superior
Court.

On Sept. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative wage and hour
class action lawsuit against the Defendant, defining the class as
all current and former California-based hourly-paid and non-exempt
employees (either directly or through a staffing agency or labor
contractor) employed by the Defendant during the period from four
years preceding the filing of the Complaint to final judgment.

The Complaint alleges: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510, 1198; (2) unpaid meal period
premiums in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7,
512(a); (3) unpaid rest period premiums in violation of California
Labor Code 226.7; (4) unpaid minimum wages in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197; (5) final wages not
timely paid in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201,
202; (6) non-compliant wage statements in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202; and (7) unlawful business practices
in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
172,00, et seq.

The Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff moved to remand
the controversy to state court, arguing that the Defendant failed
to proffer sufficient evidence to satisfy CAFA's amount in
controversy requirement.  On Feb. 22, 2019, the Defendant submitted
a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to
State Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447.

Judge Mozkowitz finds that the Defendants estimate that the
amount-of-controversy ranges from $6,713,585 to $7,438,275.
However, after Plaintiff moved to remand, Defendant supplied no
other summary-judgment-like evidence to support the figures or
calculations in its Notice of Removal, which largely rely on
assumptions.  The Judge finds that these calculations, among
others, are premised upon speculations and unverified "average"
figures lacking in any factual underpinnings.  Such guesswork does
not constitute summary-judgment-like evidence or meet the
preponderance of the evidence standard.  In sum, the dearth of
summary-judgment-like evidence and abundance of speculation and
assumptions, combined with the Defendant's notice of
non-opposition, leads him to conclude that removal jurisdiction has
not been established and remand is appropriate.

Judge Mozkowitz remanded the matter to the San Diego County
Superior Court.  He denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and the
Joint Motion to Continue Hearing as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/irXotp from Leagle.com.

Alejandro Amador, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel J. Park -- dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law
Corporation & Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law
Corporation.

RMJV, LP, an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by
Aaron Nathan Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremain
LLP, Evelyn F. Wang -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP & Paul Rodriguez -- paulrodriguez@dwt.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.


ROKU INC: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-friendly
-------------------------------------------------
Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Roku, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00863, (E.D. N.Y., January 13, 2019), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates a website that provides access to a
wide array of goods and services offered to the public, such as
novelty fan merchandise and clothing available for purchase where
Andrews attempted to browse services and facilities, events and
promotions. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website
is not accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


S & D CARWASH: Faces Crum Labor Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against S
& D Carwash Management LLC. The case is captioned as TYLER CRUM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. S & D CARWASH MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251338-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 26, 2019).

S & D Carwash Management LLC provides vehicle and truck washing,
cleaning and detailing services; installation, repair and
replacement of windshields. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
          DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


S & F SUPPLIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto L. Mendoza, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S & F Supplies, Inc., Joseph
Sandel, and Yoely Schounfle, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01538
(E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff on
his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

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

Plaintiff Alberto L. Mendoza is a resident of Queens and was
employed as a driver by Defendant from on or about January 2009 to
October 2018.

S & F Supplies, Inc., is a domestic business corporation
organization and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8588
     Dir: (718) 353-8522
     Fax: (718) 353-6288
     Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Merritt Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
An employee suit has been filed against Securitas Security Services
USA, Inc. The case is captioned Derek Merritt, an individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Securitas
Security Services USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08197 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County,
March 11, 2019). The plaintiff seeks damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief and restitution over Defendant's violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that maintains its locations and transacts business in Los Angeles
County. The company provides security protection services and
security solutions to clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Edward Kim, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             ekim@mahoney-law.net


SENTRY CENTERS: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
Sentry Centers Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sentry Centers Holdings LLC doing
business as: Convene, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02465 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 19, 2019).

Sentry Centers Holdings LLC was founded in 2013. The company's line
of business includes providing library services, including the
circulation of books and other materials for reading, study, and
reference.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEQUENOM INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re SEQUENOM, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM
(S.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Motion to Stay.

In the shareholder class action lawsuit, the First Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") alleges that Sequenom and
eight of its former board members violated sections 14(e) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and
misleading recommendation statement advising Sequenom shareholders
to tender their shares pursuant to a tender offer.  The Plaintiffs
further allege that the Defendants offered flawed and unreliable
financial projections as the most accurate view of the company's
prospects.

Defendant Sequenom and Defendants Kenneth F. Buechler, Myla
Lai-Goldman, Richard A. Lerner, Ronald M. Lindsay, Catherine J.
Mackey, O'Boyle, David Pendarvis, Charles P. Slacik and Dirk van
den Boom, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, challenging the
Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to adequately plead: (1) falsity,
(2) scienter, and (3) loss causation.

Since the filing of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties
have filed multiple notices of controlling, persuasive, and not so
persuasive authority from various courts.  Despite contrary
holdings in five other circuits, the Ninth Circuit held in
Varjabedian that claims under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act do
not require a showing of scienter; only negligence.  The grant of
certiorari prompted the Defendants to file a motion to stay pending
the Supreme Court decision.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to stay are now before
the Court.  Also pending are the Defendant's Requests for
Consideration of Documents and Judicial Notice in support of its
pending motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

The Defendants argue that the Court's determination of the scienter
issue raised in the motion to dismiss will be directly impacted by
the Supreme Court's decision in Varjabedian.  They further contend
that a stay in the matter would promote judicial economy, simplify
the issues in the case, and avoid the unnecessary risk of the Court
applying a legal standard that may change if the Ninth Circuit's
decision is reversed.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have not made
a showing of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.
They Plaintiffs have previously argued (in opposition to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss) that their Complaint meets the
higher "scienter" standard.  They maintain that since the scienter
issue has been fully briefed, a reversal of Varjabedian by the
Supreme Court would not change the parties' positions.

In consideration of the competing interests and in light of the
Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, Judge Houston finds that a
stay is warranted.  The Supreme Court's decision will determine the
appropriate pleading standard for a disputed element of the
Plaintiff's Section 14(e) claim.  It would be inconsistent with
judicial principles of efficacy if litigation continued in the
action, requiring additional briefing on, and adjudication of,
issues using a standard of law currently in flux.  

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Supreme Court's decision
will have a direct impact on the issues before the Court, nor do
they identify any harm which may result from the granting of a
stay.  On the contrary, if the stay is not granted, both parties
would be prejudiced if the decision reached by the Supreme Court
required additional expense and effort in the case by virtue of the
case proceeding forward without awaiting its decision.

The Supreme Court has set oral argument in Emulex v. Varjabedian
for April 15, 2019.  Therefore, the issue presented will likely be
determined within in a reasonable time.  Accordingly, the Judge (i)
deferred ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss and request
for judicial notice pending resolution of the Varjabedian case, and
(ii) granted the Defendants' motion to stay the entire action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/WK0erz from Leagle.com.

