CAR_Public/190404.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 4, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 68

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Dufresne-Yidi Sues Over Hearing Loss
3M COMPANY: Stokes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ABC CORP: Lei Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ACTION CONVENIENCE: Boukhar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AKORN INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action Suit

AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ALIGN TECH: Sued over Aligners & Scanners Price-Fixing Scheme
AMARIN CORP: Gibbs Law Group Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AMAZON SERVICES: Faces Dias' Labor Suit in Los Angeles County
ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Underway

APPLE INC: May Further Depose 2 Experts in Davidson Suit
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Tricked Abuse Victims Out of Suing Church
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Collins Sues over Tainted Valsartan
AUTOS INC: North Dakota High Court Flips Baker Suit Dismissal

AUTOZONE INC: Shaw-Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
AVENUE THERAPEUTICS: Faces 2 InvaGen Merger-Related Suits
AVON PRODUCTS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
BELLICUM PHARMA: Pomerantz and Federman & Sherwood to Lead Suit

BIMBO FOODS: Court Denies Franze's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
BOARDWALK 1000: Sued Over Vague Info on Disability Access in Site
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Complaint Not Yet Served
BRISTOW GROUP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
BRISTOW GROUP: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

BRITISH AMERICAN: 1,406 "Broin II" Cases Pending at Dec. 31
BRITISH AMERICAN: 13 Non-US Class Suits Pending vs. Group
BRITISH AMERICAN: 2,268 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Dec. 31
BRITISH AMERICAN: Canadian Units Defend 7 Putative Class Suits
BRITISH AMERICAN: Class Action in Venezuela Still Pending

BRITISH AMERICAN: Corwin Plaintiff's Bid for Rehearing Denied
BRITISH AMERICAN: Growers' Class Claim Remains Shelved
BRITISH AMERICAN: Knight Class Action vs. Imperial Continues
BRITISH AMERICAN: Parties Agree to Drop Breathe DC Suit
BRITISH AMERICAN: SFNTC Still Defends Natural American Spirit Suits

BRITISH AMERICAN: Two Quebec Class Actions Pending at Dec. 31
BRITISH AMERICAN: Units Face Suits over Natural American Spirit Ads
BSA: 2nd NBN Supplier Scoped for Sham Contracting Class Action
BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Suit Asserts Unlawful Termination
CAPIO PARTNERS LLC: Abdelaziz Disputes Collection Letter

CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Class Suit Still Pending
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal from Dismissal of Merger Suit Ongoing
CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Suit Ongoing
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Orellana Class Action Still Stayed
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Guglielmo Suit Still Pending

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Masters Suit Wins Initial Okay
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in San Diego Suit Okayed
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Muransky et al. Cases
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends Tagalogon Class Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Settlement Reached in Goldman Suit

CHRISTOPHER L FLETCHER: Prieto Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
CIENA CORP: Settlement Reached in Beaver County Employees Suit
CLEARSTAFF INC: Tyler Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
CONAGRA BRANDS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
DAYTONA CHICKEN: Jackson Sues Over Improper Wages Under FLSA

DIAMOND PERFECTION: Flores Suit Over Filtration System Closed
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Consolidated Class Action in Florida
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Appeal in Olenik Class Action Pending
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Singleton Alleges Contract Breach
ELI ZABAR: Teixeira Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff

EXTREME NETWORKS: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim Approval
FERROGLOBE PLC: Zhang Investor Files Securities Class Action Suit
FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Action Underway
FRED'S INC: Southern Independent's Class Certification Bid Denied
GANNETT CO: Costello Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky

GDS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Ramzan Consolidated Suit Underway
GNC HOLDINGS: Oral Argument This Month in Workweek Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Ongoing
HC2 HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit over CGI Policies Pending

HEALTH INSURANCE: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: May Gain Partial Victory in Lawsuit
IDT CORP: Continues to Defend Dennis Class Action
IDT CORP: Denial of Motion to Dismiss JDS1 Suit Affirmed
IKEA: Hit With Age Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit

INOGEN INC: Friedland Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in NY
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action
JRC FITNESS: Hossain Wants to Stop Invasion of Privacy & Harassment
KIA MOTORS: Faces Herrera Suit over Automobile Safety

KIKO'S PARTY RENTALS: Faces Simmons Lawsuit in Florida
KING TACO: Sued by De La Torre Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 3 Class Suits over Harris Corp. Merger
LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Strougo Securities Suit Partly Granted
LEE & GIANT FOOD: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

LENNY & LARRY'S: DOJ Says Settlement Not So Sweet
LEOPARDI'S ITALIAN: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
LEVEL 3: Prelim Approval of Amedee Settlement Denied w/o Prejudice
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Underway

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Hanks Class Suit in New York
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MAMMOTH ENERGY: LeJeune Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARKET AMERICA: Zou Sues over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
MARTIN BROTHERS: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

MASSILIA INC: Melissinou Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
MATRIX WARRANTY: Accused by Makaron of Making Illegal Phone Calls
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Solak Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla
MDL 2672: Court Denies 7 Remand Motions in VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit
MENDOZA FARM: Faces Uranga Labor Suit in Fresno County

METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
MOLSON COORS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MOLSON COORS: Pawar Law Group Files Class Action Lawsuit
MR COOPER GROUP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Jordan Suit
MY FINANCIAL: Sued over Alleged Nuisance Telemarketing Practices

NANTKWEST INC: April 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
NCAA: Busbee Seeks Damages Over Student-Athlete's Injuries
NCAA: Former UND Football Player Files Class-Action Lawsuit
NCAA: Tant Sues over Safety of Northwestern Student-Athletes
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Attia Settlement

NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Proceedings over Class Action Waiver Ongoing
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in Lopez Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Status Conference in Cyber-Attack Set for April 12
NEW BALANCE: Schneider Wallace Discloses Class Action Settlement
NEWELL BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Still Ongoing

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Issues Order on Dismissal Bids in Powell
PREMIER CC: Medina Suit Removed to C.D. California
PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET: Suit Alleges Commercial Premises Liability
QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
RADIO FILM CONNECTION: Moffett Alleges False Advertising

RADIUS GLOBAL: Crooks Sues Over False Credit Reports
RAVI SANWAL: Denial of McKinney Class Certification Affirmed
RE-VI DESIGN: Court Decertifies Kneipp FLSA Class
RESPOND POWER: Appeal in Gillis Class Action Pending
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action

RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Miller Class Suit
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Settlement Reached in Wisconsin Securities Suit
SAVOUR SICHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SEARS HOLDINGS: Granted Leave to File Sur-Reply in Kloppel Suit
SERVICE KING: Gabriel Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

SHELTER MUTUAL: Whitaker, Baggett Suits Remanded to Ark. State Ct.
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: June 24 Status Conference in Lowinger Suit
SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Veilleux Class Suit
ST. ANNE'S HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Lawsuit From Veterans

STITCH FIX: Expects TV Advertising Suits to be Consolidated
SWEEP INC: Denied Workers Proper Compensation, Caro Suit Says
TARGET CORP: Appeal Still Pending in ERISA Class Suit in Canada
TARGET CORP: Still Defends Minnesota Suit over Canada Expansion
TEAM CAROLINAS: Fails to Refund Drivers' Expenses, Huffman Claims

TREMONT MARKERT: $19.8MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
TREVENA INC: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel in PA Suits
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Detainees' Bid for Summary Judgment
UNITED STATES: Philbrick Sues Over New Medicaid Eligibility Policy
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Duhe Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages

UXIN LIMITED: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
VALE SA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
VERDE ENERGY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Richardson Suit
VIP LASER: Friedman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
WASHINGTON GAS: Continues to Defend Silver Spring Incident Suit

WAVERLY RESTAURANT: Lazazzera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Park Suit
WEISER SECURITY: Holcomb Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Cotton Suit Has Final Approval
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses D. Burch's Suit

WESTJET: Loses Appeal in Proposed Lawsuit on Harassment
WESTPAC: Class Action Relies On ASIC's Resources
WIRECARD AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
WIRECARD AG: Zhang Investor Disclosed Filing of Lawsuit
WUXI PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit

WUXI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
YRC INC: Southern Furniture Says Shipment Fees Excessive

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Dufresne-Yidi Sues Over Hearing Loss
------------------------------------------------
Jonathan N. Dufresne-Yidi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60739-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2019) seeks to recover
damages for personal injuries sustained while in training and/or on
active military duty, resulting from Defendant's defective and
unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended Combat Arms
earplugs.

This action arises out of serious and permanent personal injuries
sustained by Plaintiff, a veteran of the United States military, as
well as thousands of similarly situated veterans, who all risked
their lives while defending the country. They used these defective
earplugs in training and/or on active military duty domestically
and abroad, notes the report.

Plaintiff specifically used Defendant's dangerously defective Dual
ended Combat Arms earplugs while deployed in Afghanistan and during
other training and combat exercises. Defendant sold the Dual-ended
Combat Arms(TM) earplugs to the U.S. military for more than a
decade without the military and/or Plaintiff having any knowledge
of the defect(s) and failed to adequately warn the military and/or
Plaintiff of the defect(s).

The Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs caused at least
tens of thousands of soldiers to suffer significant hearing loss,
and additional injuries related to hearing loss, including but not
limited to pain and suffering and loss of the pleasures of life,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dufresne-Yidi joined the military in 2008 and was
discharged in 2013. Prior to joining the military, Plaintiff had no
signs or symptoms of hearing loss.

Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
     Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
     Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
     THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1423
     Email: 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 63101
     Phone: 314-241-8111
     Fax: 314-241-5554
     Email: scrompton@allfela.com


3M COMPANY: Stokes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAYNE STOKES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
2:2019cv14098 (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 on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated individuals, requested 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 complainyt Plaintiff Stokes joined the military in
2003 and was discharged in 2006. 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 2004 to 2005 and fought
on behalf of the country during those years.

The allegations in the complaint are based in part upon the
pleadings and allegations as contained in United States ex rel.
Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. 3M Company, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01533-DCC
(D.S.C. 2016), and upon publicly available information and
materials. Certainly much discovery will be produced by Defendant
after this case proceeds.

On July 26, 2018, the Defendant agreed to pay $9.1 million to
resolve allegations that it knowingly sold the Dual-ended Combat
ArmsTM Earplugs to the United States military without disclosing
defects that hampered the effectiveness of the hearing protection
device.

The Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs are
non-linear, or selective attenuation, earplugs which were designed
to provide soldiers with two different options for hearing
attenuation depending upon how the plugs are worn. Both sides of
the dual-sided earplugs were purported to provide adequate
protection for soldier's ears when worn.

The design of the earplug prevents a snug fit in the ear canal of
the wearer, an inherent defect about which there was no adequate
warning. When inserted in accordance with Defendant's standard
fitting instructions, the edge of the third flange of the
non-inserted end of the earplug presses against the wearers' ear
canal and folds back to its original shape, thereby loosening the
seal in their ear canals and providing inadequate protection.

Because the earplugs are symmetrical, the standard fitting
instructions will result in a loosening of the seal if either side
is inserted into the ear canal. These earplugs were originally
created by a company called Aearo Technologies ("Aearo" or
"3M/Aearo"). The Defendant 3M acquired Aearo in 2008, including
Aearo's liabilities. Thus, 3M is liable for Aearo's conduct as
alleged.[BN]

The Defendant is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
selling worker safety products, including hearing protectors and
respirators.  It has a dominant market share in virtually every
safety product market, including hearing protection, and is one of
the largest companies in the country.[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 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-8111
          Facsimile: 314 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

ABC CORP: Lei Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
Ming Lei, Individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Moonlight Spa, Lu
Gao and "Elrond" Jin, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08787 (D. N.J.,
March 20, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff against
Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants failed to pay its employees, including Plaintiff,
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a masseur in the Defendants' massage/spa
business, from in or around October 11, 2016 to on or around
November 9, 2018.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Moonlight Spa is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTION CONVENIENCE: Boukhar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Boukhar, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Action Convenience Service Inc., Action Convenience
Store Inc. and Mitchell Gonzalez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-20622,
(S.D. Fla., February 18, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a gas station/convenience store in Miami-Dade
County where Boukhar worked as a cashier. He claims to have worked
approximately an average of 60-67 hours per week without being paid
overtime compensation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


AKORN INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on February 21, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against Akorn, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AKRX). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 1, 2018 through January 8, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Akorn, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Monday, April 22, 2019 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please;

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Akorn, Inc. (NASDAQ:AKRX) from August 1, 2018 through
January 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Akorn investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Akorn class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1497.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Akorn's management
misled investors concerning the severity of Akorn's manufacturing
violations at its Decatur, Illinois facility; (2) Akorn's responses
to the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Form 483—which
contained a list of observations made by the FDA during its
inspection of Akorn's Decatur, Illinois facility in April and May
2018—would be deemed inadequate by the FDA; (3) Akorn repeatedly
failed to correct manufacturing violations at this facility; (4)
the foregoing would subject Akorn to heightened regulatory scrutiny
by the FDA; and (5) as a result, Akorn's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 22,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1497.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ALIGN TECH: Sued over Aligners & Scanners Price-Fixing Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simon and Simon PC d/b/a City Smiles, the Plaintiff, v. Align
Technology Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00506-UNA (D.
Del., March 14, 2019), seeks compensatory damages, treble damages,
injunctive relief, court costs, and attorneys' fees under the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants has allegedly engaged in
a scheme to create a de facto bundle of its Aligners and Scanners,
but without providing any corresponding "discount" to purchasers,
for the purpose of maintaining and increasing its monopoly power in
both markets.  The Defendant leveraged its dominant position in the
Aligner market to suppress competition in the Scanner market, and
has leveraged its dominant position in the Scanner market to
suppress competition on the Aligner market. The Defendants' conduct
has allowed Align to artificially increase and/or maintain its
market share and market power in both markets, and thereby
artificially inflate its prices in both markets.

Align's primary source of revenue comes from its Invasalign brand
Aligners, by far the dominant product in the Aligner market. Align
earns well over a billion dollars per year selling Invalign product
at gross margins typically exceeding 75%.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esq.
          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          P. Bradford Deleeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington,DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656 4433
          Facsimile: (302) 658 7567
          E-mail: jgoddess@rmgglaw.com
                  jzeldin@rmgglaw.com
                 bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          John Radice, Esq.
          Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (646) 245 8502
          Facsimile: (609) 385 0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
                  drubstein@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric Cramer, Esq.
          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 4604
          Facsimile: (215) 875 5705
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  dwalker@bm.net

AMARIN CORP: Gibbs Law Group Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation (NASDAQ: AMRN) and certain of its
officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No.
2:19-cv-6601), is on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
the securities of Amarin Corporation (NASDAQ: AMRN) from September
24, 2018 through November 8, 2018, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Amarin investors under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that: (1) the top-line results
Amarin touted about its REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa were not as
positive as the company represented; (2) the placebo given to
patients in the control arm of REDUCE-IT may have increased the
incidence of cardiovascular events in those patients; (3) as a
result, Amarin's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you suffered a
loss in Amarin, you have until April 23, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

To speak privately with a securities attorney to learn more about
our investigation and your legal rights, visit our website or
contact our securities team directly at (800) 808-5294.

         Eileen Epstein, Esq.
         Gibbs Law Group
         Telephone: 510.350.9728
                    (800) 808-5294   
         Email: eje@classlawgroup.com [GN]


AMAZON SERVICES: Faces Dias' Labor Suit in Los Angeles County
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DIAS, as an individual and on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. AMAZON
SERVICES LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; AMAZON.COM INC, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, Defendant, Case No.
19STCV08098 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, March 8, 2019)
alleges that the Defendant violated the state's Labor Code Section
2699.  The case is assigned to Judge Terry Green.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and similarly situated persons as
non-exempt employees within the State of California within the
relevant time period, but intentionally misclassified the aggrieved
employees as independent contractors in violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 226.8 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9.

Plaintiff performed work as a non-exempt employee for Defendants as
a delivery driver through Defendants' Amazon Flex mobile
application, although Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor.

Amazon Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc, an
online retailer that provides delivery service of goods to its
customers throughout the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
     Ashley H. Cruz, Esq.
     KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB P.C.
     9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 411
     Los Angeles, CA 90069
     Telephone: (310) 273-3180
     Facsimile: (310) 273-6137
     E-mail: silverstein@californialaborlawattorney.com
             acruz@californialaboriawattorney.com

          - and -

     Olivier Taillieu, Esq.
     OLIVIER TAILLIEU, P.C.
     3250 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 388-7788
     E-mail: o@taillieulaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
     Kenneth Remson, Esq.
     WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
     1875 Century Park East. Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 698-7450
     Facsimile: (310) 775-9777
     E-mail: iwestennan@jswlegal.com
             kremson@jswlegal.com


ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion to dismiss has
been filed in the case entitled, Randy Smith, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc.,
Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA,
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October
12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the
NDA for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM.

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.  

On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order,
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 9, 2018.

On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25,
2019.

The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


APPLE INC: May Further Depose 2 Experts in Davidson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-04942-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Apple's
request for further depositions of Stefan Boedeker and Charles
Curley, subject to the limitations.

The case is a putative class action regarding alleged defects in
the touchscreens of the Apple iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus.  Pending
before the presiding judge is the Plaintiffs' third motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs rely on the expert testimony of Mr. Boedeker
regarding a damages model to support their motion for class
certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Apple deposed Mr. Boedeker on Jan. 29, 2018,
after he provided his first expert report.  Since then, Mr.
Boedeker has provided four additional experts reports, including
one report that contains the results of a new survey.

The Plaintiffs also rely on the expert testimony of Mr. Curley on
technical matters relating to the alleged defects in the iPhone 6
and iPhone 6 Plus.  Apple deposed Mr. Curley on Jan. 23, 2018,
after he provided his first expert report.  Since then Mr. Curley
has provided three additional expert reports, including one report
that contains the results of additional testing performed on the
iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus not disclosed in his first expert
report.

Apple asks the Court to order further depositions of two of Mr.
Boedeker and Mr. Curley.  The Plaintiffs acknowledge that a
further, limited deposition of Mr. Boedeker may be warranted, but
oppose a further deposition of Mr. Curley.