Todd Malkoff, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Shikha Gupta, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, James M. Wilson, Jr. --
jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice &
Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron.

Judith Fruchter, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins, WeissLaw LLP.

Joseph Cusumano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi N. Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm.

James Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by Eun Jin Lee, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, Kristen L. O'Connor, Johnson Fistel, LLP, Danielle
Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David A. Knotts,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank J. Johnson, Jr., Johnson Fistel,
LLP & Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Sequenom, Inc., Defendant, represented by David W. Skaar --
david.skaar@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael
Frederick Gosling, Jones Day, Sarah M. Lightdale --
slightdale@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice & Scott R. Haiber
-- scott.haiber@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac
vice.

Kenneth F. Buechler, PH.D., Myla Lai-Goldman, M.D., Richard A.
Lerner, M.D., Ronald M. Lindsay, PH.D., David Pendarvis, Catherine
J. Mackey, PH.D., Charles P. Slacik & Dirk Van Den Boom, PH.D.,
Defendants, represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley, LLP, Nathaniel
Robert Cooper, Cooley LLP, Peter M. Adams, Cooley LLP & Sarah M.
Lightdale, COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice.


SINCERE CLIENT CARE: Blackshire Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Blackshire, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sincere Client Care Services, LLC and
Andrea Baxter, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00193 (W.D.
La., February 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well
as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants jointly operate a home health services business in
Louisiana where Blackshire worked for Sincere as a caregiver. She
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours without overtime wages
for overtime worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane McGuire
     THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
     102 N. College St., Suite 1030
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: 903-630-7154
     Fax: 903-630-7173
     Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com

            - and -

     Sarah Giglio, Esq.
     GILMER & GIGLIO, LLC
     3541 Youree Drive
     Shreveport, LA 71105
     Tel: (318) 459-9111
     Fax: (318) 602-4716
     Email: sarah@gilmergiglio.com


SIXTYONE READE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Campos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fermin Rendon Campos, Gregorio Garcia Maurelio, and Octaviano Ramos
De la Rosa Vivaldo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sixtyone Reade Pizza Inc. (a.k.a. 61 Reade
Pizza Inc.) (d/b/a Tre Sorelle), Antonia Pulice Pati, Joseph Pati,
Billy Doe, and Jacqueline Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02414
(S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, plus applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, notes the
complaint.

In addition, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees'
tips and have made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and
other tipped employees' wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located
at 61 Reade Street, New York, New York 10007 under the name "Tre
Sorelle".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-162


SKYTEL SYSTEMS: Padilla Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SKYTEL SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-at-00195 Document (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2019), seeks
stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin
Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers
who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive
them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct,
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant called Mr. Padilla from
telephone number (800) 205-4259 using an autodialer without his
prior express written consent on at least one occasion, including a
call on January 7, 2019.

When Plaintiff answered Defendant's call, he heard a momentary
pause. This pause is a hallmark of a predictive dialer. According
to the Federal Communications Commission and experts on
telecommunications equipment, predictive dialers have the inherent
present capacity to both store and dial a list of telephone numbers
without human intervention, and generate random or sequential
telephone numbers and to then dial those numbers, the lawsuit
says.

Skytel Systems, LLC provides enterprise-grade cloud based VoIP
communication system and related support solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

SOLED ENERGY: Krum et al Seek Wages & OT Pay for Material Handlers
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against SOLED Energy, Inc., alleges that
Defendant failed to pay wages and overtime, failed to pay
prevailing wages on public works, failed to pay wages of terminated
or resigned employees, and failed to provide or otherwise
compensate for missed meal and rest breaks under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in
California, and bring the action against their former employer,
SOLED. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relieif resulting
from systemic noncompliance with California's wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiffs worked for SOLED as non-exempt employees performing
the work of inside Wireman and Material Handlers. The work
performed as part of the Proposition 39 projects included the
replacement of fluorescent ballast fixtures with LED fixtures.

The case is captioned as MICHAEL KRUM, CUDBERTO A VILA, ORVILLE LEE
TARTER, KHOA HUA, RONN MADRIGAL, ADRIANO ARROYO, GARFIELD RALPH,
BRENT HAUG, FRANCISCO HOLGUIN, THOMAS HOLGUIN, JOSHUA RICHARDS,
DANIEL SBRAGIA-EDELL, RON STEVENS, AARON TORRES, ANTHONY TORRES,
ANDREW MIRAMONTES, EDWIN BLANCO, THOMAS JENSEN, TRINIDAD MACIAS,
ORLANDO JAL V ARADO and JAMES WINCHESTER, each as an Individual,
and on behalf of the general public for all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SOLED ENERGY, INC., a California
corporation; ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. a Florida
Corporation; HUDSON INSURANCE COMP ANY a Delaware Corporation and
DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV344656
(Cal. Super., March 15, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile (714) 953-1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  jcamilleri@donahoo.com
                  wdonahoo@donahoo.com

SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Newman Files Securities Class Action in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Newman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Steven
Altschuler, M.D., Lars Ekman, M.D., PH.D., Katherine High, M.D.,
Jeffrey D. Marazzo, Anand Mehra, M.D., Vincent Milano, Robert
Perez, Elliot Sigal, M.D., PH.D., and Lota Zoth, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00528-UNA (D. Del., March 18, 2019) is an action on
behalf of Plaintiff and the public stockholders of Spark
Therapeutics, Inc. against the Company and Spark's Board of
Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered
into an agreement and plan of merger with Roche, by which Roche
will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Spark common stock
through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $114.50 per
share. The February 25 Press Release disclosed that the Proposed
Transaction would be accomplished through a tender offer rather
than a shareholder vote. The Tender Offer commenced on March 7,
2019, when the Company filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 with the SEC, recommending that the Company's stockholders
tender their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is
set to expire on April 3, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain
material projected internal financial information about the
Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the
Tender Offer and certain inputs and certain valuation methodologies
employed by the Company's financial advisor Centerview Partners LLC
in their financial analysis that support the fairness opinions
provided by Centerview. These omissions render the projected
financial disclosures and the summary of the fairness opinion in
the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of
shares of Spark common stock.

Defendant Spark is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 3737 Market Street, Suite 1300,
Philadelphia, PA 19104.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Deceives Public Shareholders, Wagner Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL S. WAGNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SPECTRUM BRANDS LEGACY, INC. f/k/a SPECTRUM BRANDS
HOLDINGS, INC., ANDREAS R. ROUVE and DOUGLAS L. MARTIN, Case No.
3:19-cv-00178 (W.D. Wisc., March 7, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving the
investing public regarding Spectrum's business, operations,
management and the intrinsic value of its securities.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants failed to
disclose that: (1) Spectrum was facing operational issues with the
development of its Ohio and Kansas facilities; (2) these issues
were negatively impacting production, shipping levels and sales;
and (3) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Spectrum is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Middleton, Wisconsin.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Spectrum is a diversified global branded consumer products company
manufacturing, marketing and distributing a variety of products in
approximately 160 countries.  Spectrum operates different segments,
including the Hardware & Home Improvement segment ("HHI") and the
Global Auto Care segment ("GAC").  The HHI includes products
related to security (such as locksets, knobs, levers, deadbolts,
etc.), plumbing (such as kitchen and bath faucets) and hardware
(such as hinges, metal shapes, security hardware, door hardware,
etc.).  The GAC includes products related to appearance (such as
wipes, tire and wheel care products, glass cleaner, etc.),
performance (such as fuel and oil additives, functional fluids and
other automotive appearance products) and A/C recharge (such as air
conditioner sealant and cleaner products).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Schaalman, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Baker, Esq.
          HALLING & CAYO, S.C.
          320 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 700
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-3400
          E-mail: mhs@hallingcayo.com
                  kjb@hallingcayo.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4292
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


STARLING CHEVROLET: Troup Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA TROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STARLING CHEVROLET MP, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00501-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2019), seeks redress
for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an automotive
dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.

On or about September 17, 2018, the Defendant sent the following
telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 2707. The Defendant's text messages were
transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within the
time frame relevant to this action. The Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
selling Plaintiff an automobile.

The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial
district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred
within this district. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide
Defendant with her express written consent to be contacted using an
ATDS, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320

STATE FARM: Appeals Opinion and Order in Hicks Suit to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company filed an appeal from
the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on
February 21, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN HICKS, et al. v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Case No. 0:14-cv-00053, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company, Case No. 19-503, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 25, 2019, State
Farm filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled as In re: State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, Case No. 19-501.

The action was filed by the Plaintiffs challenging State Farm's
methodology in calculating the "actual cash value" of the damaged
portion of an insured structure upon the occurrence of loss.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY is
represented by:

          Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          Heidi Dalenberg, Esq.
          Jacob Kahn, Esq.
          RILEY, SAFER, HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8450
          E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com
                  hdalenberg@rshc-law.com
                  jkahn@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          David T. Klapheke, Esq.
          BOEHL, STOPHER & GRAVES LLP
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5980
          Facsimile: (502) 561-9400
          E-mail: dklapheke@bsg-law.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents SUSAN HICKS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and DON WILLIAMS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Philip Gray Fairbanks, Esq.
          Austin M. Mehr, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          E-mail: pgf@austinmehr.com
                  amehr@austinmehr.com
                  edp@austinmehr.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Udeen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD UDEEN and MARY JANE JEFFERY, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU
OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 18-17334 (RBK/JS)
(D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, denied the
Defendants' request for a complete stay of discovery while its
Motion to Dismiss remains to be decided.

The Magistrate addresses the Defendants' request that all discovery
be stayed until their Motion to Dismiss filed on Feb. 28, 2019 is
decided.  The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' request.  The Court
received the parties' letter briefs and held oral argument.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative nationwide class action
alleging that Subaru sold and leased its cars with a defective
Starlink infotainment system.  They allege, inter alia, the defect
creates a safety hazard.  The Defendants deny all liability
allegations.  Not unexpectedly, the Plaintiffs believe the
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied in whole or in part.
However, the Defendants acknowledge that even if their motion is
granted in toto, some express warranty claims of the California
Plaintiffs will remain.

The Magistrate agrees that the Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if all
discovery is stayed while waiting for the Defendants' motion to be
decided.  Given the extensive briefing on the Defendants' motion
and the expected time it will take for the motion to be decided,
the case will be in suspense for months if the Defendants' request
is granted.  Also favoring the Plaintiffs is the fact that the
Defendants will not be prejudiced, nor will they suffer "undue
hardship," if limited discovery goes forward.

The fact that the case is at an early stage and no trial date has
been set is not a persuasive relevant factor to the Court's
decision.  It is almost always the case that a trial date is not
set before a motion to dismiss is decided.

The Magistrate is not insensitive to the Defendants' concerns about
proceeding with discovery while their motion to dismiss is
outstanding.  Nonetheless, by closely managing the discovery
process and only permitting discovery on core issues, the goals of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 will be furthered, i.e., to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. His
resolution is fair to all parties.  On the one hand, the Plaintiffs
can immediately proceed to obtain plainly relevant and important
core discovery.  On the other hand, the "floodgates" of discovery
will not open until the Defendants' motion is decided and the
issues to be litigated are joined.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Schneider denied the Defendants'
request for a complete stay of discovery while its Motion to
Dismiss remains to be decided.  By April 15, 2019, the Defendants
will produce all documents listed in nos. 1-5 on page 5 of its
March 8, 2019 letter.  

By April 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs will produce all documents
regarding their purchase of the subject Subaru vehicles and all
documents regarding their complaints about and repair efforts
concerning the Starlink infotainment system.

By April 15, 2019, the parties will meet and confer regarding the
Plaintiffs' request for the documents listed on page 7 of their
March 8, 2019 letter.  The Magistrate generally agreed the listed
subject matter is relevant.  He also finds that the Defendants'
documents in Japan are not necessarily off-limits.  However, he is
concerned that the Plaintiffs' requests are too broad.  He will
only permit narrow and focused discovery requests asking for core
information.  The parties meet and confer discussions will also
address the Plaintiffs' request for third-party discovery.  To the
extent the parties cannot agree on the discovery to be produced,
simultaneous letter briefs will be served by April 15, 2019.

The parties will serve their Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures
by April 8, 2019.  They will base their disclosures on all claims
presently pleaded in their first amended complaint.

A Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 conference is scheduled in Courtroom 3C on April
22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.  The Court expects to address and decide all
discovery disputes at the conference.  Prior to the ruling on the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, no discovery will be taken absent
leave of Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/R6tzd4 from Leagle.com.

CHAD UDEEN & MARY JANE JEFFERY, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW
W. FERICH -- AndrewFerich@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, BENJAMIN F. JOHNS --
benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, DANIEL R. LAPINSKI -- dlapinski@wilentz.com --
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PC, J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS, KEVIN PETER
RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA &
ALEX M. KASHURBA, CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP.

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by CASEY GENE
WATKINS -- WATKINSCBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & NEAL D.
WALTERS -- WALTERSNBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD, SPAHR LLP.

FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, represented by NEAL D.
WALTERS, BALLARD, SPAHR LLP.