Apple wishes to examine Mr. Boedeker regarding matters not
disclosed in his first expert report.  The Plaintiffs object on the
ground that Apple has not sought leave of Court to take a further
deposition of Mr. Boedeker.  In addition, they argue that the Court
should limit any further deposition to only matters that Apple did
not cover, and could not have covered, in its first deposition of
Mr. Boedeker.  The Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to limit the
duration of any further examination.

Magistrate Judge DeMarchi resolves these competing concerns as
follows:  Apple may take a further deposition of Mr. Boedeker about
the matters disclosed in the expert reports he provided after his
first deposition.  It may not examine or re-examine Mr. Boedeker
about matters disclosed in his first expert report; however, Apple
may examine Mr. Boedeker about how the survey methodologies, survey
results, and opinions on which he presently relies compare to his
prior survey methodologies, survey results, and opinions, including
those methodologies, results, and opinions disclosed in Mr.
Boedeker's first expert report.  Apple's second deposition of Mr.
Boedeker will be limited to seven hours of testimony on the record,
unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

Apple also wishes to examine Mr. Curley regarding matters not
disclosed in his first expert report.  In addition to the
procedural objection, resolved, the Plaintiffs object on the ground
that a further deposition of Mr. Curley would be unreasonably
cumulative and duplicative, and not proportional to the needs of
the case.  They acknowledge that Mr. Curley has provided three
additional expert reports since his first deposition, but they
argue that these reports only confirmed opinions he previously
disclosed, and do not change or expand upon those prior opinions.
Moreover, they point out that Apple chose to depose Mr. Curley
after he submitted his first expert report in connection with the
Plaintiffs' initial class certification motion, even though Apple
knew Mr. Curley would prepare additional expert reports later in
the case.  They argue that it is unfair to permit Apple two
opportunities to depose Mr. Curley when ordinarily parties have
only one such opportunity, after the completion of expert reports.

The Magistrate finds that the new material in Mr. Curley's expert
reports appears to be less extensive than the new material in Mr.
Boedeker's expert reports.  Apple may take a further deposition of
Mr. Curley about the additional testing and test results disclosed
in the expert reports he provided after his first deposition.
Apple may not examine or re-examine Mr. Curley about matters
disclosed in his first expert report.  Apple's second deposition of
Mr. Curley will be limited to four hours of testimony on the
record, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ordered that Apple may conduct further
examination of Messrs. Boedeker and Curley, subject to the
limitations described in her Order.  The parties will cooperate to
schedule these depositions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zg4ptz from Leagle.com.

Thomas Davidson, Todd Cleary, Jun Bai, William Bon, Adam
Benelhachemi, Brooke Corbett, Matt Muilenburg, Kathleen Baker,
Taylor Brown, Michael Pajaro, Heirloom Estate Services, Inc., John
Borzymowski & Justin Bauer, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Christopher Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg
Coleman Law PC, Adam A. Edwards , Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac
vice, Bruce Daniel Greenberg -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite
Depalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- McWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew David
Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac
vice, Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY
CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conry
LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan --
rcharlan@larsonobrienlaw.com -- Larson O'Brien LLP, Stephen Gerard
Larson -- slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com -- Larson O'Brien LLP, Susana
Cruz Hodge -- scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com
-- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Jason Petty, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright,
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law
PC, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, Adam A. Edwards,
Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Lite
Depalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan, Larso O'Brien LLP, Stephen
Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP, Susana Cruz Hodge, Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Eric Siegal, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP, Adam A. Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, Bruce Daniel Greenberg,
Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, David Christopher Wright,
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Richard Christian Harlan, Larson
O'Brien LLP, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP & Susana
Cruz Hodge, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, pro hac vice.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq. --
agonzalez@mofo.com -- Alexandria Armida Amezcua, Esq. --
aamezcua@mofo.com -- Christopher Leonard Robinson, Esq. --
christopherrobinson@mofo.com -- Penelope Athene Preovolos, Esq. --
ppreovolos@mofo.com -- and -- Tiffany Cheung, Esq. --
tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP -- David Ramraj Singh,
Esq. -- david.singh@weil.com -- and -- Diane P. Sullivan, Esq. --
diane.sullivan@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice.


ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Tricked Abuse Victims Out of Suing Church
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS New York reports that one day after Gov. Cuomo signed the Child
Victims Act into law, a class action lawsuit has been filed against
the archdiocese of New York.

On a Feb. 15 morning press conference, attorney Jeff Herman,
Esq.—jherman@hermanlaw.om-- said the suit was filed on behalf of
Emmett Caldwell.

Caldwell alleges he was the victim of sexual abuse while a child in
the Catholic Church. He and several other victims claim the
archdiocese tricked them into waiving their right to sue the church
for abuse.

Herman said on Feb. 15 that his client was convinced to join the
church's Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP)
without the aid of an independent lawyer.

Herman alleges that the program's purpose was to "eliminate claims
of victims before the Child Victims Act was passed and became
law."

The attorney slammed the head of New York's archdiocese, Cardinal
Timothy Dolan, saying the program was nothing more than a scheme to
pay victims "pennies on the dollar."

"A contract, like a release, may be voided where one party is taken
advantage of," Herman explained.

The lawsuit is not seeking to void the contracts signed with the
IRCP; allowing Caldwell and others the ability to take the
archdiocese to court under the state's new Child Victims Act.

The new law extends the statute of limitations in child sex abuse
cases, giving victims until the age of 28 to seek criminal charges
instead of age 23. They can also sue for damages until age 55.

It also creates a one-year litigation window for victims to file
lawsuits. [GN]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:ARLO) pursuant or
traceable to Arlo's false and/or misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with Arlo's August 3, 2018 Initial Public Offering
("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Arlo investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Arlo class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1513.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 25,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1513.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]

AUROBINDO PHARMA: Collins Sues over Tainted Valsartan
-----------------------------------------------------
A California state-wide class action has been filed against
Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. for alleged violation of Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Breach of Implied Warranty, and Unfair Business
Practices. The case is captioned Carrie Collins, an individual; on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Aurobindo Ltd.; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00013178-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego County, March 11, 2019).

This class action arises out of Defendant's manufacture, design and
distribution of the prescription drug Valsartan. Plaintiff has used
Valsartan manufactured by Defendants and subject to Defendants'
recall, and suffered damages. Plaintiff seeks for herself and the
Class compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitutionary
disgorgement.

On January 1, 2019, Aurobindo Pharma USA issued a voluntary recall
of 80 lots of Amlodipine Valsartan Tablets USP, Valsartan HCTZ
Tablets, USP and Valsartan Tablets USP to the consumer level, due
to the detection of trace amounts N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA).  An
unexpected impurity, NDEA is a substance that occurs naturally in
certain foods, drinking water, air pollution, and industrial
processes, and has been classified as a probable human carcinogen
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Defendant Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a company based in the County
of San Diego, State of California, designs, manufactures, and
distributes pharmaceutical products, including the prescription
drug Valsartan, a commonly prescribed blood pressure medication.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
     Michael K. Teiman, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 514-5681
     Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             gl@haffnerlawyers.com
             mt@haffnerlawyers.com
     
           - and -

     Jimmy Hanaie, Esq.
     LEGALCLEAR
     8306 Wilshire Blvd., #5007
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone.: (800) 444-6962
     Email: legal@legalclear.com

           - and -

     Alexander Larian, Esq.
     LARIAN LAW FIRM
     8306 Wilshire Blvd., #2058
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone: (310) 720-0505
     Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: alarian@larianlaw.com


AUTOS INC: North Dakota High Court Flips Baker Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Darilyn Baker, individually, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Autos,
Inc., a North Dakota Corporation, d/b/a Global Auto; RW Enterprises
Inc., a North Dakota Corporation; Randy Westby, an individual,
James Hendershot, an individual, and Robert Opperude, an
individual, Defendants and Appellees, Case No. 20180238 (N.D.),
Judge Gerald W. VandeWalle of the Supreme Court of North Dakota (i)
reversed the district court's judgment dismissing Baker's claims,
and denying her motion to amend the judgment; and (ii) remanded for
further proceedings.

In 2007, Baker purchased a used vehicle from Global Autos by
trading in her vehicle and financing the balance due through Global
Autos, a company owned by Opperude and Hendershot.  In conjunction
with the purchase, Baker executed two documents, a "buyer's order"
and a "retail installment contract and security agreement."  

The buyer's order included a right hand column that, from top to
bottom, identified a cash price of $6,990, a trade allowance of
$3,500, a difference of $3,490, a motor vehicle excise tax of
$174.50, a line for license and title fees that was blank, a
document administration fee of $195, an amount owing on trade of
$1411.44, a loan fee of $200, and a total balance of $5470.94.  The
buyer's order identified the buyer as Baker, the vehicle purchased,
and the date of the purchase, and was signed twice by Baker.

The "Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement" included a
statement identifying the purchased vehicle as collateral for
installment payments and a heading in the middle of the page for
"truth in lending disclosures."  Immediately below that heading
were five boxes from left to right identifying an annual percentage
rate of 25%, a finance charge of $1,941.61, the amount financed of
$5,470.94, the total payments of $7,412.55, and the total sale
price of $7412.55.  Immediately below the truth in lending
disclosures were boxes stating the number of monthly payments as
30, the amount of each monthly installment payment as $247.08, the
due date for each monthly payment as the first of each month, and a
late charge of $25 for payments more than 10 days late.

Baker was late in making some of her required monthly payments
under the retail installment contract and her vehicle was
repossessed.  Before Baker defaulted on her loan, Global Autos
assigned her retail installment contract to RW Enterprises, which
was owned by Westby. After the car was repossessed, Baker sued
Global Autos, RW Enterprises, and their individual owners, alleging
they violated state statutory requirements for retail installment
contracts and charged usurious interest rates.  Baker alleged a
willful violation of the Retail Installment Sales Act in failing to
accurately disclose the annual percentage rate and the finance
charges incident to investigating and contracting for the extension
of credit.  She also alleged a willful violation of the Retail
Installment Sales Act by contracting to charge a late fee in excess
of the statutory maximum of $10.

Baker moved for class action certification for all purchasers who,
subject to the applicable statute of limitations, may have been
injured as a result of the defendants' business practices.  The
district court denied Baker's motion for class certification, and a
majority of the Court reversed the denial and remanded for
reconsideration of her motion.

The district court subsequently granted class certification
consisting of more than 500 retail installment buyers, and Baker
thereafter moved for partial summary judgment on multiple issues.
The court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part.  The
court rejected Baker's assertion she was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on her claim involving the failure to disclose the
document administration fee and loan fee as finance charges.  It
concluded the "buyer's order" and the "retail installment contract
and security agreement" must be construed together as one retail
installment contract and, reading those documents together, the
court declined to conclude as a matter of law that Global Autos
failed to disclose either fee.

The court ruled all class members who were charged and paid a $25
late fee on any delinquent installment payment due under their
retail installment contracts were entitled to a refund because the
amount of that late fee exceeded the maximum allowable late fee of
$10 authorized by N.D.C.C. Section 51-13-02(2)(e).  It decided the
excessive late fee was not an additional finance charge and did not
deprive the Defendants of protection as a regulated lender under
the state's usury laws in N.D.C.C. ch. 47-14.  The court said
N.D.C.C. Section 51-13-07 provided the remedy for a violation of
the excessive late fee requirement and denied Baker's motion for
partial summary judgment on that issue. The court reserved ruling
on which tge Defendant was liable for repayment of any excessive
late fees actually paid by any buyers.

The parties thereafter stipulated to certain legal and factual
issues and for certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b).  The
district court adopted the stipulation and certified the partial
summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b).  The stipulated
partial summary judgment determined the imposition of a $25 late
fee violated state law and all class members who were actually
assessed and paid a late fee in excess of the statutory maximum of
$10 were entitled to a refund of all late fees paid.  The judgment
identified issues remaining to be determined as: (1) the identity
of class members entitled to recover; (2) the individual liability
of Hendershot and Opperude; and (3) the potential liability of RW
Enterprises and Westby. The court's partial summary judgment
dismissed all of Baker's other claims.  On appeal the Court held
the Rule 54(b) certification was improvidently granted and
dismissed Baker's appeal from the partial summary judgment.

Baker, individually and on behalf of the class, thereafter waived
the right to recover any and all sums charged and collected in
excess of the $10 statutory maximum late fee on delinquent
payments.  The district court entered judgment dismissing with
prejudice all of Baker's claims.  The court thereafter denied
Baker's motion to amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59.

Baker, individually and on behalf of a class of more than 500
persons similarly situated, appealed the judgment.  She argues the
retail sellers failed to make required disclosures of certain
finance charges and late fees in retail installment contracts and
they lost their regulated lender status and were subject to state
usury laws.

Judge VandeWalle concludes that the district court erred in
determining the retail installment contracts complied with the
disclosure requirements for finance charges.  Because the district
court erroneously concluded the retail installment contracts
complied with the disclosure requirements of N.D.C.C. ch. 51-13,
the court did not address issues about a willful violation of the
statute and the remedies available for noncompliance with those
disclosure requirements.  For these reasons, the Judge reversed the
judgment, and remanded for consideration of those issues.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/C9JxrP from Leagle.com.

Larry M. Baer -- lawrence.baer@weil.com -- (argued), West Des
Moines, IA, and Robert G. Ackre (on brief), Cando, ND, for
plaintiff and appellant.

Bryan L. Van Grinsven, Minot, ND, for defendants and appellees RW
Enterprises, Inc. and Randy Westby.

Sean F. Marrin (argued) and Kraig A. Wilson (on brief), Grand
Forks, ND, for defendants and appellees Autos, Inc. d/b/a Global
Auto, Robert Opperude and James Hendershot.



AUTOZONE INC: Shaw-Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gena Shaw-Taylor, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Tennessee
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV09587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 21, 2019)
seeks relief against Defendant for its: (1) failure to pay all
wages due including regular and overtime wages and minimum wages;
(2) failure to provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu
thereof; (3) failure to provide rest periods or premium
compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (5) failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment; (6) failure to indemnify for
expenditures or losses in discharge of duties; and (7) unfair
business practices under Bus. Prof. Code.

This lawsuit arises out of an ongoing wrongful scheme by Defendant
to deny its employees the benefits due under California's wage and
hour laws for work performed in California. The Defendant
wrongfully refused to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class minimum
wages, overtime compensation, reporting time pay, business expense
reimbursements, and other statutory benefits mandated by
California, says the complaint.

Ms. Shaw-Taylor began her employment with AutoZone on or about
March 2017 as an assistant manager.

AutoZone is a Tennessee corporation which maintains retail auto
part stores throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
     Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     Email: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
            jklein@mahonev-law.net


AVENUE THERAPEUTICS: Faces 2 InvaGen Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in two lawsuits challenging a merger
transaction.

In November 13, 2018, Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. and InvaGen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. issued a joint press release announcing they
had entered into a Stock Purchase and Merger Agreement (SPMA) dated
November 12, 2018 to sell Avenue to InvaGen in a two-stage
transaction.

In connection with the SPMA, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.

The two lawsuits are captioned Bushansky v. Avenue Therapeutics,
Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:19-cv-00085 (D. Del. Jan 15, 2019) and
Krause v. Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:19-cv-00107
(D. Del. Jan 17, 2019) (collectively, the "Merger Litigation").

The complaints, which were filed by purported Company stockholders,
generally allege that the preliminary and definitive proxy
statements that the Company filed with the SEC on December 11, 2018
and December 21, 2018, respectively, omitted certain material
information in connection with the Stock Purchase Transaction and
the Merger Transaction in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 thereunder.


These complaints include demands for, among other things, an order
enjoining defendants from closing the Stock Purchase Transaction
and the Merger Transaction absent certain disclosures of
information identified in the complaints.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure
was required under applicable law.

However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation
delaying or adversely affecting the SPMA and to minimize the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company determined to
voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement it filed with the SEC on
December 21, 2018.

Nothing in the supplement to the proxy was deemed an admission of
the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of
the disclosures set forth within the supplement to the Proxy
Statement.

To the contrary, the Company specifically denied all allegations in
the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was required.


Avenue Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
acquires, licenses, develops, and commercializes products primarily
for use in the acute/intensive care hospital setting. Its product
candidate is intravenous Tramadol, which is in Phase III clinical
trials to treat moderate to moderately severe post-operative pain.
The company was founded in 2015 and is based in New York, New
York.


AVON PRODUCTS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Avon Products, Inc. (NYSE: AVP)
Class Period: August 2, 2016 - August 2, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/avon-products-inc-loss-form?wire=3

In order to inflate its reported revenue and representative growth
metric during the Class Period, Avon engaged in an undisclosed
scheme whereby it significantly loosened its credit terms in order
to recruit new representatives in Brazil, its largest market. Avon
did not disclose the changes to its credit terms in Brazil. Avon
also failed to increase its allowance for doubtful accounts to
account for the changes to its credit terms in Brazil.

To learn more about the Avon Products, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Rivota, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Defendants,
Case No. 2019CH03625 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 20, 2019) is a
lawsuit arising under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for the
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons all earned regular and overtime pay for all time worked.

The Defendants knowingly required and/or permitted Plaintiff, who
worked as a telephone-dedicated employee, and other similarly
situated telephone-dedicated employees, to perform unpaid work
before and after the start and end times of their shifts, notes the
complaint. In addition, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to him also performed work for Defendants
on their break periods, including meal breaks, for which they were
not paid, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff is an individual employed by Defendants from
approximately April 3, 2016 to approximately March 21, 2017 as an
hourly, non-exempt, telephone-dedicated employee in Defendants'
call center in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

Defendants manage, control and operate customer service call
centers within this judicial district and manage and control the
telephone based workers who are the putative class members in this
lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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
     Phone: 312-201-0575
     Email: 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 6060l
     Phone: 312-726-3400
     Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

          - and -

     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     Frank Castiglione
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-356-3200
     Email: kasif@khowajalaw.com
            fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com


BELLICUM PHARMA: Pomerantz and Federman & Sherwood to Lead Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alfred H. Bennett appointed the Bellicum Investor Group as
lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP and Federman & Sherwood as co-lead
class counsel in the class action lawsuit against Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Court denied the separate requests of Plaintiff John Sodec,
Jr., and Dong Kang as lead plaintiff were denied.