SUTTER HEALTH: Saini Sues over Deceptive Hospital Emergency Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAR SAINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. RG19008395 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty. Feb. 26,
2019) seeks to challenge the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful practice of charging its emergency care patients a
substantial undisclosed emergency room fee.

According to the complaint, the Defendants charge the Plaintiff and
the class an emergency room fee which is billed on top of the
charges for the individual items of treatment and services provided
but which is not disclosed and is concealed from a patient
presenting at any one of the Defendants' emergency rooms. These
fees were not mentioned in the Conditions of Admission drafted by
the Defendants, and is not disclosed on signage posted in or around
the Defendants' emergency rooms, or verbally during the patients'
registration process.

Sutter Health, together with its subsidiaries, provides health
care, education, and research and administration services primarily
in Northern California. It also provides health education, health
libraries, school-based clinics, home health care, hospice care,
adult day care, prenatal clinics, community clinics, immunization
services, and health professions education. In addition, the
company operates California Pacific Medical Center, a hospital with
274 acute-care beds. Sutter Health is headquartered in Sacramento,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 300
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (424) 456-3183
          E-mail: gretchen@gcarpenter.com

               - and –

          Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L. KRAMER
          9550 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 253
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 778-6090


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Weber Securities Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEBER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TROY HAMILTON, GARY S. JACOB, and GARY G. GEMIGNANI,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01352 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), is a securities
class action brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The Defendants are directors and officers of Synergy.

Synergy is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware
with its headquarters located in New York City.  Synergy is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of therapies to treat Gastro-Intestinal disorders
and diseases.  The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on
December 12, 2018.

Synergy is a biopharmaceutical company, which has only one
FDA-approved commercial product, TRULANCE.  Approved by the FDA on
January 19, 2017, TRULANCE became available for purchase at the end
of the first quarter of 2017.  Synergy, by and through its
management including the Defendants, opted to position itself as a
go-it-alone developer, and seller of its own product retaining
third party contract manufacturers and approximately 250 sales
representatives and foregoing potential licensing partnerships for
the manufacture or distribution of TRULANCE.

Mr. Weber alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that TRULANCE was
underperforming and Synergy's revenues were insufficient to meet
the minimum revenue requirements in its $300 million senior secured
loan from CRG Partners III L.P., and that due to operating expenses
and lack of revenues, Synergy was unlikely to meet the capital
requirements in the CRG Loan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: 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
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


TATE & KIRLIN: Burnes Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------
Thomas Burnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00054 (E.D. Tex., February 14, 2019), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Tate & Kirlin Associates is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in
the business of collecting debts. It attempted to collect an
alleged debt incurred by Burnes to a certain "Ally" vis-a-vis a
collection letter under false and misleading pretenses, namely, a
one-time special "discount" of 40% of his balance or $3,725.55
offered for a limited period of time to settle his debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
      Gregory M. Klote, Esq.
      680 Craig Road, Suite 104
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 451-1314
      Fax: (314) 787-4323
      Email: joel@hklawstl.com
             greg@hklawstl.com


TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Wins Bid to Certify Owners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., grants the Plaintiff's renewed Motion
for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled LEA FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP LTD. v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, Case No.
8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies this class:

     All owners of residential dwellings located within the City
     of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was subject to the
     City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program; (ii) who submitted
     an application for the City's Rental Housing Program at any
     time during the Class Period for such dwelling; (iii) who
     paid an application fee to the City of Temple Terrace with
     their Rental Housing Ordinance Program application; (iv)
     whose dwelling was inspected by the City at least once
     pursuant to the Rental Housing Program; and (v) whose
     dwelling was unoccupied at the time of a City inspection.
     Based on Lea Family's previous Motion for Class
     Certification and subsequent filings, for purposes of the
     above Class definition, the "Class Period" is November 16,
     2012 to present.

The Court previously denied Lea Family Partnership Ltd.'s Motion
for Class Certification without prejudice because Lea Family did
not present an administratively feasible way to determine which
units from Defendant City of Temple Terrace, Florida's (the "City")
Rental Housing Program were unoccupied during the City's initial
inspection of the units.

Lea Family also did not present evidence that other owners of
dwellings subject to the Rental Housing Program had units that were
unoccupied during the initial inspection, according to the Order.
After a lengthy discovery period, Lea Family filed the instant
Renewed Motion for Class Certification.[CC]


TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Bid for FLSA Class Cert. Filed in Freeman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled KATRINA FREEMAN and AIREANNE
CLARK, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. TRAININGWHEEL CORPORATION, LLC A/K/A TRAININGWHEEL,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00052-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), move the Court
for an order approving conditional certification and
court-authorized notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and for a stay of the proceedings until the completion of
alternative dispute resolution following the opt-in period.

The collective action shall consist of the following individuals to
be conditionally certified and receive notice of this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (the "Collective"):

     All individuals who worked for TrainingWheel providing
     training and support to TrainingWheel's clients in
     connection with the implementation of electronic
     recordkeeping systems in the United States and who did not
     receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
     forty (40) per week from [three years prior to the Court's
     order granting certification] to the present.

The Parties stipulate to the terms of the Notice of Lawsuit and
Opt-In Consent Form and the Parties jointly request Court approval
of both the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form.  The Parties also
jointly stipulate and move for approval of procedures and deadlines
with respect to notice to the Collective.

In addition, except as stated in this Stipulation and Motion, the
Parties ask that the Court stay any proceedings, discovery, or case
management orders pending participation in mediation at the close
of the opt-in period.

The Parties will participate in an in-person mediation conference
before mediator, Mark Hanley, Esquire.  The mediation shall take
place within 30 days following the close of the opt-in period.

If the mediation results in an impasse, the Parties shall hold a
case management conference and submit a proposed Case Management
Plan no later than 30 days following notice to the Court.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

               - and -

          Eric Lindstrom, Esq.
          EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A.
          Post Office Box 2231
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 422-1400
          Facsimile: (407) 422-3658
          E-mail: elindstrom@eganlev.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
          GUNTERFIRM
          1514 Broadway, Suite 101
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 334-7017
          E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com


U.V.S. INC: Obiefuna Sues over Kickback & Price Fixing Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA OBIEFUNA, Plaintiff, v. HYPOTEC, INC., formally known as
U.V.S. INC. and FREDERIC ABITBOL, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01039-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 15, 2019), seeks treble
damages for title and settlement services charged by All Star,
including, but not limited to, title insurance premiums, in an
amount equal to three times the amount of any charge paid for such
settlement services.

The Plaintiff and alleged Class Members are borrowers who currently
have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered
by Defendant or Allegro Funding Corporation which was or is secured
by Plaintiff's and Class Members' residential real property.

The Plaintiff and alleged Class Members are victims of an illegal
kickback and price fixing scheme between UVS/Hypotec, and the
entity's President Frederic Abitbol.

Under the scheme, UVS/Hypotec loan officers, agents, and/or other
employees, including Abitbol, received and accepted illegal
kickbacks in exchange for the assignment and referral of
residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All
Star for title and settlement services in violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. UVS/Hypotec and All Star
laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing companies to
conceal the illegal kickbacks and the kickback agreement.

As an essential component of the scheme, All Star conspired to and
formed a cartel with various residential mortgage lenders.
UVS/Hypotec participated in the All Star Lender Cartel and, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, entered into naked price
fixing, minimum pricing and refusal to deal agreements with All
Star related to the residential mortgage loans generated by All
Star's illegal kickback payments to the UVS/Hypotec.

UVS/Hypotec benefitted from the Cartel Agreements, because the
supracompetitive prices for title and settlement services charged
to borrowers on loans brokered or originated by UVS Hypotec under
the Cartel Agreements were financed into the borrowers' loans, and
which UVS/Hypotec charges and earns interest from these
supracompetitive prices.

UVS/Hypotec and All Star continuously and regularly used the U.S.
Mail, interstate and international wires in furtherance of the
kickback and price fixing scheme, and to identify and defraud
borrowers into the All Star Scheme, willfully and intentionally
engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity over a period of at
least five years, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the lawsuit says.

The Kickback and Cartel Agreements, and the resulting
supracompetitive prices, were fraudulently concealed by UVS/Hypotec
and All Star from Plaintiff and alleged Class Members by:
laundering kickbacks through third party marketing companies,
creating sham invoice and payment records, fraudulent
representations in marketing materials, false allocation of title
and settlement fees and manipulation of the APR associated with the
UVS/Hypotec loans, and false and fraudulent representations and
omissions in borrowers' loan documents, and prevented borrowers,
regulators and auditors from discovering the scheme or kickback and
Cartel Agreements and the injuries to' borrowers therefrom, thereby
allowing the kickbacks and supracompetitive fees to continue.

Hypotec, Inc., formerly known and registered as U.V.S., Inc., is
engaged in the business of consumer mortgage brokering, origination
and/or lending, and otherwise transacted business in Indiana.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Steven C. Coffaro, Esq.
          Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLLC
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6489
          Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
          E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com
          steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com
                  mbenevento@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, Maryland 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com
                  szadrozny@sgs-law.com

ULTIMATE SOFTARE: Weinstein Challenges Go-Private Deal
------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH WEINSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE ULTIMATE SOFTARE GROUP,
INC., SCOTT SCHERR, MARC D. SCHERR, JAMES A. FITZPATRICK, JR., RICK
A. WILBER, AL LEITER, JONATHAN MARINER, and JASON DORSEY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00505-UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2019),
seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with a shareholder vote on a proposed
go-private transaction or consummating the proposed transaction,
unless and until the Company discloses material information which
has been omitted from the Proxy, under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Ultimate Software (Nasdaq: ULTI), a global provider of human
capital management (HCM) solutions in the cloud, announced on
February 4 that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement
to be acquired by an investor group led by Hellman & Friedman, a
private equity investment firm, in an all-cash transaction for
$331.50 per share in cash -- representing an aggregate value of
approximately $11 billion -- after which Ultimate Software will
operate as a privately held company. 

Under the terms of the agreement, all Ultimate stockholders of
record will receive $331.50 in cash for each share of Ultimate's
common stock held upon the closing of the transaction. This price
represents a premium of approximately 32% over Ultimate’s
volume-weighted average price during the 30 trading days ending
February 1, 2019, and a premium to Ultimate's all-time high closing
share price.  Ultimate's Board of Directors has unanimously
approved this transaction and recommended that stockholders vote in
favor of the transaction. 

On March 11, 2019, in order to convince Ultimate Software
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning Ultimate Software’s financial
projections, which were developed by the Company's management and
relied on by the Board to recommend the Proposed Transaction.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company’s shareholders
prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.

Ultimate Software is an American technology company that develops
and sells UltiPro, a cloud-based human capital management solution
for businesses. Headquartered in Weston, Florida, the company was
founded in 1990 by current president and CEO, Scott Scherr, and
released its first version of software in 1993.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Murray Files Securities Class Action in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Murray, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., Scott
Scherr, Marc D. Scherr, Jason Dorsey, James A. FitzPatrick, Jr.,
Alois T. Leiter, Jonathan D. Mariner, Rick A. Wilber, Unite Parent
Corp., Unite Merger Sub, Inc., The Blackstone Group L.P., GIC Pte.
Ltd., Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, JMI Management, Inc.,
and Hellman & Friedman LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00539-UNA
(D. Del., March 19, 2019) is a class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Ultimate Software against Ultimate Software's Board
of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act
by causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy
statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on March 11, 2019.  The Proxy recommends that Ultimate
Software shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction
whereby Ultimate Software is acquired by the Investor Group.

The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on February 4, 2019,
when Ultimate Software and the Investor Group announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger pursuant to which the Investor
Group will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
Ultimate Software for $331.50 per share. The deal is valued at
approximately $11 billion and is expected to close in the middle of
2019, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is the owner of shares of common stock of Ultimate
Software.

Ultimate Software is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
     ROWLEY LAW PLLC
     50 Main Street, Suite 1000
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 400-1920
     Facsimile: (914) 301-3514


UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Brown, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00008533 (Ca. Super., February 14, 2019), seeks redress for
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate,
actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit,
prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to
the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders.

United Airlines provides air transportation services througout the
Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Brown has
worked for United as a ramp agent since September of 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      Website: www.bamlawca.com


UNITED NATIONS: Laventure Seeks More Time to File Writ
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Marie Laventure, each individually and on
behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse Laventure, and the Estate of
MARIE THERESE FLEURICIANE DELINAIS, and the additional persons and
their representatives listed, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Petitioners, v. United Nations, United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti, BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of
the United Nations, EDMOND MULET, former Under Secretary-General
for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, CHANDRA
SRIVASTAVA, former Chief Engineer for the United Nations Mission to
Haiti, PAUL AGHADJANIAN, Chief of Mission Support for the United
Nations Mission to Haiti, PEDRO MEDRANO, Assistant United Nations
Secretary General, MIGUEL DE SERPA, Under Secretary for Legal
Affairs, Respondents, (U.S. Supreme Ct., March 18, 2019, Marie
Laventure request a 45-day extension of time, to and including May
13, 2019, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
to review the judgment of the Second Circuit in this case.

Petitioners have not previously sought an extension of time from
this Court. The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit was issued on December 28, 2018. If not
extended, the time for filing a petition will have expired on March
28, 2019, says the complaint.