The Investor Group consists of David Kim, Linda Silberstein,
Francisco Dos Ramos Alvarado and Robert Kennard.  The Court
acknowledged that the Bellicum Investor Group has the largest
financial interest as, collectively, its members suffered $420,806
in losses.  Meanwhile, Plaintiff Sodec suffered $57,604.78 in
losses and Plaintiff Kang suffered $95,452.17 in losses.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has not
yet ruled on the competing motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff in the consolidated Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso suit.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel
(rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell
therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation.  

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the Kakkar action and motions were filed by putative class
members for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead
counsel.

On July 19, 2018, a purported shareholder derivative complaint
captioned Seung Paik v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against
the Company's directors and certain of the Company's officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

The lawsuit purports to seek damages on behalf of the Company
against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
waste, unjust enrichment and violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants caused or
allowed the Company to disseminate misstatements regarding the
clinical trials for rivo-cel and to make false or misleading
statements in the proxy materials for the Company's 2017 annual
meeting of stockholders.

On October 3, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the derivative cause of action until reinstated on motion
of the parties.

The District Court conducted a status hearing on February 21, 2019
to hear arguments on competing motions from putative class members
for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court has yet to rule on the
motions.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BIMBO FOODS: Court Denies Franze's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS FRANZE & GEORGE SCHRUFER, JR. on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, F/K/A BIMBO FOODS
BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, INC., F/K/A GEORGE WESTON BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
7:17-cv-03556(NSR)(JCM)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants' unjust enrichment
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Defendant Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC ("BFBD") asserts a
counterclaim of unjust enrichment against Plaintiffs Franze and
Schruffer ("Distributors") to recover revenue the Defendant alleges
the Plaintiffs would keep as employees.

The case is a class action that alleges BFBD has misclassified
Franze, Schruffer, and other Distributors as "independent
contractors" rather than as "employees"; as employees they are owed
unpaid overtime and other damages.  They allege, inter alia, that
requiring them to pay the costs of BFBD's business constitutes
unlawful deductions in violation of NYLL Section 193, and failure
to pay overtime is a violation of the FLSA.  

BFBD in turn brings a counterclaim against Franze and Schruffer for
unjust enrichment; the claim is currently before the Court.  BFBD
alleges they entered into two kinds of contracts with Distributors:
(1) Distributor Agreements whereby the Plaintiffs agreed to deliver
bakery products for BFBD and, (2) Advertising Agreements whereby
the Plaintiffs wore clothing that advertises BFBD's products in
exchange for a payment of $70/wk.  The Distributor Agreements have
a provision stating that if any provision of the agreement is
declared invalid by a court, the rest of the agreement remains in
full effect.

In its counterclaims, BFBD alleges that the agreements are premised
on the Plaintiffs being independent contractors rather than
employees.  It seeks to recover funds received by the Plaintiffs
for the services they performed under the Advertising Agreements,
and also asserts entitlement to the profits, $71,000.  Plaintiff
Schrufer made when he sold his "business," purportedly operated
under his original Distribution Agreement.

In the event that the Plaintiffs are found to be employees, BFBD
asserts counterclaims for unjust enrichment seeking to recover
certains funds the Plaintiffs received, such as the revenues
generated by buying then selling BFBD products to their customers,
the profits they generated from their sales of distribution rights,
and the revenue generated from commercial advertising agreements
with BFBD.

Judge Roman finds that (i) it would be premature to dismiss the
counterclaim at this stage of the proceedings before the Court has
decided the contractor status of the Plaintiffs or the validity of
the contracts; (ii) the mere existence of the contract is not
sufficient to warrant a dismissal of a claim, the contract must
also cover the "subject matter" of the claim; and (ii) if no
bonding contract exist, without the unjust enrichment claim, BFBD
would have no legal remedy at law, so the claim of unjust
enrichment should be allowed to proceed beyond the pleadings
stage.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' counterclaim of unjust
enrichment should be dismissed on the basis that the alleged
payments made were "voluntary payments."  The Judge finds that (i)
where mistake of law is the result of a defendant's
misrepresentation, such mistake may be analogous to a mistake of
fact and, therefore, may justify recovery of such payment pursuant
to CPLR Section 3005; (iii) at this early stage in the pleadings,
the Defendants do not have to disprove the applicability of the
voluntary payment doctrine; (iii) a party cannot invalidate a
contract for its failure to understand "the legal consequences of
the contract into which the parties are entering; and (iv) though
the Plaintiffs present may have presented a valid argument that the
Defendants may have to address in the future, given the early
posture of the preceedings, the granting of the motion to dismiss
would be premature.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roman denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss.  The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed
to terminate the motion at ECF No. 79.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Opinon and Order is
available at https://is.gd/FrlCVB from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Franze, on behalf of themselves, and of all similarly
situated individuals & George Schrufer, Jr., on behalf of
themselves, and of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gary Steven Graifman -- email@kgglaw.com --
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Orin Robert Kurtz --
okurtz@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP, Reginald H. Rutishauser
, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Randy J. Perlmutter --
rperlmutter@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, formerly known as George
Weston Bakeries Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael Jonathan Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Melissa C. Rodriguez --
melissa.rodriguez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa C.
Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Melissa
C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Nicholas Franze, on behalf of themselves, and of all similarly
situated individuals & George Schrufer, Jr., on behalf of
themselves, and of all similarly situated individuals, Counter
Defendants, represented by Gary Steven Graifman, Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Orin Robert Kurtz, Gardy & Notis, LLP,
Reginald H. Rutishauser, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. &
Randy J. Perlmutter, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, Counter Claimant,
represented by Michael Jonathan Puma, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Melissa C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


BOARDWALK 1000: Sued Over Vague Info on Disability Access in Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boardwalk
1000, LLC, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06089 (D.N.J.,
February 18, 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.

Plaintiff's leg was severed from the knee down in an accident and
uses a prosthetic leg in order to ambulate. Boardwalk 1000 operates
Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Atlantic City in Atlantic County, New
Jersey.  Plaintiff visited their website but was unable to verify
whether it contains adequate disability accommodations, namely,
handicap accessible parking near the entrance, parking space with a
ramp access, sufficient door width to accommodate a wheelchair or
walker, grab bars in the toilet, roll-under sink and lowered
guestroom amenities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq.
      STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
      800 N. West Street, Third Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 999-1540
      Email: stamoulis@swdelaw.com

             - and -

      Avery S. Fenton, Esq.
      LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP
      6460 NW 5th Way
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
      Tel: (202) 803-4708
      Email: af@legaljusticeadvocates.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Stein Complaint Not Yet Served
-----------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the complaint in the
securities class action suit initiated by Shiva Stein, has not yet
been served.

On March 8, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Shiva Stein naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Kevin Royal, and
Joseph D'Amico as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and materially
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects,
specifically that the Company had applied an improper revenue
recognition methodology to students enrolled in the Corporate Full
Tuition Grant program. The complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from March 8, 2016 to March 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint has not yet been served.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services in the United States. The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its
name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


BRISTOW GROUP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide and based in Boston, informs investors that
there has been a class action lawsuit filed against Bristow Group
Inc. ("Bristow" or the "Company") (NYSE: BRS) and certain of its
officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn
more.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that on February
11, 2019, the Company disclosed that it "did not have adequate
monitoring control processes in place related to non-financial
covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease
agreements." The same day, the Company announced that it had
terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.22 per share, or
nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per share on February 12, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bristow securities and have
questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant
to this investigation, you are encouraged to:

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660                    
         Website: http://shareholder.law/bristow
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


BRISTOW GROUP: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Bristow Group
Inc. ("Bristow" or the "Company") (NYSE: BRS) between February 8,
2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Bristow shareholders may, no later than April 15, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Bristow and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Molson Coors failed to properly reconcile the outside
basis deferred income tax liability for Molson Coors' investment in
its MillerCoors, LLC partnership; (2) consequently, Molson Coors
misreported net income in its consolidated financial statements for
the fiscal years ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017,
resulting in an overall downward revision to net income; (3) Molson
Coors lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Molson Coors'
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 12, 2019, Molson Coors announced that it would restate
its financial statements for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 after the
audit committee found errors in Molson Coors' financial reporting.
On this news, Molson Coors' share price fell $6.17, or more than
9.4%, to close at $59.19 per share on February 12, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 16,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


BRITISH AMERICAN: 1,406 "Broin II" Cases Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that there are 1,406 pending "Broin
II" cases as of December 31, 2018.

Broin v Philip Morris, Inc. was a class action filed in Circuit
Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1991 and brought on behalf
of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or
ailments caused by exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) in
airplane cabins.  Group companies and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of US$300 million
(approximately GBP236 million) to fund research on the detection
and cure of tobacco- related diseases and US$49 million
(approximately GBP38.5 million) in plaintiffs' counsel's fees and
expenses.  Group companies' share of these payments totaled US$223
million (approximately GBP175 million).  Broin II cases refer to
individual cases by class members.  There have been no Broin II
trials since 2007.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.



BRITISH AMERICAN: 13 Non-US Class Suits Pending vs. Group
---------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that outside the United States, there
are 13 class actions being brought against Group Companies
(excluding one class action in Brazil that is included in the
medical reimbursement category) as of December 31, 2018.

These include class actions in the following jurisdictions: Brazil
(1), Canada (11) and Venezuela (1).  Pursuant to the judgment in
2015 in the two Quebec class actions, the plaintiffs were awarded
damages and interest in the amount of CAD15.6 billion
(approximately GBP8.9 billion or US$11.4 billion), of which the
Group companies' share is CAD10.4 billion (approximately GBP5.9
billion or US$7.6 billion).  The class actions are currently under
appeal.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: 2,268 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that there are 2,268 pending Engle
progeny cases, which are U.S. tobacco-related actions, as of
December 31, 2018.

In July 1998, trial began in Engle v R.J.  Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
then-certified class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, against US cigarette manufacturers, including
RJRT, Lorillard Tobacco and B&W.  In July 2000, the jury in Phase
II awarded the class a total of approximately US$145 billion
(approximately GBP114 billion) in punitive damages, apportioned
US$36.3 billion (approximately GBP28.5 billion) to RJRT, US$17.6
billion (approximately GBP13.8 billion) to B&W, and US$16.3 billion
(approximately GBP12.8 billion) to Lorillard Tobacco.  This
decision was appealed and ultimately resulted in the Florida
Supreme Court in December 2006 decertifying the class and allowing
judgments entered for only two of the three Engle class
representatives to stand and setting aside the punitive damages
award.

Putative Engle class members were permitted to file individual
lawsuits, deemed "Engle progeny cases", against the Engle
defendants, within one year of the Supreme Court's decision
(subsequently extended to 11 January 2008).  Between the period 1
January 2016 and December 31, 2018, 46 judgments have been returned
in the plaintiffs' favor, awarding damages totaling approximately
US$341.7 million (approximately GBP268.3 million).

Certain of these judgments have been appealed by RJRT and in
certain other cases, RJRT still had time to appeal, as of December
31, 2018

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Canadian Units Defend 7 Putative Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that its units are
defending against seven putative class actions (Other Canadian
Smoking and Health Class Actions) filed against various Canadian
and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including the UK
Companies, Imperial and the RJR Companies, in various Canadian
Provinces.

In these cases, none of which have quantified their asserted
damages, the plaintiffs allege claims based on fraud, fraudulent
concealment, breach of warranty of merchantability, and of fitness
for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects,
negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share
liability and violations of various trade practices and competition
statutes.  Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJRT's
international tobacco business, RJRT has tendered to JTI the
defense of these seven actions (Semple, Kunka, Adams, Dorion,
Bourassa, McDermid and Jacklin).  Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of the RJR Companies in these
actions.

In June 2009, four smoking and health class actions were filed in
Nova Scotia (Semple), Manitoba (Kunka), Saskatchewan (Adams) and
Alberta (Dorion) against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including the UK Companies, Imperial and
the RJR Companies.  In Saskatchewan, the UK Companies have been
released from the action, and the RJR Companies have brought a
motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court.  No date has been
set in these cases with respect to the certification motion
hearing.  There are service issues in relation to Imperial and the
UK Companies in Alberta and in relation to the UK Companies in
Manitoba.

In June 2010, two further smoking and health class actions were
filed in British Columbia against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including Imperial, the UK Companies and
the RJR Companies.  The Bourassa claim is allegedly on behalf of
all individuals who have suffered chronic respiratory disease and
the McDermid claim proposes a class based on heart disease.  Both
claims state that they have been brought on behalf of those who
have "smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes." The UK Companies,
Imperial, the RJR Companies and other defendants objected to
jurisdiction.  Subsequently, the Company and Carreras Rothmans
Limited were released from Bourassa and McDermid.  Imperial,
Industries, Investments and the RJR Companies remain as defendants
in both actions.  No certification motion hearing date has been
set.  The Plaintiffs were due to deliver certification motion
materials by 31 January 2015, but have not yet done so.

In June 2012, a new smoking and health class action was filed in
Ontario (Jacklin) against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including the UK Companies, Imperial and
the RJR Companies.  The claim is presently in abeyance.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Class Action in Venezuela Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a class action
initially filed against the Venezuelan government remains pending.

The Company said, "In April 2008, the Venezuelan Federation of
Associations of Users and Consumers (FEVACU) and Wolfang Cardozo
Espinel and Giorgio Di Muro Di Nunno, acting as individuals, filed
a class action against the Venezuelan government.  The class action
seeks regulatory controls on tobacco and recovery of medical
expenses for future expenses of treating smoking-related illnesses
in Venezuela.  Both C.A Cigarrera Bigott Sucs. ("Cigarrera
Bigott"), a Group subsidiary, and ASUELECTRIC, represented by its
president Giorgio Di Muro Di Nunno (who had previously filed as an
individual), have been admitted as third parties by the
Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.  A hearing
date for the action is yet to be scheduled.  On 25 April 2017 and
on 23 January 2018, Cigarrera Bigott requested the Court to declare
the lapsing of the class action due to no proceedings taking place
in the case in over a year.  A ruling on the matter is yet to be
issued."

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Corwin Plaintiff's Bid for Rehearing Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Corwin v British American Tobacco PLC, the North
Carolina Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for
rehearing on January 30, 2019, according to British American
Tobacco p.l.c.'s Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On 8 August 2014, the Company was named as a
defendant in an action in state court in North Carolina (Corwin v
British American Tobacco PLC) stemming from the announcement of the
Lorillard Transaction.  The action was brought on behalf of a
putative class of RAI's shareholders alleging that the Company is a
controlling shareholder of RAI and breached its fiduciary duty to
the other RAI's shareholders in connection with the Lorillard
Transaction.  The plaintiff alleges that as part of an equity
financing to support the Lorillard Transaction, the Company
purchased newly issued RAI stock at an amount alleged to be up to
US$920 million (approximately GBP722 million) below fair value.
RAI and the members of the RAI Board of Directors were also named
as defendants.

"RAI believed that the Corwin action was without merit.  However,
to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on 17
January 2015, RAI and the director defendants in Corwin entered
into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit.  The
North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of
the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the
disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in Corwin.
In consideration of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which it did on 20 January 2015.  On 17
February 2016, the trial court approved the partial settlement,
including the plaintiff's unopposed request for US$415,000
(approximately GBP326,000) in attorneys' fees and costs.  The
partial settlement did not affect the consideration paid to
Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Lorillard Merger.

"On 4 August 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims.  On 28
August 2015, the court dismissed all claims against the Company.
Among other things, the court found that the plaintiff had not
properly alleged that the Company was a controlling shareholder of
RAI and therefore that the Company did not owe a fiduciary duty to
RAI's other shareholders.  The plaintiff appealed.  On 20 December
2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's Board of
Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not state a
direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach of
fiduciary duties.  That court reversed the trial court's judgment
with respect to the claims against the Company, finding the
allegations that the Company was a controlling shareholder and
breached its fiduciary duty to be sufficient to warrant further
proceedings for the plaintiff to attempt to prove those allegations
with evidence.  On 4 January 2017, the Company moved to have the
North Carolina Court of Appeals rehear the case en banc, and that
motion was denied on 2 February 2017.  On 17 February 2017, the
Company filed a petition for discretionary review with the North
Carolina Supreme Court, which the court allowed on 9 June 2017.  On
7 December 2018, after briefing and oral argument, the North
Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of
Appeals, finding insufficient the plaintiff's allegations that the
Company was a controlling shareholder of RAI and effectively
reinstating the trial court's dismissal of the claims against the
Company.  On 11 January 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition for
rehearing with the North Carolina Supreme Court, which was denied
on 30 January 2019."

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Growers' Class Claim Remains Shelved
------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the claims in the
"Growers' Class Action" is currently in abeyance pending further
action from the plaintiffs.

The Company states, "In December 2009, Imperial was served with a
proposed class action filed by Ontario tobacco farmers and the
Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.  The
plaintiffs allege that Imperial and the Canadian subsidiaries of
Phillip Morris International and JTI failed to pay the agreed
domestic contract price to the growers used in products
manufactured for the export market and which were ultimately
smuggled back into Canada.  JTI has sought indemnification pursuant
to the JTI Indemnities.  The plaintiffs seek damages in the amount
of CAD50 million (approximately GBP28.7 million or US$36.6
million).  Various preliminary challenges have been heard, the last
being a motion for summary judgment on a limitation period.  The
motion was dismissed and ultimately, leave to appeal to the Ontario
Court of Appeal was dismissed in November 2016.  In December 2017,
the plaintiffs proposed that the action proceed by way of
individual actions as opposed to a class action.  The defendants
did not consent.  The claim is currently in abeyance pending
further action from the plaintiffs."

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Knight Class Action vs. Imperial Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the "Knight Class Action" is
ongoing in Canadian court.