Petitioners are American citizens, Haitian citizens residing in the
United States, as well as Haitian citizens in Haiti, all of whom
were damaged as a result of the UN's tortious conduct, either
directly or as surviving family members of those who have been
killed.

Petitioners are represented by:

     Mark A. Gottlieb, Esq.
     NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
     360 Huntington Avenue
     Boston, MA 02115
     Phone: (617) 373-2026
     Email: markphaionhine.org

          - and -

     James F. Haggerty, Esq.
     45 Broadway, Suite 3140
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 480-0700
     Email: jamesfhaggerty@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fletcher Civil Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William S. Fletcher and Charles A. Pratt filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Fletcher, et al. v.
United States, et al., Case No. 4:02-CV-00427-GKF-JFJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma - Tulsa.

The nature of suit is stated as civil rights voting.

The appellate case is captioned as Fletcher, et al. v. United
States, et al., Case No. 19-5023, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Entry of appearance, transcript order form and docketing
      statement was due March 25, 2019, for William S.
      Fletcher and Charles A. Pratt;

   -- Entry of appearance was due March 25, 2019, for David
      Bernhardt, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of
      Interior, Tara Katuk MacLean Sweeney and United States of
      America.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and CHARLES A. PRATT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

          Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq.
          Krystina E. Phillips, Esq.
          Dallas Lynn Dale Strimple, Esq.
          INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP
          204 Reunion Center
          9 East Fourth Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 347-6169
          E-mail: jason@iaelaw.com
                  krystina@iaelaw.com
                  dallas@iaelaw.com

               - and -

          James David Jorgenson, Esq.
          WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI
          401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 582-1761
          E-mail: djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com

               - and -

          Amanda Sue Proctor, Esq.
          SHIELD LAW GROUP
          400 Riverwalk Terrace, Suite 240
          Jenks, OK 74037
          Telephone: (800) 655-4820
          E-mail: aproctor@shield-lawgroup.com

               - and -

          G. Steven Stidham, Esq.
          STIDHAM LAW
          9 East 4th Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-1313

Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR; DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS; and TARA KATUK MACLEAN SWEENEY, in her official capacity
as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Andrew Gallant, Esq.
          Cathryn Dawn McClanahan, Esq.
          Loretta F. Radford, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          110 West 7th Street, Suite 300
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 382-2700
          E-mail: Jeff.Gallant@usdoj.gov
                  cathy.mcclanahan@usdoj.gov
                  loretta.radford@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joseph H. Kim, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 7611
          Washington, DC 20044-7611
          Telephone: (202) 514-2748
          E-mail: joseph.kim@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          John H. Martin, III, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          999 18th Street, Suite 370
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 844-1383
          E-mail: john.h.martin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Barbara M.R. Marvin, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          601 D Street NW, Room 3129
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 305-0492
          E-mail: barbara.marvin@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Martinez Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Yoselin Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. University of Connecticut and UCONN Health,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00416-VLB (D. Conn., March 18, 2019)
is a putative class action lawsuit brought by current and former
patients of UCONN Health against UCONN for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard their personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), and for their
failure to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice that such
PII had been compromised.

On February 25, 2019, UCONN announced that hacker gained access to
a number of employee email accounts through a phishing attack which
subsequently exposed the personal data of more than 326,000 UCONN
Health patients. The exposed personal information included
patients' names, dates of birth, addresses, medical information and
Social Security numbers. This Data Breach occurred, however, only
because UCONN failed to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols. Among other things,
Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, and to implement
adequate cyber-security training, including, but not limited to,
how to spot phishing e-mails from unauthorized senders, says the
complaint.

UCONN disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected, failing to disclose to its patients the material
fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard their PII, failing to take available steps
to prevent the Data Breach, failing to monitor and timely detect
the Data Breach, and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class members
prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff and Class members seek to remedy the harms suffered as a
result of the Data Breach and have a significant interest in
ensuring that their PII, which remain in UCONN's possession, is
protected from further breaches, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff Yoselin Martinez is a resident of New London, Connecticut
and a patient of UCONN Health.

University of Connecticut is a public land grant, National Sea
Grant and National Space Grant Research University founded in 1881
and located in Storrs, Connecticut.

UCONN Health is a branch of the University of Connecticut that
oversees clinical care, advanced biomedical research, and academic
education in medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian P. Murray, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     2018 Eastwood Rd., Ste. 225
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Phone: (813) 559-4908
     Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
     Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com


UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Gunderson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Danfoss Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GUNDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UQM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DONALD W. VANLANDINGHAM, JOE
MITCHELL, STEPHEN J. ROY, JOSEPH P. SELLINGER, and JOHN E.
SZTYKIEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-02219 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2019), seeks
to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a
transaction relating to the proposed sale of the Company to Danfoss
Power Solutions (US) Company unless and until certain material
information is disclosed to UQM stockholders before the vote on the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement, among other things,
fails to disclose any information concerning financial projections
prepared by UQM's management.

On January 21, 2019, UQM entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Danfoss and a wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss
("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company and the Company would become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Danfoss will acquire all outstanding common
shares of UQM for $1.71 per share in an all-cash transaction valued
at approximately $100 million, including the assumption of UQM's
debt.

UQM is a Colorado corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Longmont, Colorado.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

UQM is a developer and manufacturer of power-dense, high-efficiency
electric motors, generators, power electronic controllers and fuel
cell compressors for the commercial truck, bus, automotive, marine,
and industrial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US BANK: Fails to Acknowledge Requests Under RESPA, Gibson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM GIBSON and LAWRENCE FARRELL, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00538-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March 11,
2019), alleges that in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, the Defendant failed to send written acknowledgment
of receipt of qualified written requests made by the Plaintiffs.

U.S. Bank is a federal depository institution incorporated under
the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place
of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  U.S. Bank does business in
the state of Ohio and is licensed to do business in the state of
Ohio as a foreign corporation.

U.S. Bank is a mortgage "servicer" as defined by the RESPA and is
the current servicer of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' notes and
mortgages on real property that secure those notes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box. 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
                  bflick@dannlaw.com
                  dsolar@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


VAPOR 4: Metzler Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------
MARK METZLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VAPOR 4 LIFE HOLDINGS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01838 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019),
alleges that Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff and
Class Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" without
Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior express written consent within
the meaning of the TCPA.