The Company said, "The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified
a class of all consumers who purchased Imperial cigarettes in
British Columbia bearing 'light' or 'mild' descriptors since 1974.
The plaintiff is seeking compensation for amounts spent on 'light
and mild' products and a disgorgement of profits from Imperial on
the basis that the marketing of light and mild cigarettes was
deceptive because it conveyed a false and misleading message that
those cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes.

"On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the certification of the
class, but limited any financial liability, if proven, to 1997
onward.  Imperial's third party claim against the federal
government was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  The
federal government is seeking a cost order of CAD5 million
(approximately GBP2.9 million or US$3.7 million) from Imperial
relating to its now dismissed third party claim.  After being
dormant for several years, the plaintiff delivered a Notice of
Intention to Proceed, and Imperial delivered an application to
dismiss the action for delay.  The application was heard on 23 June
2017 and was dismissed on 23 August 2017.  Notice to class members
of certification was provided on 14 February 2018.  The next steps
include discovery-related ones."

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Parties Agree to Drop Breathe DC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the putative class action styled
Breathe DC v Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., has been dismissed
by stipulation in January 2019.

On November 7, 2016, a public health advocacy organization filed a
putative class action (Breathe DC v Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co.,
Inc.) in Superior Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
D.C.) against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (SFNTC), Reynolds
American Inc. (RAI) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRTC) based
on allegations relating to the labeling, advertising and
promotional materials for SFNTC's Natural American Spirit brand
cigarettes, which allegations are similar to the allegations in the
actions consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the transferee
court.  The complaint sought injunctive and other non-monetary
relief but did not seek monetary damages.  On December 14, 2018,
the case was settled, and it was dismissed by stipulation in
January 2019.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: SFNTC Still Defends Natural American Spirit Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that putative class actions against
subsidiary Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (SFNTC) related to "No
Additive/Natural/Organic" claims remains pending.

A total of 17 putative class actions have been filed in nine US
federal district courts against SFNTC, a subsidiary of Reynolds
American Inc. (RAI), which cases generally allege, in various
combinations, violations of state deceptive and unfair trade
practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural", "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege that the use of these terms
suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent or
intentional misrepresentation.  The actions seek various categories
of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive relief
(including medical monitoring and cessation programmes), interest,
restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2016, in response to a motion by the various plaintiffs,
the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
consolidated these cases for pre-trial purposes before a federal
court in New Mexico.  That court heard argument on defendants'
motion to dismiss the current consolidated complaint on June 9,
2017.  On December 21, 2017, the district court granted the motion
in part, dismissing a number of claims with prejudice, and denied
it in part.

Previously established deadlines for class certification briefing
and a class certification hearing have been suspended pending
resolution of disputes concerning discovery.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Two Quebec Class Actions Pending at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there are currently
two class actions underway in Quebec.

The Company said, "On 21 February 2005, the Quebec Superior Court
granted certification in two class actions against Imperial and two
other domestic manufacturers.  The Court certified two classes,
with the class definitions being revised in the judgment rendered
27 May 2015.  One class consists of residents of Quebec who (a)
smoked before 20 November 1998 at least 12 pack years of cigarettes
manufactured by the Defendants; and (b) were diagnosed before 12
March 2012 with: lung cancer, or cancer (squamous cell carcinoma)
of the throat, or emphysema.  The group also includes the heirs of
persons deceased after 20 November 1998 who meet the criteria.  The
second consists of residents of Quebec who, as of 30 September
1998, were addicted to nicotine contained in cigarettes and who in
addition meet the following three criteria: (a) they started
smoking before 30 September 1994 by smoking cigarettes manufactured
by the Defendants; (b) between 1 September and 30 September 1998
they smoked on average at least 15 cigarettes manufactured by the
Defendants on a daily basis; and (c) they still smoked an average
of at least 15 cigarettes manufactured by the Defendants as of 21
February 2005, or until their death if it occurred before that
date.  The group also includes the heirs of members who meet the
criteria.  Pursuant to the judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded
damages and interest against Imperial and the Canadian subsidiaries
of Philip Morris International and JTI in the amount of CAD15.6
billion (approximately GBP9 billion or US$11.4 billion), of which
Imperial's share is CAD10.4 billion (approximately GBP6 billion or
US$7.6 billion).  An appeal of the judgment was filed on 26 June
2015.  The Court also awarded provisional execution pending appeal
of CAD1,131 million (approximately GBP650 million or US$828
million), of which Imperial's share was approximately CAD742
million (approximately GBP427 million or US$543 million).  This
order was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Following the cancellation of the order for provisional execution,
the plaintiffs filed a motion against Imperial and one other
manufacturer seeking security in the amount of CAD5 billion
(approximately GBP2.9 billion or US$3.7 billion) to guarantee, in
whole or in part, the payment of costs of the appeal and the
judgment.  On 27 October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered the
parties to post security in the amount of CAD984 million
(approximately GBP566 million or US$720 million), of which
Imperial's share was CAD758 million (approximately GBP436 million
or US$ 555 million).   

"The security was paid in seven equal quarterly instalments of just
over CAD108 million (approximately GBP62 million or US$79 million)
between 31 December 2015 and 30 June 2017.  Imperial filed its
Factum on Appeal on 11 December 2015 and the appeal was heard in
November 2016.  The decision has been under reserve and is expected
to be released on 1 March 2019."

No further updates were provided in the Company's 20-F filed on
March 15, 2019.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Units Face Suits over Natural American Spirit Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of British American Tobacco p.l.c.'s subsidiaries are
facing class actions related to Natural American Spirit marketing
materials, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Group Companies involved are: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
(RJRTC), Lorillard Tobacco Company (Lorillard Tobacco), Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company (SFNTC).

At December 31, 2018, RJRT, Lorillard Tobacco and B&W were named as
a defendant in two separate actions attempting to assert claims on
behalf of classes of persons allegedly injured or financially
impacted by their smoking, and SFNTC was named in 18 separate cases
relating to the use of the words "natural", "additive-free" or
"organic" in Natural American Spirit advertising and promotional
materials.

If the classes are or remain certified, separate trials may be
needed to assess individual plaintiffs' damages.  Among the pending
class actions, 19 specified the amount of the claim in the
complaint, including 18 that alleged that the plaintiffs were
seeking in excess of US$5,000,000 (approximately GBP3,900,000) and
one that alleged that the plaintiffs were seeking less than
US$75,000 (approximately GBP59,000) per class member plus
unspecified punitive damages.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide.  It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets.  British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and
is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BSA: 2nd NBN Supplier Scoped for Sham Contracting Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Bajkowski, writing for iTnews, reports that Foxtel, Optus
technical subcontractor BSA under Shine microscope.

A second major telecommunications technical services supplier is
being painted up for a class action on behalf of staff who were
allegedly dudded on pay and conditions by deliberately classifying
them as contractors when they were legally employees.

Shine Lawyers, the law firm made famous by Erin Brockovich, has put
the call out to staff at ASX-listed services provider BSA to
register their interest in suing the company to recoup money they
would otherwise have earned as PAYG workers.

The move is the first step in what is quickly shaping up to be a
second major push against telco-related contracting companies after
Shine mounted the biggest class action yet in Australia in a case
that is looking to wrest $400 million back from NBN supplier
Tandem.

The latest push by Shine revolves around essentially the same
principle and precedents fueling the Tandem (Infrastructure
Services Group Management), primarily that services companies have
been illegally exploiting workers by forcing them to comply with
employee-like requirements without giving them attendant pay,
conditions or entitlements.

"Shine's investigation into BSA is focused on claims that since at
least 2012 BSA engaged in "sham contracting" by misrepresenting the
true nature of its engagement with thousands of telecommunication
technicians by purportedly entering into sub-contracting
arrangements with the technicians when in fact they were employees
of BSA," the law firm said in a statement.

"If found to be employees, telecommunication technicians could be
entitled to annual and long service leave, minimum wage, overtime,
superannuation and other payments under the Fair Work Act (2009)
and Telecommunications Services Award."

The attack by investor funded litigants is a nightmare for
Australia's telecommunications and broadband sector because, if
successful, it could substantially blow out costs and require
hundreds of millions in back pay and compensation.

Tandem has vowed to defend the case against it rather than settle,
putting the matter on the runway for a court precedent that could
impact similar cases.

Litigants have been keen as mustard to get their teeth into the
telco contracting sector after a series of significant wins in the
courts by unions, particularly the Transport Workers Union
previously led by Tony Sheldon, that carefully picked its marks in
running cases against employers using contractors.

However Shine measuring-up BSA for a takedown is unlikely to be
cause for celebration at the Communications Electrical and Plumbing
Union that now has to contend with a break-away group of former
officials that set up the Australian Communications Workers
Alliance, which is advising Shine on the Tandem case.

The entry of Shine into what is essentially an industrial relations
case raises questions about the performance of the CEPU in
representing workers in the telco sector at a time when there are
major rollouts underway.

While unions have a vested interest in promoting traditional
employee contracts, the Australian Taxation Office is also watching
sham contracting litigation closely because it potentially stands
to benefit from recouping taxes that should have been paid as
PAYG.

Contractors, especially in the IT sector, are a prime target of the
Black Economy Task Force that has launched a crackdown on companies
using IT contractors which will be forced to make declarations on
payments for the next financial year. [GN]


BUTTS FOODS: Hayes Suit Asserts Unlawful Termination
----------------------------------------------------
Dondli Hayes, individually, Plaintiff, v. Butts Foods, Inc., Ray
Butts, III, and R.E. Butts, IV individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01055 (W.D. Tenn., March 21, 2019) is a lawsuit brought
against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), to recover front pay, actual, compensatory, liquidated,
and punitive damages, as well as pre and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other compensation and legal
remedies, and also including such declaratory and injunctive or
other equitable relief, as the law allows, all owed to Plaintiff
due to Defendants violations of the FLSA's anti-retaliation
provisions.

On November 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an FLSA collective action
alleging Plaintiff and others similarly situated were improperly
classified as exempt from the payment of FLSA overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay periods when driving
vehicles and performing work for Defendants, and are due overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated in
retaliation for filing the aforementioned lawsuit pursuing his
rights under the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dondli Hayes was employed by Defendants in a "dual
capacity" as a vehicle driver and warehouse employee.

Butts Foods, Inc. has its headquarters in Jackson, Madison County,
Tennessee and is a distributor of protein food products throughout
multiple states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
     Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
     Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            pjackson@jsyc.com
            rturner@jsyc.com
            nbishop@jsyc.com
            rmorelli@jsyc.com


CAPIO PARTNERS LLC: Abdelaziz Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Mahmoud Abdelaziz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capio Partners, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-60434 (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2019), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Capio Partners attempted to collect a consumer debt from Abdelaziz
via a collection letter. Said letter failed to convey the debtor's
right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the case, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., is
still pending.

On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et
al., in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS) (the "Paskowitz
Action"), against the Company and certain of its current officers
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017.


On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer
Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the
same putative class and against the same defendants.

On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina. The Sandifer Action was
voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018. On March 1, 2018, the
Paskowitz Action was transferred, on stipulation of the parties, to
the United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (case number 3:18-cv-00096-RJC-DSC).

On June 19, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action filed
their amended complaint. The complaint, as currently amended,
alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, inter
alia, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects between January 4, 2016 and
August 7, 2017.

The plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action seek compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. Defendants have moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation, the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be
predicted with certainty.

Capitala Finance Corp. is a Business Development Company
specializing in traditional mezzanine, senior subordinated and
unitranche debt, first-lien and second-lien loans, equity
investments in sponsored and non-sponsored lower and traditional
middle market companies. The company is base in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal from Dismissal of Merger Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from a court
decision dismissing the Apollo merger-related suit is still
pending.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC
("Apollo") and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC
Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger (the
"Merger"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC Entertainment, against A.P. VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's
directors, Apollo and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger
Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their consideration
and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016,
the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the
Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending
to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be
dismissed.

On September 9, 2018, the Court accepted the Special Master's
recommendations and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. On
October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff in the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's
decision.

CEC Entertainment said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe
that the final resolution of the action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

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

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action lawsuit entitled, In Re:
CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that the company charged
some of its retail customers for products and services they did not
authorize.

A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been
filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits
assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.

Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of
other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics.

In August 2017, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation
committee of outside directors to address the allegations of
impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In
April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review
of the derivative demands and declined to take further action.
Since then, derivative cases were filed.

Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed
in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for
the Parish of Ouachita.

The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal court in
Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of
CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Orellana Class Action Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the class
action lawsuit entitled, Orellana v. Grand Lux Cafe, LLC, et al.,
is still stayed.

On June 1, 2018, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, alleging that the Company violated minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Code (Orellana v. Grand Lux Cafe, LLC, et al; Case No.
18-cv-02739).

The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and
other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other
purported class members. On August 31, 2018, the court signed an
order staying Case No. 18-cv-02739 in favor of individual
arbitration of plaintiff's claims.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Guglielmo Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.,
et al., has reached a tentative settlement subject to documentation
and court approval.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former hourly restaurant
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No.
2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the company filed a response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against
opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21,
2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the
parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the
case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited number of
the company's restaurants in the State of New York.

On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement
subject to documentation and court approval.

Based upon the current status of this matter, we have reserved an
immaterial amount.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
  
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Masters Suit Wins Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the judge in
Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al., has
signed an order granting preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.

On November 26, 2014, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278).

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California Private
Attorneys’ General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary
payments. By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No.
37-2014-00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2,
2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and
assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County
Superior Court.

On June 27, 2016, the company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 described below may be related. On
February 13, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in Case No.
30-2015-00775529.

On October 5, 2018, the judge signed the order granting preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

Cheesecake Factory said, "Based upon the current status of this
matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount."

On May 21, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No.
30-2015-00775529 (Silva v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., et al.; Case No. BC706365).

On July 5, 2018, the company notified the court that Case No.
BC706365 and Case No. 30-2015-00775529 may be related.

The plaintiff in Case No. BC70365 seeks unspecified penalties under
PAGA in addition to other monetary payments.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.  


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in San Diego Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the court has
signed an order approving the settlement agreement made in the
consolidated class action lawsuit before the San Diego County
Superior Court.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former hourly restaurant
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing
to permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide
accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No
37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL).

On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No.
37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL).

The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos.
37-2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL. The
lawsuits seek unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other
monetary payments.

On July 24, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement which
covers the consolidated cases. On October 5, 2018, the court signed
an order approving the settlement agreement.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We have reserved an immaterial amount."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Muransky et al. Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the parties
have reached a tentative settlement that covers the cases, Muransky
v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, Tibbits v. The Cheesecake
Factory Incorporated and Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated consolidated cases.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that
the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act,
by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card
information (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case
No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM).

On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits
were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging
similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM (Tibbits v. The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 (
E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No
8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)).

The company filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No.
0:17-cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to
transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017.

On October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted the company's motion
to transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be
consolidated with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357.

The plaintiff in Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case
to California and such matter was subsequently consolidated with
Case No 8:17-cv-00357. On May 25, 2018, the parties reached a
tentative settlement which covers the three consolidated cases.

The final settlement agreement is subject to documentation and
court approval and will be covered by our insurance provider.

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends Tagalogon Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Tagalogon v.
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620).

On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference
statement at which time the company gave notice to the court that
Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April
29, 2016, the company filed a response to the complaint.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Settlement Reached in Goldman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2019, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Goldman v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, have
reached a tentative settlement for an immaterial amount covering
all claims.

On July 12, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court alleging that the Company violated California's
unfair business practices statute by improperly calculating
suggested gratuity amounts on split payment transactions (Goldman
v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. BC668334).

On December 1, 2017, the company filed a demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff filed his opposition on
December 26, 2017.

On March 27, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave
to amend as to six of the seven causes of action in the complaint.


On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a tentative settlement for
an immaterial amount covering all claims.

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHRISTOPHER L FLETCHER: Prieto Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Prieto, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER L. FLETCHER,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00407 (E.D. Wis., March 20, 2019)
arises from the illegal practices of Defendant in attempting to
collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Such practices include
attempting to collect consumer debts by engaging in conduct
prohibited by, or failing to engage in conduct required by, the
FDCPA.

FLETCHER mailed or caused to be mailed to PRIETO a letter dated
April 17, 2018. The Letter alleged PRIETO had incurred and
defaulted on a financial obligation. The alleged Debt arose out of
one or more transactions in which the services that were the
subject of the transactions were primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, namely medical services.

The Letter was FLETCHER's first written communication to PRIETO in
an attempt to collect the Debt. The Letter gives the false
impression to an unsophisticated consumer that it was from an
attorney when, in fact, it was not from an attorney in any
meaningful sense of the word, notes the complaint.  Moreover, the
Letter gives the false impression to an unsophisticated consumer
that the debt was valid, thereby decreasing the likelihood of a
consumer to exercise his or her rights.

PRIETO was a citizen of, and resided in, the City of Appleton,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin.

FLETCHER is a for-profit limited liability corporation formed under
the laws of the State of Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN*THOMASSON LLP
     3010 South Appleton Road
     Menasha, WI 54952
     Phone (973) 379-7500
     Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
            Andrew@SternThomasson.com
            Francis@SternThomasson.com


CIENA CORP: Settlement Reached in Beaver County Employees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2019, that the parties in the case, Beaver County
Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., have agreed
to terms of settlement of the action.

As a result of the acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena became
a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014,
the first of two purported stockholder class action lawsuits was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,
against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan’s
former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan’s
initial public offering.

The cases were consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of
Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in
April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, the parties agreed to the
terms of a settlement of the action, which settlement is subject to
notice to class members and approval by the court.

Ciena said, "The terms of the proposed settlement, which include a
release and dismissal of all claims against all defendants without
any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them, are not material to
the Ciena's financial results. There is no assurance that the court
will ultimately approve the settlement."

Ciena Corporation provides network hardware, software, and services
that support the transport, switching, aggregation, service
delivery, and management of video, data, and voice traffic on
communications networks worldwide. Ciena Corporation was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Hanover, Maryland.


CLEARSTAFF INC: Tyler Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE TYLER , individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CLEARSTAFF, INC., an Illinois
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03390 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
March 14, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use
and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
Defendant's conduct.

The case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. Th Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which
capture a person's fingerprint, and then the Defendant uses that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future, the lawsuit
states.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale
or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest
bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations
addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric
information by private entities, such as Defendant.

The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on
the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers'
fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute
and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's employees in
Illinois such as Plaintiffs have been required to clock "in" and
"out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints on
equipment controlled at least in part by Defendant.. 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 each employee. This exposes
Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

The Defendant is a Chicago based industrial staffing company that
provides temporary workers for companies in various industries such
as manufacturing, food manufacturing and packaging.[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
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

CONAGRA BRANDS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Case No. 1:19-cv-01323) against Conagra Brands, Inc.
("Conagra") (NYSE: CAG) on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Conagra's common stock between June 27, 2018 and
December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or purchased
shares of Conagra's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
Conagra's secondary public offering commenced on or about October
9, 2018 ("SPO").

If you purchased Conagra common stock during the Class Period
and/or in connection with the SPO and wish to apply to be lead
plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by
no later than April 23, 2019. You may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest
in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel
of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail
consumers, restaurants and institutions.  Conagra has a portfolio
of well-known food brands including Reddi-wip, Hunt's, Healthy
Choice, Slim Jim and Orville Redenbacher's.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges
that throughout the Class Period, including in the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the SPO,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Conagra's business,
operations, prospects and financial health. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose material information concerning
Conagra's acquisition of Pinnacle Foods, Inc. ("Pinnacle"),
including that: (i) Conagra inadequately performed proper due
diligence in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle; (ii) the
performance of Pinnacle's three leading brands was not
deteriorating due to intensified competition, but to self-inflicted
subpar innovation and executional missteps; (iii) Pinnacle's
business was performing so poorly that it had resorted to pushing
promotional deals to retailers in an effort to boost sales; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis when made.

         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 206-6708
         Fax: (866) 290-1291
         Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN]


DAYTONA CHICKEN: Jackson Sues Over Improper Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TOSHIBA JACKSON, MYAKKA HENRY, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. DAYTONA CHICKEN LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, YASHIKA ROBINSON, individually, and VIVEK KUMAR,
individually, Case No. 6:19-cv-00481-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla., March 12,
2019), alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully deprived the
Plaintiff and others of proper wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Daytona Chicken LLC is a Florida limited liability company located
and transacting business within Daytona Beach, Florida.  DCL is
headquartered and operates its principal location in Daytona Beach.
The Individual Defendants are managers, employees, officers or
owners of DCL.

DCL is one of at least 33 Church's Chicken restaurants operating in
the state of Florida.  DCL is a franchise of Church's Chicken owned
and operated by Defendant Kumar.  The Defendants have been
providing fast-food chicken to the Daytona Beach area since at
least 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DIAMOND PERFECTION: Flores Suit Over Filtration System Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California closed the case, NATALIE FLORES,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND PERFECTION INC. d/b/a AQUAFEEL
SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01315-LJO-EPG (E.D.
Cal.).

On March 15, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the
action with prejudice as to the Plaintiffs' individual claims and
without prejudice as to the putative Class.  All parties have
agreed to the dismissal.  In light of the stipulation, the case has
ended and is dismissed.  Accordingly, the Magistrate directed the
Clerk of the Court to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aTmSZ0 from Leagle.com.

Natalie Flores, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian
R. Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C., Meghan George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd
M. Friedman, PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler -- twheeler@toddflaw.com --
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman & Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.



DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Faces Consolidated Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2018, that the company is defending
against a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

On October 25, 2018 and October 30, 2018, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named as
defendants in two substantively identical lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities fraud laws. The lawsuits,
which purport to be brought on behalf of a class of all purchasers
of the Company's securities between November 20, 2017 and August
10, 2018, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The cases were consolidated by the
Court on January 11, 2019.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts
regarding the Company's financial condition and business
operations, including those related to the Company's dependency on,
and uncertainties related to, the permitting necessary for its
large projects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

Dycom Industries said, "The Company believes the allegations in the
lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit. Based on the early stage of this matter, it is not
possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that may
result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter."  

Dycom Industries, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States. The company offers various specialty contracting
services, including program management, engineering, construction,
maintenance, and installation services, such as placement and
splicing of fiber, copper, and coaxial cables to telecommunications
providers. Dycom Industries, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based
in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Appeal in Olenik Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal in the
purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Olenik v.
Lodzinksi et al. is still pending.

On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap, Bold, Bold Holdings and OVR.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Bold Contribution
Agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the
Bold Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to
obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who
were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not
follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold
Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy
disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an
appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court.

On February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral
arguments from the Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel and has not
yet issued an opinion.

Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and they intend to mount a vigorous defense.


Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Singleton Alleges Contract Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Elephant Insurance Company
over alleged breach of contract. The case is captioned Jessica
Singleton et al v. Elephant Insurance Company Case No.
6:19-cv-00200-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., March 8, 2019).  This case is
assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

Elephant Insurance Company is a foreign insurance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     
     John S. Black, Esq.
     Richard D. Daly, Esq.
     Melissa Waden Wray, Esq.
     Daly & Black, P.C.
     2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 800
     Houston, TX 77098
     Tel: (713) 655-1405
     Fax: (713) 655-1587
     E-mail: jblack@dalyblack.com
     E-mail: ecfs@dalyblack.com
     E-mail: mwray@dalyblack.com


ELI ZABAR: Teixeira Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIZ SENA TEIXEIRA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the the Plaintiffs, vs. ELI ZABAR; ELI'S MANHATTAN
WAREHOUSE, INC.; ELI’S MANHATTAN INC.; EBAR TENANT CORP.; EAT
MADISON 91 LLC; OLIVER ZABAR; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02404 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully retained
gratuities, and other unpaid wages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, beginning in March 2013 and continuing
through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of failing to pay all wages and gratuities owed to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees in violation of NYLL and
the FLSA -- including the implementing regulations.

The Plaintiff regularly performed work on 4-5 days per week for
eight hour shifts, and thus would work between 30 and 40 hours in a
typical work week. The Plaintiff was paid at a rate of $8.65 per
hour in 2018 -- which was less than the applicable minimum wage
rate at the time -- however, his paystubs did not reflect any
allowance being taken against the minimum wage, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff's work at Defendants' restaurant was directed and
controlled by the Individual Defendants and Defendants' employees.
Individual Defendants had primary control of all employees who
performed work at Defendants' restaurant. Beginning in or about
March 2013, the Defendants employed numerous individuals to perform
work related to Defendants' restaurant, bar, and catering business
in trades including wait staff, bussers, bartenders, barbacks, food
runners, Captains, and in other related customarily-tipped
trades.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Putative Class and Collective:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

EXTREME NETWORKS: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case, In
re EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 3:15-cv-04883-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

As of Nov. 30, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, which is subject to review under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and which, together with
the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions of the
proposed settlement of the Action and the claims alleged in the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed on June 2, 2017,
on the merits and with prejudice.

Judge Freeman has reviewed and considered the Stipulation and the
accompanying exhibits.  The Parties to the Stipulation have
consented to the entry of the Order.  The Judge finds the
Settlement set forth therein is fair, reasonable and adequate to
all the Settlement Class Members, subject to further consideration
at the Settlement Hearing.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, she preliminarily certified, for the purposes of the
Settlement only, the Settlement Class of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock and exchange-traded call options, and/or sold put options, of
Extreme Networks, Inc. during the period from Sep. 12, 2013 through
April 9, 2015, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, ATRS is preliminarily
certified as the Class Representative; the law firm of Labaton
Sucharow LLP is preliminarily appointed the Class Counsel; and
Berman Tabacco is preliminarily appointed as the Liaison Counsel.

The Settlement Hearing is set for June 20, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

The Judge approved the form, substance and requirements of the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses  and the Proof of Claim and
Release form.  She approved the retention of KCC, LLC as the Claims
Administrator.

The Claims Administrator will cause the Notice and the Proof of
Claim, to be mailed 10 business days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order, to all the Settlement Class Members.  Extreme, to
the extent it has not already done so, will use its best efforts to
obtain and provide to the Lead Counsel, or the Claims
Administrator, transfer records in electronic searchable form
containing the names and addresses of the purchasers of the
publicly traded common stock of Extreme during the Class Period no
later than five business days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order.

The Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to give notice
to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
common stock and/or exchange-traded call options (and/or sold put
options) of Extreme during the Class Period as record owners but
not as beneficial owners.  Such nominees will either: (a) within
seven calendar days of receipt of the Notice, request from the
Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice to forward to
all such beneficial owners and within seven calendar days of
receipt of those Notices from the Claims Administrator forward them
to all such beneficial owners; or (b) within seven calendar days of
receipt of the Notice, provide a list of the names and addresses of
all such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator and the
Claims Administrator is ordered to send the Notice promptly to such
identified beneficial owners.

Those nominees who elect to send the Notice to their beneficial
owners will also send a statement to the Claims Administrator
confirming that the mailing was made and will retain their mailing
records for use in connection with any further notices that may be
provided in the Action.  Upon full and timely compliance with these
directions, such nominees may seek reimbursement of their
reasonable expenses actually incurred by providing the Claims
Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for
which reimbursement is sought.

The Lead Counsel shall, at or before the Settlement Hearing, file
with the Court proof of mailing of the Notice and Proof of Claim.

Judge Freeman approveed the form of the Summary Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, and directed that the Lead Counsel will cause
the Summary Notice to be published in Investor's Business Daily and
be transmitted over PR Newswire within 14 calendar days of the
Notice Date.  The Lead Counsel shall, at or before the Settlement
Hearing, file with the Court proof of publication of the Summary
Notice.

The Court will consider any Settlement Class Member's objection to
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for
an award of attorneys' fees or expenses only if such Settlement
Class Member has, on or before 28 calendar days before the
Settlement Hearing, filed said objections and supporting papers
with the Clerk of the Court.

As provided in the Stipulation, prior to the Effective Date, the
Lead Counsel may pay the Claims Administrator a portion of the
reasonable fees and costs associated with giving notice to the
Settlement Class and the review of claims and administration of the
Settlement out of the Settlement Fund not to exceed $500,000
without further approval from Defendants and without further order
of the Court.

All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and
the Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses will be filed with the Court and served on or before 42
calendar days prior to the date set herein for the Settlement
Hearing.  If reply papers are necessary, they are to be filed with
the Court and served no later than 14 calendar days prior to the
Settlement Hearing.

The Judge approved the passage of title and ownership of the
Settlement Fund to the Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms
and obligations of the Stipulation.  All funds held in escrow will
be deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such
time as such funds will be disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation
and/or further order of the Court.  Neither the Defendants nor
their counsel will have any responsibility for the Plan of
Allocation or any application for attorney's fees or expenses
submitted by the Lead Counsel or the Lead Plaintiff, and such
matters will be considered separately from the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement.

The Parties will be deemed to have reverted to their respective
litigation positions in the Action as of Aug. 17, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/op5fXq from Leagle.com.

Jui-Yang Hong, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Joseph Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Shawn
A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Mark Kasprzak, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Extreme Networks, Inc., Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola &
John T. Kurtzweil, Defendants, represented by Elliot Schlesinger
Katz, Shirli Fabbri Weiss -- shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, David Allen Priebe -- david.priebe@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP & Diana Mariko Maltzer, DLA Piper.

William Reardon, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Francis P. McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Gardner --
jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermantabacco.com --
Berman Tabacco, Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Aidan Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Carol C. Villegas -
- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J. Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Irina Vasilchenko --
ivasilchenko@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Dubbin -- jdubbin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Louis J. Gottlieb -- lgottlieb@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Natalie Marie Mackiel -- nmackiel@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Seth M. Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Wendy Tsang --
wtsang@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

City of Lakeland Employees Pension Plan, Movant, represented by
Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Kenneth Joseph Black, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP & Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


FERROGLOBE PLC: Zhang Investor Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Ferroglobe PLC
(NASDAQ: GSM) from August 21, 2018 through November 26, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Ferroglobe investors under the federal securities
laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=ferroglobe-plc&id=1704
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there was excess supply of Ferroglobe's products; (2)
demand for Ferroglobe's products was declining; (3) as a result,
the pricing of Ferroglobe's products would be materially impacted;
and (4) consequently, defendants' positive statements about
Ferroglobe's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. [GN]


FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that defendants are seeking
dismissal of all claims in the IPO-related class action suit.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits
into a single action, or the Securities Action, and transferring
the venue of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the
Northern District of Texas. On September 17, 2018, an order was
entered appointing Wladislaw Maciuga as lead plaintiff and
approving his counsel as lead counsel.

Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the
Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 30, 2018.

The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and
on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the
initial public offering (IPO) and is brought against the company,
certain of the company's current and former officers and directors,
Lone Star and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that
acted as underwriters of the IPO, or, collectively, the Securities
Defendants.

The Securities Action generally alleges that the company
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the
IPO, or the Registration Statement, contained false or misleading
statements and/or omissions of material facts.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made
false and/or misleading statements about our ability to generate
organic growth amongst our various businesses while failing to
disclose that the company had not adequately integrated
acquisitions, had not rolled out the company's cross-selling
initiative, and that the company's businesses were submitting
competing bids against one another, and (2) made false or
misleading statements regarding the existence of certain accounting
practices and alleged material weaknesses in the company's internal
controls over financial reporting, including the existence of and
accounting for bill and hold transactions, the lack of sufficient
accounting personnel, the lack of effective internal controls to
ensure costs were properly and accurately accrued, resulting in
misstated costs and profits in the company's 2016 financial
statements, and the making of inventory accounting entries without
adequate substantiation or documentation.

The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act
and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class
members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable
counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses
reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems
appropriate.

On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim.

Under the scheduling order, plaintiffs have an opportunity to
respond to the Motion to Dismiss by April 1, 2019, and the
Securities Defendants will have the ability to reply in support of
the motion by May 1, 2019.

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage
Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc.
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FRED'S INC: Southern Independent's Class Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge W. Keith Watkins of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division, ordered that the case,
SOUTHERN INDEPENDENT BANK, Plaintiff, v. FRED'S, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-CV-799-WKW (M.D. Ala.), will proceed as an individual
action.

The putative class action is about a harm that is becoming all too
common in modern technological society: a data-security breach.
Defendant Fred's, a retail chain selling general goods, found this
out the hard way when hackers gained access to two servers carrying
its customers' payment information, potentially resulting in
thousands of cases of identity theft.  Those customers are not the
Plaintiffs, though.  The plaintiffs are those customers' banks --
the banks who issued the credit and debit cards the hackers
pilfered ("issuing banks") -- about 2,500 banks.  Those banks,
which Plaintiff Southern Independent Bank ("SIB") seeks to
represent as a nationwide class, claim damages in the form of
actual fraud losses, card reissuance costs, lost revenue, and
ancillary costs that they say stemmed from Fred's negligent failure
to maintain adequate cybersecurity.

But this is no straightforward negligence claim.  Four things make
the negligence claim more complicated than normal.  

First, Alabama's choice-of-law rules mandate that the laws of each
potential Plaintiff's home state govern the negligence claim.  With
about 2,500 potential Plaintiffs, the parties agree that the laws
of all 51 United States jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the
District of Columbia) are in play.  

Second, the Plaintiffs do not claim any kind of property or
personal injury damages, only economic losses, i.e., lost money.
This would lead some state courts to bar Plaintiffs' negligence
claim entirely.  

Third, there is no direct contractual relationship between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant, although the parties are connected
indirectly through the network of contracts that makes up the
payment industry.  This nuance would lead some state courts to
evaluate the Plaintiffs' negligence claim under a slightly
different rubric.  

Fourth, proving damages for a nationwide class of banks is not
easy.  There are questions as to whether some of SIB's customers
had their cards stolen elsewhere.  There are questions as to
whether SIB incurred unreasonable costs in response to the Fred's
breach. These questions apply to most, if not all, other banks in
the putative class.  These four considerations counsel against
class action treatment of the case.

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and two Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony
regarding issues raised by the motion for class certification.
Those Daubert motions are: (1) the Defendant's motion to exclude
the Plaintiff's expert Ian Ratner's testimony on the issues of
causation and reasonableness of damages; and (2) the Plaintiff's
motion to exclude the Defendant's expert Tony Emrick's testimony on
the issue of the reasonableness of the Plaintiff's incurred costs
in the wake of the data breach.  Related to the class-certification
motion are the Defendant's motion for leave to file an instanter
sur-reply brief opposing certification, and the Plaintiff's
objection to that motion.

Judge Watkins concludes that although Rule 23 is not a numbers
game, it is nonetheless appropriate for the Court to quantify
exactly what treating the case as a class action would involve:
2,500 banks, 1 million cards, and 51 different sets of laws.  The
difficulties in managing such a class would be highly impractical,
if not impossible.  What is missing is a "sound normative
justification" for adjudicating the claim on a classwide basis.
For these reasons, the Judge held that the case will proceed as an
individual action.

Accordingly, he denied (i) the Daubert motions, and (ii) the motion
for class certification.  He granted the Defendant's motion for
leave to file a sur-reply.  He has considered both te Defendant's
sur-reply and the Plaintiff's response in its review of the
class-certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/7riUml from Leagle.com.

Southern Independent Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Holland
Aughtman -- jay@aughtmanlaw.com -- The Aughtman Law Firm, Kenneth
Jay Grunfeld -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik PC,
Richard Moss Golomb -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik PC
& Wesley Lance Laird -- WesleyLLaird@gmail.com -- Laird Baker and
Blackstock LLC.

Fred's Inc., Defendant, represented by James Slater --
jslater@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Richard Earl Smith
-- resmith@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small, LLP & Sam Camardo
-- scamardo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.


GANNETT CO: Costello Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ginny Costello, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gannett
Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-CI-1188 was removed from the
Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Kentucky to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 21,
2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00212-RGJ.

Costello seeks injunctive relief and compensatory, statutory, and
treble damages on allegations that across all 34 states in which
Gannett distributes publications, Gannett overcharged "thousands"
of putative class members for promotional subscriptions. Costello's
class definition is completely unlimited in time. Costello asserts
claims for breach of contract and violation of the New York
Consumer Protection Act, says the complaint.