According to the complaint, Vapor 4 Life is a manufacturer and/or
distributor of electronic cigarettes and related products. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312.283.3814
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          ashamis@shamisgentile.com
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

VENNPOINT REAL: Pine Hill Residents Sue Over Units' Decreased Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ MENESES; SRINIVASA NANDIPATI; JOSE ROMAN; LORI POLYAKOV; ALEX
PAYKIN; SVETLANA ABADIA; ALEXANDRA KESS; NAGARJUNA  ("REDDY") SRIPA
TI; BRENDA CARDOSO; DA YID KOGUT; MICHAEL KHARP AK; MARINA LIBOV;
PARESH PATEL: FRANCISCO GONZALEZ; MIKHAIL FEDORUK; RAVI THUPAKULA;
KANTHITHUPAKULA;ALLANA GOLDBERG; PETER SHASHIN; YELENA SHASHIN;
PAUL BREYTMAN, GUILD PROPERTIES LLC; NORTH SHORE HOLDINGS LTD;
JANUSZ ZAJOWSKI; YURITKACHENKO; BEAUSCHACKMANN; SALOMON CARDOSO;
DORA PLOTKINA; KANTHI THUPAKULA; XENIYA KORIKOVA;  ALINA YA
VLINSKY; MICHAEL CALIGURI; ALI KARAR; GENNADIY VEKSLER; NAT ALIA
ROGUSKA; MARIA ELENA ASCENCIO; MICHAEL HURTADO; JOSEPHINE SELVAGGI;
FRANCISCO DEL VILLAR; KASIMIR PANDEY; SERGEY KADUKOV; ANNA FA
YBYSH; ANGELICA GALLEGO; SRINIV ASA  NANDIPA TI; FERNANDO and
CARIDAD ALAZ; ALEX TAGANSKY; JAMES WILLIARD; MACIEJ and IZABELA
MASLAK; MARIO TALAGA;MICHAEL KHARPAK; SHIBU JOSEPH; SALMA S BAIG;
ALLEN GOLDEN; YELENA TOKHTAMYSHEVA; PETER SHASHIN YELENA SHASHIN;
IRINA GRUNIN; MASON WEIRA; KRYSTYNA ZMUDA; DANIEL and ANET A
GANCARCZYK; ALEX and ALLA PAYKIN; BORIS GOLDBERG; STOIAN RA YKOV;
YORDANKA V PANKOVA; KUGAR NINEL;  JEREMIAH RA TH; DEVINDER
("PINKY") DEOL; NAGARJUNA R SRIPATI; VLADIMIR ROKVIC; SAM RAKHMAN;
WILLIAM EZPELETA; L YUBOV HODOVANYI; RAJESH RATNALA; WOJCIECH
MELKOWSKI; ANGELICA MEDRANO-RAMOS; DIMITRY LEVITES; LUZDARY
MENESES; LARISA POLYAKOV; DEEPINDER SINGH; NANCY WILSON; YEFIM
KHARPAK; DMITRI OSADCHUK; GREGORY ABRAMOV; EDWARD SCHUBERT; PARESH
PATEL; EDWARD SCHUBERT; PARESH PATEL; DA YID KOGUT; STEFANIA
("MARGARET") BABINSKA; SANDRA W GREENBERG; PAVLO KOTLYAR; ANNA
PETROV; STEVE ZHELEZNIAK; VLAD KOMAROV; STEVE ZHELEZNIAK; VLAD
KOMAROV; INNA ORTENBERG; MARINA BLANC; INNA ORTENBERG; MARINA
BLANC; JACK LOJKO; TA TS IAN A MAIKO; VERONICA DE J GONZALEZ;
MYKOLA YANITSKYY; EDWARD SHEKHTER; BIJAN ROOHIZADEGAN; ALINA
LICHSTEIN; JEVGENIJS ("GENE") ZIKOV; and S MANDUJANO, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
VENNPOINT REAL ESTATE, LLC;  BMP2 MANAGEMENT, LLC; JAKE GANTZ; PINE
HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; VPH WHEELING LLC; VPH OWNER WHEELING
LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03558 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty.,
March 19, 2019) is an action seeking to vindicate the rights of
owners and residents of the Pine Hill Condominium Complex.

The Plaintiffs are owners and residents of the Pine Hill
Condominium Complex in Wheeling, Illinois.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, using various shell
companies, purchased sixty percent of the Complex with plans of
purchasing the entire Complex for a condominium deconversion.
VennPoint then appointed an illegally constituted board and used
that board to enter into illegal contracts, raise assessments, and
stop making repairs, all to reduce the value of Plaintiffs' units
and force Plaintiffs to sell their units.

Specifically, says the complaint, Gantz and VennPoint acted through
the unlawfully constituted Pine Hill Board to decrease the value of
Plaintiffs' units. In January and February of 2019, several
Plaintiffs began receiving calls from agents of VennPoint. Those
agents demanded that Plaintiffs sell their units to VennPoint.
Plaintiffs have no wish or desire to sell their units.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sheryl Ring, Esq.
     Open Communities Legal Assistance Program #62447
     990 Grove Street, Suite 500
     Evanston, IL 60201
     Phone: (847) 501-5760
     Email: sheryl@open-communities.org


VENTURE EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss/Transfer Ratliff FCRA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEROME RATLIFF, JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VENTURE EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17 C 7214 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied Venture's renewed motion to dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) or to transfer under Section 1404(a).

Ratliff brings the putative class action against Venture, alleging
that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by failing
to provide him with certain disclosures after rejecting his job
application due at least in part to negative information it
received about him in a background report.

Ratliff, an Illinois resident, applied online for employment as a
commercial truck driver in response to a solicitation from Venture.
Venture is a trucking and transportation company incorporated and
headquartered in Tennessee.  Venture operates a website through
which prospective employees can apply for positions as drivers.

From Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2017, Venture received 11,638
online applications, of which thirty listed Illinois addresses.  As
part of its hiring process, it obtains background reports from
HireRight, LLC, a firm located in California.  Each report provides
the applicant's name, social security number, date of birth, past
employers, work records, reasons for leaving past employers, rehire
eligibility, drug and alcohol history, truck driving school
performance records, and trucking accident or incident history.
Venture uses the reports in deciding whether to continue the hiring
process.  It communicates with HireRight from Tennessee.

The day after Ratliff applied, Venture obtained his background
report from HireRight.  The report referenced a "Preventable
Accident/Incident" involving Ratliff that occurred on Sept. 5, 2014
in South Dakota.  This aspect of the report was inaccurate or
incomplete in that it failed to indicate that the citation issued
to Ratliff arising from the incident had been dismissed.

Based in part on the HireRight report, Venture disqualified Ratliff
from further consideration.  Ratliff never received any oral,
written, or electronic notification from Venture that it would not
offer him a job -- much less notice that its decision was based in
part on the HireRight report or that the FCRA gave him the right to
obtain the report and dispute its accuracy or completeness with
HireRight.  This deprived Ratliff of the ability to contact
HireRight to correct the report, which had the effect of denying
him fair access to employment.  Ratliff did not learn about
Venture's use of the report until October 2015, when he discovered
it through his own investigation.