Costello is a citizen of Kentucky.

Gannett is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business in Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
     Devon N.R. Oser, Esq.
     Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
     515 Park Avenue
     Louisville, KY 40208

          - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
     Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
     Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
     223 Rose L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203

          - and -

     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
     Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
     Cohen & Malad, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jon Fleischaker, Esq.
     Michael Abate, Esq.
     Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
     Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP
     710 West Main Street, Suite 400
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 416-1630
     Email: jfleischaker@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
            mabate@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
            mleigh@kaplanjohsonlaw.com


GDS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Ramzan Consolidated Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
GDS Holdings Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss an
amended complaint has been filed in the consolidated class action
suit initiated by Hamza Ramzan.

On August 2, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against GDS Holdings Limited, our Chief Executive Officer William
Huang, and the company's Chief Financial Officer Daniel Newman by
Hamza Ramzan, a GDS shareholder.

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of GDS's American Depositary Shares (ADS)
shares during the proposed class period from March 29, 2018 to July
31, 2018. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas. On October 26, 2018 the Court
appointed GDS shareholder Yuanli He as the lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit, and on December 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that GDS made
material misstatements and omissions in its 2017 Form 20-F Annual
Report with respect to the commitment rate and utilization rate at
GDS's GZ1 data center, and inflated the purchase prices for its
acquisitions of the GZ2, GZ3, and SZ5 data centers.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, against GDS, the company's Chief Executive
Officer William Huang, and the company's Chief Financial Officer
Daniel Newman, and also alleges control person claims under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company's Chief Executive
Officer William Huang and the company's Chief Financial Officer
Daniel Newman.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, costs and expenses.

GDS Holdings said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to each
of the claims in this lawsuit and we are prepared to vigorously
defend against its allegations."

On February 22, 2019, GDS, its Chief Executive Officer William
Huang and its Chief Financial Officer Daniel Newman, filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint and, alternatively, to transfer
venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

GDS Holdings said, "There can be no assurance, however, that we
will be successful."

GDS Holdings Limited, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and operates data centers in the People's Republic of
China. GDS Holdings Limited was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


GNC HOLDINGS: Oral Argument This Month in Workweek Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that  Oral argument in
Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related suit is scheduled for
April 2019.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September
2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the
class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge
in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees,
costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount
in legal fees.

The Company appealed from the adverse judgment and the award of
attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior
Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate"
by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than
40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5
(rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed.

Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the
Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by
an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying
Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for
appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for
appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27,
2018. The appellees filed their brief on September 26, 2018. Oral
argument is scheduled for April 2019.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that trial in the class action
suit initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo is currently scheduled for
September 2019.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda.

The class action complaint contains eight causes of action,
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime
violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages,
penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for
Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime violations.

As of December 31, 2018, an immaterial liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims
asserted in this action.

Trial is currently scheduled for September 2019.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Schuff
International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global
Inc. (DBMG) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M.
Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald
Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of
Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG,
breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.
The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the
completion of the tender offer.  

The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.
The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.

The parties have been exploring alternative frameworks for a
potential settlement.

HC2 Holdings said, "There can be no assurance that a settlement
will be finalized or that the Delaware Courts would approve such a
settlement even if the parties enter into a settlement agreement.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Settlement of Suit over CGI Policies Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that plaintiffs have filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in a
parallel action in the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
17-CV-00615-SJD, which motion remains pending.

On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company (CGI),
a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial Resource,
Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA
Corporation were served with a putative class action complaint
filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract
and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under
various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies
that were replaced.

The complaint also alleges breach of contract claims relating to
allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium rate increases
implemented on certain long-term care insurance policies.

Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract claims related to
vesting of commissions.

On August 21, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious
interference with contract claim. CGI believes that the remaining
allegations and claims set forth in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.

The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January
26, 2018. The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the
mediation. On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court
that mediation did not resolve the case and that the parties'
discussions regarding a possible settlement of the action were
still ongoing.

The Court held a status conference on March 22, 2018, during which
the parties informed the Court that settlement negotiations remain
ongoing. Nonetheless, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
the case for trial during the week of October 15, 2019.

Meanwhile, the parties' continued settlement negotiations led to a
tentative settlement. On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs executed
a class settlement agreement with CGI, Loyal American Life
Insurance Company, American Retirement Life Insurance Company,
GAFRI, and American Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, the
Defendants).  

The settlement agreement, which would require GAFRI to make a $1.25
million payment on behalf of the Defendants, is subject to Court
approval. On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement in a parallel action
in the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 17-CV-00615-SJD, which
motion remains pending.

Meanwhile, the case pending before the District of Nebraska was
stayed on February 6, 2019, pending final approval of the class
action settlement in the Ohio action.

Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and
indemnification for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental
General Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and
Restated Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the Company's
acquisition of CGI in December 2015. GAFRI and CGC rejected CGI's
demand for defense and indemnification and, on January 18, 2017,
the Company and CGI filed a Complaint against GAFRI and CGC in the
Superior Court of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment to
enforce their indemnification rights under the SPA.  

On February 23, 2017, GAFRI answered CGI's complaint, denying the
allegations.

HC2 Holdings said, "The dispute is ongoing and CGI intends to
continue to pursue its right to a defense and indemnity under the
SPA regardless of the tentative settlement in the class action.
Meanwhile, the parties are currently involved in settlement
negotiations."

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on February 18, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc. (NASDAQ: HIIQ). The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, April
22, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please;
         
         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: May Gain Partial Victory in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reorts that a
federal court in California appears ready to give Herbalife
Nutrition Ltd. at least a partial victory in a class-action lawsuit
filed in September 2017.

At least eight plaintiffs have made claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO,
related to Herbalife live sales events.

The focus of the complaint is the "Circle of Success" events that
the plaintiffs claim was not touched on by the Federal Trade
Commission in its $200 million settlement with Herbalife related to
its business practices.

The court for the Central District of California said Feb. 12 "it
is inclined to grant in part defendant's motion to dismiss, with
leave to amend." A written ruling is to be issued.

Herbalife has more than 750 employees at its East Coast production
plant in eastern Winston-Salem.

Herbalife and at least 43 individual defendants have been
attempting since December 2017 -- in separate motions -- to have
the lawsuit dismissed.

The complaint says there could be thousands of potential
class-action plaintiffs who have spent thousands of dollars
attending the events and "have received no benefit from doing so,
despite defendants' constant barrage of guarantees to the
contrary."

In August 2018, a judge ruled to allow the shifting of four
plaintiffs from a Florida court to Herbalife's home state of
California.

The judge agreed that four of the plaintiffs are required to enter
arbitration with Herbalife since they signed a distributor
agreement with a valid arbitration clause. That ended the legal
case in Florida.

Herbalife did not provide an update on the lawsuit in its
fourth-quarter regulatory filing on Feb. 19.[GN]


IDT CORP: Continues to Defend Dennis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit filed by Erik
Dennis.

On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against
IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call
Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any.

On August 13, 2018, IDT Telecom and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to strike class allegations. The
plaintiff opposed the motion. The motion to dismiss was denied.

IDT Telecom and the Company intend to vigorously defend this
matter.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Denial of Motion to Dismiss JDS1 Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the Delaware Supreme
Court has affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss in the
consolidated class action initiated by JDS1, LLC.

On July 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution of
the common stock of the Company's subsidiary Straight Path
Communications Inc. ("Straight Path") to the Company's stockholders
of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the
"Straight Path Spin-Off").

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with
a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the
benefit of the class Plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the
Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss.

On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
denial of the motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

IDT Corporation said, "In the three months ended January 31, 2019
and 2018, the Company incurred legal fees of $0.3 million and $0.2
million, respectively, and in the six months ended January 31, 2019
and 2018, the Company incurred legal fees of $0.5 million and $1.0
million, respectively, related to this putative class action, which
is included in "Other operating expense, net" in the accompanying
consolidated statements of operations. At this stage, the Company
is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any."

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IKEA: Hit With Age Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Fast Company, reports that Ikea has been
hit with its fifth lawsuit in just over a year in U.S. courts,
alleging age discrimination.

The first was in Philadelphia in 2018, when 54-year-old employee
Frank Donofrio complained that he was unable to be promoted to
management despite excellent performance. The second and third were
filed in August 2018; one of the plaintiffs in those cases, a woman
with the last name Gorbeck, alleged both age discrimination and
gender discrimination regarding pay equity.

A fourth case was filed against Ikea in December 2018. And now,
Brandon Paine, a 48-year-old employee at an Ikea store in New
Haven, Conn., has filed a class action lawsuit against Ikea in his
district court. According to Paine's LinkedIn profile, he has been
an Active Selling Leader at the company since 2004. Paine alleges
that Ikea demoted him, as part of a larger (and controversial)
restructuring effort at the company in the United States, and
systematically turned him down for promotions based on his age.

The lawsuits have all been filed in a period of just over a year.
And they argue that Ikea has fostered a workplace culture of
discrimination, which systematically recruits and promotes young
talent rather than workers over 40. Ikea's aggressive U.S.
restructuring, called O4G, got underway in October 2017.

Ikea is far from the only company that's been sued for age
discrimination, as Bloomberg Law points out. Other companies
include HP, Google, and Marriott International.

An Ikea spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of
Paine's lawsuit, but sent Fast Company the following statement:

At IKEA Group, we have an unwavering commitment to inclusion.
Equality is a human right, and it is embedded in our core values.
We believe everyone has the right to be treated fairly and be given
equal opportunities -- regardless of age, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical ability, ethnicity, race, nationality,
religion, or any other dimension of their identity.

A diverse and inclusive work environment improves our business,
strengthens our competitiveness and contributes to IKEA being a
unique, meaningful and trusted brand, company and employer. IKEA
Group takes accusations of any form of discrimination very
seriously, and we were disappointed to learn of the lawsuit filed
by Mr. Paine. As this is pending litigation regarding a co-worker,
it would be inappropriate for us to comment further. We will remain
committed to creating an inclusive work environment that is free of
discrimination. [GN]


INOGEN INC: Friedland Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Friedland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Inogen, Inc., SCOTT WILKINSON and
ALISON BAUERLEIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02112 (C.D. Cal.,
March 21, 2019) is a securities class action brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Inogen securities between November 8, 2017 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Exchange Act.

Inogen's reported revenues have grown dramatically over the past
several years, increasing by more than 41% from $112.5 million
during fiscal 2014 to $159 million during fiscal 2015, by another
more than 27% to $202.8 million during fiscal 2016, and by another
more than 45% to nearly $295 million during fiscal 2017. Indeed,
based on its 2016 sales, Inogen claimed throughout the Class Period
that it was "the leading worldwide manufacturer of portable oxygen
concentrators."

However, the complaint notes that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen was overstating the true
size of the total addressable market ("TAM") for its portable
oxygen concentrators, claiming it was upwards of 3 million people;
(ii) Inogen was misstating the basis for its calculation of the
TAM; (iii) Inogen was falsely attributing its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, when in reality it was due
in large part to sales tactics designed to deceive its elderly
customer base; (iv) as such, the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment ("HME")
providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding
direct-to-consumer sales; (v) very little of Inogen's business was
actually coming from the more stable Medicare market; and (vi) as a
result, Inogen's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiff purchased Inogen securities at artificially inflated
prices and has been damaged thereby.

Inogen is a medical device company specializing in the design and
manufacture of portable oxygen concentrators, which are used to
provide oxygen therapy to patients suffering from a range of
respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease ("COPD"), chronic bronchitis, or emphysema.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 405-7190
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Phone: (770) 392-0090
     Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action in New York.

On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v.
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of our securities between February 23, 2016, and March
15, 2017.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the
anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and financial results during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our securities.

On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court.

On May 31, 2017, the Court consolidated the first and second
complaint and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action.

On July 31, 2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated complaint.
On October 11, 2017, the Court held a pre-motion conference, at
which the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to again amend the
complaint. The amendment was filed on October 27, 2017, and the
company moved to dismiss. The Court subsequently dismissed the
complaint as to Santosh Vetticaden, the company's former Interim
CEO and Chief Medical Officer, and otherwise denied the company's
motion to dismiss.

Insys filed its answer on June 26, 2018. The plaintiffs in both
actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Insys Therapeutics said, "We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard Di Donato v. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di
Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW)
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between March 3, 2015 and
January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business, operations and
compliance with laws during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock.

On June 3, 2016, the Court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead
plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as
an additional defendant and extending the class period. On December
22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, primarily
to add allegations relating to an indictment of Michael L. Babich
and certain of the company's former employees announced on December
8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August 12, 2014
through December 8, 2016.

On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Oral arguments were heard by the Court on July
28, 2017, and the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part. The plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to further amend
the complaint, which we opposed. The Court denied plaintiff's
motion on March 31, 2018, and Insys filed its answer on April 15,
2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to certify class, which
the company opposed. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

Insys Therapeutics said, "We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona.


JRC FITNESS: Hossain Wants to Stop Invasion of Privacy & Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KONITA HOSSAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JRC FITNESS, INC. D/B/A SHAPES FITNESS FOR WOMEN
MIRAMAR, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-20948-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., March 12, 2019), seeks injunctive relief pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to halt the Defendant's
alleged illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.

JRC Fitness, Inc., doing business as Shapes Fitness for Women
Miramar, is a Florida Profit Corporation whose principal office is
located in Miami, Florida.

JRC is a women's only fitness club.  To promote its services, the
Defendant engages in alleged unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


KIA MOTORS: Faces Herrera Suit over Automobile Safety
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kia Motors America, Inc. for
violations of statutory obligations. The case is captioned
Francisco Herrera and Juana Herrera, Plaintiffs vs. Kia Motors
America, Inc; and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08532 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County, March 11, 2019). Plaintiff has
purchased a 2012 Kia Optima vehicle that contained or developed
defects, including but not limited to, latent defects causing oil
flow to become restricted through vital areas of the engine
resulting in stalling while in operation. These defects
substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the subject
vehicle.

Kia Motors America, Inc. is a California corporation organized and
in existence under the laws of the State of California and
registered with the California Department of Corporations to
conduct business in California, and engaged in conducting business
in the County of Los Angeles. At all times discussed herein, KMA
was engaged in the design, development, manufacture, distribution,
marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing, and repair of
automobiles, including the 2012 Kia Optima. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Sean Crandall, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices
     A Professional Corporation
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
             scrandall@slpattorney.com


KIKO'S PARTY RENTALS: Faces Simmons Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A negligence lawsuit has been filed against Kiko's Party Rentals,
Inc. The case is captioned ALZORIA B SIMMONS vs. KIKO'S PARTY
RENTALS, INC., Case No. 2019-007879-CA-01 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
County, March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Martin
Zilber.

Kiko's Party Rentals, established in 1982, is a family-owned
business located in 1965 E 4th Ave., Hialeah, Florida. It rents
party equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
     CARLOS J. JIMENEZ LAW OFFICES
     1880 N Congress Ave, Ste 315
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Telephone: 561-253-0434


KING TACO: Sued by De La Torre Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
IMELDA DE LA TORRE, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KING TACO RESTAURANT, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV08404 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 12, 2019),
challenges the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code,
including failure to pay wages and/or overtime.

King Taco Restaurant, Inc., is a California entity, doing business
in the state of California.  The Defendant's corporate address is
in City of Commerce, California.  The Plaintiff does not know the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

King Taco operates Mexican quick service restaurant chains in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805)270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 3 Class Suits over Harris Corp. Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 13, 2019, that
the company is defending against three Harris-merger related
suits.

The company, Harris Corporation ("Harris") and Leopard Merger Sub
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of October 12, 2018 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
L3 and Harris have agreed, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, to effect an
all-stock, merger of equals combination of their respective
businesses (the "Merger").

As disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4 of Harris,
that was declared effective on February 20, 2019 (as amended, the
"registration statement"), and the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus that Harris and L3 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2019 (the "joint proxy
statement/prospectus"), one or more of L3, the members of L3's
board of directors, Harris and Merger Sub have been named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits, of which two
were brought in the Southern District of New York and one was
brought in the District of Delaware, and in one individual action
brought in the Southern District of New York, challenging the
proposed Merger (collectively, the "Actions").

Each of the Actions alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement, of which the joint proxy
statement/prospectus forms a part, misstates or fails to disclose
certain allegedly material information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek injunctive relief enjoining
the Merger, damages and costs.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and to allow the L3 stockholders to vote on
the Merger at the special meeting of L3 stockholders to be held on
April 4, 2019 (the "Special Meeting"), L3 supplements the
disclosures contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus (the
"Supplemental Disclosures"). The Supplemental Disclosures should be
read in conjunction with the joint proxy statement/prospectus.

In light of the Supplemental Disclosures, plaintiffs in the Actions
have agreed to dismiss the Actions with prejudice as to their
individual claims and without prejudice as to any claims asserted
on behalf of members of the putative class. In dismissing the
Actions, plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek from the courts
at a future date an award of attorneys' fees. The agreement to make
the Supplemental Disclosures has no effect on the Merger, the
merger consideration or the timing of the Special Meeting.

L3, Harris and Merger Sub vigorously deny that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus is deficient in any respect and that the
Supplemental Disclosures are material or required. L3, Harris and
Merger Sub believe that these lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws.

As noted above, the Supplemental Disclosures are being made solely
to eliminate the burden, expense and nuisance of further litigation
and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/SVQ3iz.

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aircraft sustainment, simulation and
training, night vision and image intensification equipment, and
security and detection systems used on military, homeland security,
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems; Communications and Networked Systems
(C&NS); and Electronic Systems. The company was formerly known as
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016. L3 Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Strougo Securities Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, ROBERT STROUGO, v. LANNETT
COMPANY, INC., et al, Case No. 18-3635 (E.D. Pa.).

Lannett sells branded and generic pharmaceutical drugs.  For most
of the past 15 years, it derived substantial revenues from drugs
manufactured by Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals under a supply
agreement.  This supply relationship ends in March 2019 unless
otherwise extended. Mindful of the importance of the distribution
contract to its revenues, Lannett repeatedly disclosed its
negotiations for an extension of the agreement to its shareholders
and analysts through mid-2018.  It never represents a definite
amendment but expressed optimism with appropriate cautionary
language.

But in February 2018 and May 2018 calls with analysts and a health
care conference, Lannett's CEO described Jerome Stevens as a
significant or larger shareholder suggesting its symbiotic
relationship and mutual interest in continuing the business
relationship.  It appears Jerome Stevens was not a significant
shareholder in February or May 2018.  As announced on Aug. 20,
2018, Jerome Stevens and Lannett agreed not to extend this crucial
supply agreement.  Lannett's stock price dropped over 60% the same
day.  Lannett's shareholders now seek to hold Lannett and its
control persons liable for misstatements and omissions in early
2018 regarding the likelihood of continuing the Jerome Stevens
agreement.

Strougo sued Lannett, its CEO Timothy C. Crew, and Lannett
FOr/Treasurer Marty P. Galvan, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court
later granted Soe Wong and Michael Hoeltzel's motion to serve as
the Lead Plaintiffs.  On Dec. 26, 2018, Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging Lannett, CEO Crew
and CFO Galvan violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the '34 Act and
Rule 10b-5.

Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel focus their claims on statements Lannett
made in its Feb. 8, 2018 and May 8, 2018 quarterly reports,
statements CEO Crew made during Lannett's Feb. 8, 2018 and May 7,
2018 quarterly earnings calls, as well as statements CEO Crew made
during the Deutsche Bank Health Care Conference Call of May 9,
2018.  They argue Lannett materially misled investors by failing to
accurately disclose the substantial likelihood Lannett would not
renew the JSP Agreement, leading investors instead to believe
renewal constituted a "sure thing."  

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
After careful review under the heightened pleading standards
applicable to private securities cases, the Court finds actionable
only CEO Crew's allegedly misleading Feb. 8, 2018 statement
describing JSP as a significant shareholder and CEO's Crew's
allegedly misleading May 9, 2018 statement describing JSP as one of
their largest shareholdings.

Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel assert theories of liability based on
misrepresentation and omission.  They contend CEO Crew misled
investors in statements during Lannett's Feb. 8, 2018 and May 7,
2018 quarterly earnings calls and the May 9, 2018 Deutsche Bank
Health Care Conference Call by conveying renewal of the JSP
Agreement as "a sure thing."   They argue CEO Crew's statements of
optimism regarding renewal of the JSP Agreement materially misled
investors because they created the false impression that the
relationship would continue.  They further argue Lannett's Feb. 8,
2018 and May 8, 2018 quarterly reports misled investors by
disclosing only the risk Lannett could fail to meet the minimum
purchase requirements, not that JSP could or would fail to renew
the contract or cease supplying Lannett.  They argue once Lannett
spoke about the chances of renewing the JSP Agreement, Lannett
incurred a duty to disclose facts necessary to make their
statements not misleading. They argue their lawsuit is premised
upon the Defendants' failure to accurately disclose the risks
Lannett faced in terms of renewing the JSP Agreement.

Lannett disagrees.  To the extent Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel premise
their claims on misrepresentation, Lannett argues its statements
did not materially mislead investors.   It argues the statements
constituted inactionable statements of corporate optimism, and a
statutory safe-harbor provision renders the various forward-looking
statements inactionable.  And Lannett argues to the extent Messrs.
Wong and Hoeltzel premise their claims on alleged omissions,
Lannett had no duty to disclose, but, even if it did, Messrs. Wong
and Hoeltzel fail to allege material facts Lannett should have
disclosed to make their statements not misleading.

Judge Kearney concludes that Messrs. Wong and Hoeltzel plausibly
allege Lannett materially misstated the true nature of JSP's status
as a Lannett shareholder on Feb. 8 and May 9, 2018.  He finds that
the shareholders state a claim against all the Lannett Defendants
arising from the CEO's February and May 2018 representations of
Jerome Stevens' significant or larger shareholding in Lannett when
those statements were arguably not true at the time.  Messrs. Wong
and Hoeltzel otherwise fail to plausibly allege Lannett or its
officers misstated the true nature of their negotiations with JSP
or failed to disclose material facts regarding the negotiations.
For thesse reasons, he granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in an accompanying Order.

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

ROBERT STROUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID SEAMUS KASKELA, KASKELA
LAW LLC.

LANNETT COMPANY, INC., TIMOTHY C. CREW & MARTIN P. GALVAN,
Defendants, represented by DANIEL R. CELLUCCI --
dan.cellucci@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, JAY P. LEFKOWITZ --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, TERENCE Y. LEONG --
terence.leong@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, ABRAHAM C.
REICH, FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP, MATTHEW DAVID LEE, FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP, MATTHEW SOLUM, KIRKLAND ELLIS LLP & NATHAN HUDDELL
-- nhuddell@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.

SOE WONG & MICHAEL HOELTZEL, Movants, represented by RYAN M. ERNST
-- rernst@oelegal.com -- O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC & ADAM M. APTON
-- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

IBEW LOCAL 98 PENSION FUND, Movant, represented by NAUMON A. AMJED,
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & DANIELLE S. MYERS, ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP.

THOMAS KLEINMAN, ISAAC CORIAT SALTIEL, LI TAO & SHOUFENG LI,
Movants, represented by JACOB A. GOLDBERG --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM.


LEE & GIANT FOOD: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Garcia and Felipe Leal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lee & Giant Food System
Inc. d/b/a Giant Food, Inc. and In Tae Jang, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02544 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

The Defendants failed to compensate warehouse helpers for all hours
worked, including their regular hourly rate or the applicable
minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for all hours below 40
hours per week and overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse helper from on
or around April 25, 2016, until on or around September 7, 2018.

Defendant Lee & Giant is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located at 355 Exterior Street, Bronx, New York
10451.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Morales, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


LENNY & LARRY'S: DOJ Says Settlement Not So Sweet
-------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad , writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S.
Justice Department is taking another bite into the terms of a class
action settlement, insisting that a deal over Lenny & Larry's
cookies would leave class members with nothing but crumbs.

The Department of Justice -- which announced a year ago that it
would challenge more class action settlements under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 -- filed a statement of interest Feb.
15 in a class action alleging that packaging mislabeled the protein
content for all 11 flavors of Lenny & Larry's The Complete Cookie.
The DOJ criticized the purported $3.5 million settlement,
preliminarily approved Nov. 1, for giving $1.1 million in legal
fees to plaintiffs attorneys, while class members received up to
$50 in cash or $30 worth of cookies.

Another provision of the settlement left a bad taste in the
government's mouth: Retailers such as General Nutrition Centers
Inc. and The Vitamin Shoppe would receive potentially $3.15 million
in free cookies should not enough class members make claims. That
portion of the settlement, according to the DOJ's filing, was akin
to a cy pres award.

"The proposed settlement is fatally lopsided," wrote Kendrack
Lewis, Esq. a trial attorney at the Consumer Protection Branch of
the DOJ's civil division in Washington, D.C. "Indeed, it is
difficult to imagine a less balanced settlement than one where most
of the money goes to class counsel and administrative costs, while
class members get far less than their counsel and the general
public gets over $3 million in free cookies."

Robert Wallan, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's Los Angeles
office, who is representing Lenny & Larry's, called the DOJ's
filing "moot" because both sides already were re-crafting the
settlement to address some of its concerns. He said an unusually
high claims rate, and not the DOJ's involvement, prompted the
changes.

"The claims rate ended up being very high on cash, but also very
high on cookies, so the result is in order to get the cash amount
to be approximately or in the range of what the settlement
agreement provided for, the parties are working on essentially
shifting cookies to cash," he said.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Edward Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace in Chicago did not
respond to a request for comment. Nick Suciu, Esq. --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- of BMST Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan, and Steve Wasserman, Esq. -- skw@wassermanlawgroup.com --
of Wasserman Law Group in Tarzana, California, joined him on the
case.

A final settlement hearing is set for March 19.

The DOJ's filing came one day after Attorney General Bill Barr's
confirmation. Department of Justice spokeswoman Kelly Laco declined
to comment.

Traditionally, the DOJ has rarely gotten involved in class action
settlements but, last year, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand
suggested in a speech that the Justice Department would be more
aggressive in reviewing their fairness of such deals. Soon
afterward, government lawyers filed a statement of interest urging
a federal judge in New Jersey to reject a settlement that would
have given nearly $2 million in fees to plaintiffs' lawyers and
vouchers to class members in a case alleging false pricing
advertisements on the website Wines Til Sold Out. U.S. District
Judge Renée Bumb of the District of New Jersey rejected the deal,
but after the DOJ withdrew its objection.

Originally filed in 2017, the lawsuit against Lenny & Larry's,
based in Panorama City, California, brought fraud claims on behalf
of a nationwide class and subclasses in Illinois, Michigan and,
later, Pennsylvania. Both sides reached a settlement after U.S.
District Judge Robert Gettleman of the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed a large chunk of the case in 2017, and
plaintiffs ended up limiting their case to an Illinois subclass of
consumers.

The settlement, however, was for a nationwide class. It provided
$1.85 million in cash, of which plaintiffs' lawyers would get up to
$1.2 million in fees and expenses.

After subtracting administrative costs and incentive awards to
named plaintiffs, that left $350,000 in cash for class members.
Class members could make claims for cash or cookies: up to $50 cash
or $30 in free cookies, if they had proof of purchase, and $10 in
cash or $15 in cookies if they did not.

The claims deadline was Jan. 29. Ted Frank, a class action critic
who argued against a cy pres award last fall in a case against
Google before the U.S. Supreme Court, filed an objection to the
Lenny & Larry's deal. He said he was "encouraged" by the DOJ's
filing, which raised many of the same concerns he had in his Jan.
28 filing.

According to the DOJ's filing, only 10 percent of the 90,566
claimants wanted cookies over cash, which meant class members would
each end up getting less money while most of the cookies would end
up as free giveaways to retailers.

"This cookie giveaway does not benefit class members at all;
instead, it is effectively a promotional opportunity for Lenny &
Larry's and their longstanding health food retailers to draw in
consumers with free samples," he wrote. "Rather than convey the
bulk of its benefit to class members, the proposed settlement
appears to be a marketing campaign to distribute defendant's
cookies to the public."

Further, the plaintiffs' fee request is "outlandish," Lewis wrote,
and should be somewhere between $228,000 and $463,000.

Wallan predicted that the fee request would change after the
parties redraft the settlement. He also criticized the DOJ's "gross
misconstruction of the term of cy pres," which are leftover funds
that normally go to charities.

He expected to file the new settlement "within days."

"We're still going to give away a lot of cookies, but it will be
cookie giveaway to people who make claims," he said. [GN]


LEOPARDI'S ITALIAN: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Javier A. Molina, Juan F. Flores and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Leopardi's Italian Restaurant Inc., and
ANTHONY J. LEOPARDI, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00171-UA-UAM (M.D. Fla., March 20, 2019) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under
the laws of the United States.

Plaintiffs worked many hours in excess of 40 every week period.
They were paid for all their working hours, but they were not paid
overtime hours. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half their
regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are covered employees for purposes of the Act.
Plaintiffs performed their work in Lee County.

Leopardi's Italian Restaurant Inc. is a retail business operating
as an Italian Restaurant and is a Florida corporation, having its
main place of business in Lee County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LEVEL 3: Prelim Approval of Amedee Settlement Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES AMEDEE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
JEFF K. STOREY, JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., KEVIN P. CHILTON, STEVEN T.
CLONTZ, IRENE M. ESTEVES, T. MICHAEL GLENN, SPENCER B. HAYS,
MICHAEL J. MAHONEY, KEVIN W. MOONEY, PETER SEAH LIM HUAT, and PETER
VAN OPPEN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00155-RM-STV (D.
Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado (1) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Brief in Support; and (2) granted the Joint Motion
to Strike Response of Dean Houser to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval, or in the Alternative to Establish a Deadline
for Reply.

The case arises from the merger by which CenturyLink, Inc. (via
certain wholly-owned subsidiaries) acquired Defendant Level 3, and
the disclosures which preceded such merger. d.

On Jan. 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his class action complaint on
behalf of public stockholders of Level 3 to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction in which Level 3 would be acquired by
CenturyLink.  He alleged that the proposed transaction resulted
from an inadequate process; Level 3 "insiders" stood to gain
handsomely from the proposed transaction; and the Schedule 14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommended that Level 3 shareholders
vote in favor of the proposed transaction, omitted and/or
misrepresented material information.

Based on such allegations, the Plaintiff asserted the Defendants
(consisting of Level 3 and its Board of Directors) violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 14a-9.  In his complaint, he sought class certification
and to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction and,
if the proposed transaction was consummated, for rescission or
rescissory damages.

As represented in the Motion to Approve, after the filing of the
complaint, the parties engaged in settlement discussions; reached
an agreement-in-principle memorialized in a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") dated Feb. 9, 2017, where the Defendants
agreed to disclose certain additional information concerning the
merger to Level 3 shareholders prior to the shareholder vote.
Thereafter, on Feb. 13, 2017, Level 3 and CenturyLink filed a joint
definitive proxy statement/prospectus included in a registration
statement on Form S-4 with the SEC.  The Definitive Proxy included
the Supplemental Disclosures.

On March 16, 2017, approximately 81.2% of Level 3's outstanding
shares of common stock voted in favor of approving the merger.

Following the merger, the Plaintiff represents, he conducted
additional investigation (including taking depositions) to confirm
the terms of the proposed settlement (i.e., the non-monetary
benefit of requiring that CenturyLink provide the Supplemental
Disclosures in exchange for an expansive release related to the
merger) were fair and reasonable.

On Nov. 1, 2017, the merger closed.  Thereafter, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (ECF No. 31-2) and filed
the Motion to Approve that is now before the Court.  Under the
Motion to Approve, a non-opt-out class would settle the action
based on what has occurred -- the issuance of the Supplemental
Disclosures -- with no monetary (or nonmonetary) benefit.

On Oct. 23, 2018, Dean Houser, an alleged shareholder of Level 3
stock during the relevant time period, filed an "objection" to the
Motion to Approve. Mr. Houser's objection was filed long after the
due date for any responses to the Motion to Approve, and without
leave of Court.  Hence, the parties filed their Motion to Strike,
arguing Mr. Houser's objection was untimely. Mr. Houser fails to
respond to the Motion to Strike.  Upon review, the Judge Moore
agrees.  Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is granted and Mr.
Houser's objection is stricken.

As the Motion to Approve has been pending a long time (due to the
Court's docket and not to any action by the parties), the Judge
addresses the Motion to Approve, should the Plaintiff convince the
Court the matter is not moot.  He finds that (i) the requirements
under CAFA appear to be satisfied; (ii) the Plaintiff fails to show
that the required notice under PSLRA was published; (iii) there has
been no showing the PSLRA's requirement of early notice for
appointment of a lead plaintiff, the determination of the most
adequate plaintiff, and that plaintiff's selection of counsel; (iv)
any revised notice needs to accurately reflect what the Plaintiff
requests the Court to approve.; (v) the Stipulation of Settlement
falls far short of showing the Motion to Approve should be granted;
(vi) sufficient notice must be given to the proposed class
regarding any fees counsel may seek, so class members can make an
informed decision as to whether they may wish to object; and (vii)
the proposed order contains matters which the Court raises as
issues to be addressed, such as the (erroneous) statement that the
Plaintiff has applied for preliminary approval under "Rules 23,
23.1, and 41."

Judge Moore concludes that the first issue is mootness -- whether
the case is case moot.  Next, if it is not moot, in light of the
deficiencies, he declines to approve the Motion to Approve.  If any
renewed motion for relief is filed, it must address the
deficiencies he raises and ensure that it otherwise shows
compliance with all applicable rules and statutes.  He will not
simply sign off on any request with one swift stroke.  Accordingly,
he ordered that on March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff will show cause
why thed action should not be dismissed without prejudice as moot.


The Judge granted the Motion to Strike and that Dean Houser's
Objection is stricken.  He denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion to Approve.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VBDDM8 from Leagle.com.

James Amedee, On Behafl of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Adam Acocelli --
racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP.

Level 3 Communications, Inc., Jeff K. Storey, James O. Ellis, Jr.,
Kevin P. Chilton, Steven P. Clontz, Irene M. Esteves, T. Michael
Glenn, Spencer B. Hays, Michael J. Mahoney, Kevin W. Mooney, Peter
Seah Lim Huat & Peter Van Oppen, Defendants, represented by Sameer
Nitanand Advani -- sadvani@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher
& Tariq Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr &
Gallagher.

Dean Houser, Objector, represented by Francis A. Bottini, Jr. --
mail@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini & Bottini, Inc..


LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Lexicon" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LXRX) and certain of its officers and directors.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-00301, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lexicon securities between March
11, 2016 and January 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lexicon securities between
March 11, 2016, and January 17, 2019, you have until April 1, 2019,
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Lexicon was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in The Woodlands,
Texas.  Lexicon is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for
the treatment of human diseases.

"Sotagliflozin" is the scientific name of one of Lexicon's
orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates under development.
Sotagliflozin is in Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of
type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In November 2015, Lexicon entered into a collaboration and license
agreement with Sanofi S.A. ("Sanofi"), a French multinational
pharmaceutical company.  Under the collaboration and license
agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an exclusive, worldwide,
royalty-bearing right and license to develop, manufacture and
commercialize Sotagliflozin.  Lexicon is responsible for all
clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes and
retains an exclusive option to co-promote and have a significant
role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of
Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United
States.  Sanofi is responsible for all clinical development and
commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 2
diabetes worldwide and is solely responsible for the
commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1
diabetes outside the United States.

On May 22, 2018, Sanofi filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") for
"Zynquista" (the trademarked, commercialized name of Sotagliflozin)
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  The NDA for
Zynquista was based on data from the inTandem clinical trial
program that included three Phase 3 clinical trials (called,
respectively, "inTandem1," "inTandem2," and "inTandem3") assessing
the safety and efficacy of Zynquista in approximately 3,000 adults
with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes.