Ratliff alleges that Venture violated the FCRA by failing to notify
him that it rejected his application based in part on the HireRight
report and to provide HireRight's contact information and a summary
of his FCRA rights—including the right to obtain a free copy of
the report and dispute its accuracy or completeness with HireRight
-- as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(B).

Venture moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
Article III standing and under Civil Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of
personal jurisdiction, or alternatively for transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Middle District of Tennessee.  While
that motion was pending, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in
Robertson v. Allied Solutions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2018),
which presented an FCRA standing issue akin to the one in the
instant case.  The Court stayed the case pending the Seventh
Circuit's decision in Robertson and denied the motion to dismiss or
transfer without prejudice to renewal when the case resumed.  The
court lifted the stay after Robertson was decided and allowed
Ratliff to file an amended complaint.

Venture now renews its motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(2) or to transfer under Section 1404(a).   

Venture argues that Ratliff does not allege a concrete injury and
thus lacks Article III standing.  Because Ratliff alleges that the
HireRight report is inaccurate and incomplete, Venture's failure to
disclose that it took adverse action at least in part due to the
report impaired his ability to use that information for a
substantive purpose that Subparagraph (B) envisioned, making
concrete his informational injury.  Judge Feinerman therefore
denied the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.

Next, the Judge finds that although Venture would face some burden
in being forced to defend an action in Illinois rather than
Tennessee, out-of-state defendants always face such a burden, and
there is no suggestion that Venture's hardship would be any greater
than that routinely tolerated by courts exercising specific
jurisdiction against nonresidents.  There is also no compelling
reason to assume either that a suit in Illinois would not serve
Ratliff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief or
that it would not be the most efficient way to resolve the matter.
Given all this, exercising personal jurisdiction over Venture would
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.

Finally, he finds that the interest of justice factors is neutral
or slightly favor transfer, while the convenience factors slightly
disfavor transfer.  That state of affairs does not justify
transfer, which is appropriate only if the balance of factors
"strongly" favors the Defendant's proposed forum.

Based on the foregoing, Judge feinerman denied Venture's motion to
dismiss or transfer.  Venture shall answer the operative complaint
by March 26, 2019.  The opinion does not speak to the merits of
Ratliff's FCRA claim or to whether he would be an adequate class
representative under Civil Rule 23(a)(4).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/48QSU5 from Leagle.com.

Jerome Ratliff, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLC & Adam C.
York, KamberLaw LLC.

Venture Express, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin Gordon Rahe
-- arahe@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly LLC, Matthew Patrick
Connelly -- mpc@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC & Patrick
William Chinnery -- pchinnery@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly,
Llc.


WALKING COMPANY: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Walking Company Holdings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Walking Company Holdings,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02459 (S.D. N.Y., March 19,
2019).

The Walking Company Holdings, Inc. engages in the retail sale of
footwear and accessories. It offers casual shoes, dress shoes,
clogs, boots, sandals, athletic shoes, walking shoes, and slippers
for men and women, as well as kids footwear and gift cards. The
company also provides accessories, such as orthotics, socks, and
shoe care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WASTE PRO USA: Helpers Class Certified Under FLSA in Thomas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize
Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ALFRED
W. THOMAS v. WASTE PRO USA, INC. and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02254-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.).

In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
action is brought on behalf of himself and the National Collective
Action Members who have worked for Defendant Waste Pro USA as
Helpers, however variously titled, anywhere in the United States,
between September 28, 2014 and the date of final judgment in this
matter who elect to opt-in to this action and who, at any point
during this time, were paid a day rate and also worked at a
location that had a policy or practice to either pay a half-day
rate or pay non-discretionary bonuses.

Judge Honeywell directs the parties to confer and submit a jointly
proposed notice within 14 days of the date of this Order.  Should
the parties be unable to agree on a proposed notice, they shall
each submit proposed notices.

Additionally, the parties shall confer on a class notice plan and
issues that may arise associated with the administration of the
class, including the establishment of an opt-in period, and shall
advise the Court of these efforts and whether there are issues that
require the Court's resolution within 14 days of the date of this
Order.

The Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff in an electronic or
computer-readable format the full name, address(es), telephone
numbers, e-mail address(es), and dates and locations of employment
for each of the collective members by April 9, 2019.[CC]


WELLS FARGO: Rivera Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-574545 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 15, 2019), alleges that Wells Fargo misclassifies
its Service Managers as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for
purposes of the payment of overtime compensation (including failing
to pay for meal and rest breaks) when, in fact, they are
"non-exempt" non-managerial employees according to California law,
and denies them meal and rest breaks under California law.

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
central offices throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

WESTERN DENTAL: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosina Caldera, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Western Dental Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-at-00136 (E.D. Cal., February 15, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Western Dental Services provides dental care services whom Caldera
allegedly owes a debt to, and who contacted her on her cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suits in NY and Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. 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 company continues to defend
class action suits in New York and Colorado in relation to its
initial public offering (IPO).

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW) and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., Avista Capital Partners, and each of
the underwriter banks involved with the Company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions. The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York
cases have been consolidated with the court staying discovery until
after a determination has been made with respect to the Company's
Motion to Dismiss.

WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would 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.

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.
  

WOLF & SHEPHERD: Traynor Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf & Shepherd, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wolf & Shepherd, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02461 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019).

Wolf and Shepherd is a men's dress shoe company. The company
designs and sells Italian leather dress shoes using technology
found in running sneakers. Wolf & Shepherd was founded in 2014 in
Jacksonville Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



YOSSI'S FISH: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Parra, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Yossi's Fish & Market Corp., d/b/a
"Yossi's Fish Market" and Joseph Heiman, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01555 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages at minimum wage rate, unpaid wages at the
overtime rate for all work hours over 40 hours in a work week,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
a wage at the minimum wage rate and overtime wages for the total
hours worked over 40 hours in a work week, in violation of the FLSA
and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department
of Labor Regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around February 2017 to
work as a fish monger.

Yossi is a domestic corporation existing under the laws of the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C.
     52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 374-0009
     Facsimile: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


ZUMBA FITNESS: Traynor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zumba Fitness, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Zumba Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02462 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019).

Zumba Fitness, LLC provides dance fitness classes through gyms and
cruises to customers worldwide. It offers instructor training
programs. The company also provides Zumba Stories, a platform where
people share their real life journeys and triumphs to inspire a
healthier and happier world. In addition, it offers tops and
bottoms for women and men, accessories, shoes, DVDs, equipment, and
gift vouchers, as well as energy drinks through an online
store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZUTANO GLOBAL: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Zutano Global Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Zutano Global Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02463 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019).

Zutano, Inc. distributes and supplies fabric and clothing. The
Company engages in the wholesale distribution of children's, and
infants clothing, as well as provides nursery furniture, toys, and
accessories. Zutano operates in the State of Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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