According to Jorge Insuasty, Senior-Vice President, Global Head of
Development, Sanofi, "[i]f approved, Zynquista would be the first
oral antidiabetic drug approved in the U.S. for use by adults with
type 1 diabetes, in combination with insulin."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data from Lexicon's Phase 3
clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin
in treating type 1 diabetes were not as positive as Lexicon
represented; (ii) the health risks posed by Sotagliflozin were
severe enough to threaten its FDA approval prospects; and (iii) as
a result, Lexicon's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the Endocrinologic and
Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA (the "Advisory
Committee") had "voted eight to eight on the question of whether
the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product] Zynquista
(sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval."

On news of the Advisory Committee's stalemate, Lexicon's stock
price fell $1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to close at $5.96 per share
on January 18, 2019.

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


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that
the plaintiff in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, has asked
the court for leave to amend the complaint.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL)
charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by
the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety. On February 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint.

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Hanks Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that
The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to
defend a class action suit in New York.

Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY")
and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on
LLANY on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff’s policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and
administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct
related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched
as a result.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQGS: MHLD)
Class Period: March 4, 2014 - November 9, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 12, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/maiden-holdings-ltd-loss-form?wire=3

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the quality and nature of Maiden's underwriting and
risk management policies and practices and the risks of its
reinsurance portfolio. In particular, defendants misleadingly
claimed that they were subjecting AmTrust's insurance portfolio to
robust analysis and cross-checks to ensure that the Company had
appropriately priced the risk of reinsuring AmTrust's insurance
portfolio. In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient
underwriting and risk management protocols and had largely
abdicated its responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the
Company.

To learn more about the Maiden Holdings, Ltd. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


MAMMOTH ENERGY: LeJeune Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
EJ LeJeune, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra
Energy and Espada Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00286 (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute ("PRWPS").

Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week. However, the Defendants
failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated workers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a paramedic for Defendants from February 2018
until February 2019 in Puerto Rico.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy is an Oklahoma
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            rschreiber@mybackwages.com

          - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MARKET AMERICA: Zou Sues over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Market America, Inc and their
cohorts. The case is captioned Zou et al, all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Market America, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-01282-NC (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2019).  The Plaintiffs accuse
Market America of engaging in affinity fraud -- a recurring form of
fraud that preys upon members of identifiable groups, such as
religious or ethnic communities.

The Defendants run an illegal pyramid scheme.  The Defendants take
money in return for the right to sell products that they do not
even manufacture, and reward for recruiting other participants into
the pyramid.  The Defendants use the allure and sourcing of name
brand products to prop up the pyramid scheme.

Market America, Inc. is a North Carolina Corporation that operates
and manages the pyramid scheme in California, and its principal
place of business is in Monterey, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
     LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
     433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310)-279-5269
     Facsimile: (310)-300-0267
     E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

          - and -

     Daren M. Schlecter, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAREN M. SCHLECTER, APC
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 830
     Los Angeles, CA 90067


MARTIN BROTHERS: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Martin Brothers Insurance
Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00870 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Martin Brothers Insurance Services operates as Fast Start Insurance
and Financial Services, an insurance company. Abante Rooter and
Plumbing is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California. Abante claims to have received calls from the Defendant
using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services.
[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


MASSILIA INC: Melissinou Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA MELISSINOU and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. MASSILIA, INC., d/b/a CASIMIR FRENCH BISTRO, a Florida
for-profit corporation, and LAURENT DI MEGLIO, individually, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80350 (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation under
Florida's Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Massilia, Inc., doing business as Casimir French Bistro, is a
Florida for-profit corporation located and transacting business in
Boca Raton, Florida.  The Individual Defendant is the owner of the
Company.

Casimir is headquartered and operates its principal location at 416
Via De Palmas, Suite 81, in Boca Raton, Florida.  Casimir is a
modern French bistro and restaurant that has been operating in Palm
Beach County, Florida since at least 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATRIX WARRANTY: Accused by Makaron of Making Illegal Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MAKARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATRIX WARRANTY SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a THE ELEMENT and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:19-cv-01798 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of negligently contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related
regulations, thereby, invading his privacy.

Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., doing business as The Element, is
a warranty protection company.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Solak Balks at Merger Deal with Tesla
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOLAK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD
BERGMAN, STEVE BILODEAU, JӦRG BUCHHEIM, FRANZ J. FINK, BURKHARD
GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, JOHN MUTCH, TESLA, INC., and CAMBRIA
ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00448-UNA (D.
Del., March 4, 2019), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction and
compel the Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties
to Maxwell stockholders, and in the event the proposed transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from violation of the
federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. The action arises out of a proposed tender offer, which was
announced on February 4, 2019, pursuant to which Maxwell will be
acquired by Tesla, Inc. and Cambria Acquisition Corporation in a
deal valued at approximately $218 million. The tender offer is set
to expire on March 19, 2019 at 11:59 p.m. and in a stock for stock
exchange.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were disclosed to
stockholders in a February 4, 2019, filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger. The Merger Agreement provides that
Maxwell will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla,
and Maxwell stockholders will receive shares of Tesla common stock
valued at approximately $4.50 for each share of Maxwell common
stock they own. The Merger Agreement further provides that the
exact valuation will be based upon the quotient obtained by
dividing $4.75 by a volume weighted average price of one share of
Tesla common stock for the five consecutive trading days preceding
the expiration of the tender offer period, rounded to four decimal
places.

As required under the securities laws, on February 20, 2019,
Maxwell filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 (the "14D-9") with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction, which included certain financial information
concerning the Company and the process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction. On the same day, Tesla filed a Registration Statement
on Schedule S-4 (the "S-4," together with the "14D-9" the "Proxy
Materials") with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction.

The Proposed Transaction is unfair to Maxwell shareholders for
myriad reasons. First, the 14D-9 details how the "sales process"
was done hastily, and that the Board was focused on selling the
Company only to Tesla.

Second, traditional fiduciary measures -- such as a special
committee and market checks -- were undertaken only after Tesla had
made several bids and went so far as to threaten to end its
customer relationship with Maxwell should the Company not accept
its offer to purchase it on Tesla's terms.

Third, it appears that the Proposed Transaction was structured to
benefit the Board and senior management by allowing them to receive
significant and immediate benefits. Certain Directors and other
insiders will be the recipients of lucrative change-in-control
agreements, triggered upon the termination of their employment as a
consequence of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction.

Finally, Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient
Proxy Materials on February 20, 2019 with the SEC in an effort to
solicit stockholders to tender their Maxwell shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Materials omit and/or misrepresent
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for
management; (b) the financial projections for Maxwell and Tesla,
provided by Maxwell and Tesla to the Company's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays") for use in its financial
analyses; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions
provided by Barclays.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Maxwell
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Tesla without regard for Maxwell public
stockholders, the lawsuit says.

Maxwell Technologies is an American developer and manufacturer
headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, 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 -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311

MDL 2672: Court Denies 7 Remand Motions in VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 1029, 1281, 1370, 1398, 1747, 2003, 2760
Richardson v. VWGoA, No. 3:16-cv-0709-CRB, Dkt. No. 9, 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.

Before the Court approved the 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter class
settlements, it stayed all pending motions to remand actions in the
MDL to state court or to the transferor district courts.  The stay
was entered so that members of the putative settlement classes
could consider the terms of the settlement agreements.

After approving the 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter class settlements, the
Court, on July 20, 2017, issued Pretrial Order ("PTO") No. 23.
There, it lifted the stay on any remaining motions to remand and
instructed the Plaintiffs who had previously filed a motion to
remand, and who intended to pursue the motion, to re-notice the
motion by Aug. 11, 2017.  The Court further explained if a
Plaintiff who previously filed a remand motion does not re-notice
his or her motion by August 11, the Court will dismiss the motion.

More than 60 motions to remand were re-noticed or filed for the
first time after PTO No. 23.  But a number of Plaintiffs who had
filed remand motions prior to PTO No. 23 did not re-notice their
motions by Aug. August 11, 2017, as PTO No. 23 instructed.  Those
filed but not re-noticed remand motions include the following: ECF
Nos. 1029, 1281, 1370, 1398, 1747, 2003, 2760, and Richardson, ECF
No. 9.
Because these motions were not re-noticed, as the Court instructed
in PTO No. 23, Judge Breyer denied them.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KG1Nut 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.


MENDOZA FARM: Faces Uranga Labor Suit in Fresno County
------------------------------------------------------
A representative action complaint has been filed against Mendoza
Farm Labor Contracting, Inc.  The case is captioned as, GOMELIA
URANGA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. MENDOZA FARM LABOR CONTRACTING, INC., a
California Company; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Case No.
19CECG00851 (Cal. Super., Fresno County, March 8, 2019). Uranga
seeks civil penalties over alleged California Labor Code
violations.

Mendoza Farm Labor Contracting, Inc. is a registered farm labor
contractor based in Fresno County California and licensed to do
business in the state of California. [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
Tel: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
       fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
       mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
       bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Pinto, writing for Gothamist, reports that a leading New York
civil rights law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn
against the warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center, seeking a
class action that would represent the more than 1,000 people housed
in the federal jail's West Building during the week it went without
power or adequate heat in January and February of this year.

Today's complaint was filed on behalf of two men locked up at MDC
during the crisis.

David Scott, a 60-year-old Queens man, was awaiting his trial at
MDC when the power went out, and he spent a week with only
underwear, a T-shirt, socks, and a short-sleeve cotton jumpsuit to
wear as vents blew cold air into his unlit cell, according to the
complaint. The lawsuit alleges that Scott repeatedly sought medical
attention for numbness in his hand, a fungal infection on his skin,
and an abscess, but was ignored, even days after the judge
presiding in his case specifically ordered jail staff to treat his
conditions.

The other plaintiff, Jeremy Cerda, a 25-year-old Queens man, spent
the week of the blackout on the jail's intake unit, where he had
recently arrived after failing to find employment, one of the
conditions of his bond. Cerda suffers from depression and anxiety,
according to the complaint, and after five days in a dark and
unheated cell, with only brown and stinking water to drink and his
toilet frequently not functioning, he began to think about hurting
himself.

"Warden [Herman] Quay left more than a thousand men isolated in
dark and freezing conditions for nearly a week, with limited access
to medical care and hot food and water, without attorney or family
visitation, and cut off from access to the CorrLinks telephone and
email systems," the lawsuit alleges. "Quay's failings were
legion."

Not only did Quay fail to take steps to improve conditions in the
jail, according to the lawsuit, he and his team repeatedly lied
about them. In so doing, the lawsuit claims, Quay violated the
Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights of the men detained at the jail.

The suit is brought by Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, which has
a long history of litigation surrounding conditions in the city
jails on Rikers Island. A class action suit brought by the firm,
along with the Legal Aid Society, Ropes and Dunn, and ultimately
the U.S. Department of Justice, led to a 2015 consent decree
mandating sweeping reforms at Rikers.

"Wardens must provide the people in their jails with a minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities—adequate safety, food,
warmth, exercise, hygiene, and medical care," the lawsuit states.
"These are some of the most basic conditions of confinement the
Constitution requires. These standards define a civilized society.
While jails need not be comfortable, they must provide decent,
humane conditions for the people who live there."

The Bureau of Prisons, which runs the Metropolitan Detention
Center, declined to comment on the suit.

The lawsuit joins another one filed three weeks ago by the Federal
Defenders of New York in the Eastern District over the jail's
refusal during the crisis to allow people to speak to their
lawyers. The Federal Defenders are asking for a court-appointed
special master to oversee the jail's treatment of people in its
custody. Conditions at the jail have also been the subject of
numerous other court hearings in recent weeks, including one in
which Judge Analise Torres personally toured the facility with a
court reporter, documenting the inhumane conditions she found
there.

Under public pressure and at the urging of legislators, the
Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General has also
begun an investigation into how Quay and other jail officials
handled the power outage, but given the long history of the
Inspector General issuing sternly-worded reports about conditions
at MDC with little apparent improvement, many suspect that the best
hope for real change lies with the courts. [GN]


MOLSON COORS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that class action lawsuits
have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
District of Illinois and the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Molson
Coors Brewing Company (NYSE: TAP) securities between February 14,
2017 and February 11, 2019 (the "Class Period").  Investors have
until April 16, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
misstated Molson's financial condition in filings with the SEC,
while falsely representing that Molson's financial statements
complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
that its internal controls were effective.

If you purchased Molson securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


MOLSON COORS: Pawar Law Group Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Molson
Coors Brewing Company (NYSE: TAP) from February 14, 2017 through
February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Molson Coors investors under the
federal securities laws.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 16,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/molson-coors-brewing-company/or to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Vik Pawar of Pawar Law Group toll free at
888-589-9804 or via email at info@pawarlawgroup.com.

The complaint asserts that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Molson Coors failed
to properly reconcile the outside basis deferred income tax
liability for Molson Coors' investment in its MillerCoors, LLC
partnership; (2) consequently, Molson Coors misreported net income
in its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years
ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, resulting in an
overall downward revision to net income; (3) Molson Coors lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Molson Coors' business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. [GN]



MR COOPER GROUP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Jordan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case,
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, are currently seeking
approval of the settlement from the court.

The company is a defendant in a class action proceeding originally
filed in state court in March 2012, and then removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under
the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of Washington borrowers and
challenges property preservation measures the company took, as loan
servicer, after the borrowers defaulted and the company's vendors
determined that the borrowers had vacated or abandoned their
properties.

The case raises claims for (i) common law trespass, (ii) statutory
trespass, and (iii) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act, and seeks recovery of actual, statutory, and treble damages,
as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On July 25, 2018, the company entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve this matter. The parties are currently seeking approval
of the settlement from the court.

The Company is pursuing reimbursement of the settlement payment
from the owners of the loans it serviced, but there can be no
assurance that the Company will prevail with any claims for
reimbursement.

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

Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides servicing, origination, and
transaction-based services related principally to single-family
residences in the United States. The company operates through three
segments: Servicing, Originations, and Xome. The company was
formerly known as WMIH Corp. and changed its name to Mr. Cooper
Group Inc. in October 2018. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. is headquartered
in Coppell, Texas.


MY FINANCIAL: Sued over Alleged Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SILVERMAN and AMANDA LISCHKE on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MY FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, MIRABELLA GROUP, INC. d/b/a FIVE MARKETING GROUP
and ANGELA MIRABELLA, the Defendants., Case No. 1:19-cv-10477-JGD
(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 committed by the Defendants.

According to the complaint, Ms. Mirabella owns and operates a
series of companies, including My Financial Solutions, LLC and
Mirabella Group. These companies, at Ms. Mirabella's direction,
made automated telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers of
the Plaintiffs which is prohibited by the TCPA.

The Plaintiffs never consented to receive the calls, which were
placed to them for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing
campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even
millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons
who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of
Defendants.

The Defendants' strategy for generating new customers involves the
use of an automatic telephone dialing system to solicit business.
The Defendants uses ATDSs that have the capacity to store or
produce telephone numbers to be called, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          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 -

          Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
          Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
          CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
          188 Oaks Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

NANTKWEST INC: April 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a hearing is scheduled
for April 29, 2019, to consider final approval of the settlement of
the securities class action suit entitled, Sudunagunta v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al.

In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No.
16‑cv‑01947 was filed in federal district court for the Central
District of California related to the Company's restatement of
certain interim financial statements for the periods ended June 30,
2015 and September 30, 2015. A number of similar putative class
actions were filed in federal and state court in California.

The actions originally filed in state court were removed to federal
court and the various related actions have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015
through March 11, 2016.

In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint. On August 13, 2018, the
district court granted plaintiffs' motions for class certification
and to strike plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5. On August 24, 2018, at the district
court's direction, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated
complaint.

On August 27, 2018, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit to authorize interlocutory appeal of the
class certification order. On September 7, 2018, defendants
answered the fourth amended consolidated complaint.

On September 21, 2018, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that
they had reached a settlement in principle, and the parties moved
to stay appellate proceedings. On September 24, 2018, the parties
notified the district court that they had reached a settlement in
principle.

On November 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and notice to class members.
On January 9, 2019, the district court granted the motion for
preliminary approval. A final approval hearing is scheduled for
April 29, 2019

NantKwest, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy company, develops
immunotherapeutic treatments for cancer and viral infectious
diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Conkwest, Inc. and changed its name to NantKwest, Inc. in July
2015. NantKwest, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


NCAA: Busbee Seeks Damages Over Student-Athlete's Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Busbee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00728 (S.D. Ind., February 18,
2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Busbee played football at the University of South Florida from 2005
to 2010. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as
countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. Busbee now suffers from emotional instability, loss of
impulse control, loss of inhibition, loss of concentration and
short-term memory loss.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Busbee alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Former UND Football Player Files Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Mook, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports that a former
UND football player has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
NCAA for its "reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of UND student-athletes" because the NCAA did not adopt
concussion protocol until 2010.

The suit was filed on Feb. 18 in the Southern District of Indiana
on behalf of "all individuals who participated in UND's football
program between 1952 and 2010" by former UND player Mark Helminiak.
Helminiak, who lives in Wisconsin, played football at UND from 1986
to 1988.

The lawsuit is one of hundreds being filed against the NCAA related
to concussion protocols. The players are represented by law firms
from across the country, including Raizner Slania LLP in Houston
and Edelson PC in Chicago. The firms have filed similar lawsuits
against the NCAA and individual colleges.

The suit claims Helminiak suffered from "numerous concussions," as
well as "countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice
and gameplay."

The lawsuit goes on to say that since the inception of UND's
football program, through at least 2010, "there were no adequate
concussion management protocols or policies in place to address and
treat concussions sustained by student-athletes during practice and
in games."

The concussion protocols were updated in 2010, requiring teams to
remove student-athletes from games or practice if they exhibit
signs or symptoms consistent with a concussion. The new protocol
also requires the athlete not to return to activity that day.

Helminiak claims that when he or other players experienced a
significant head injury or concussion, "they would quickly be
returned to the field of play or only be taken out of play or
practice for an inadequate period of time."

"In fact, although Plaintiff Helminiak sustained repetitive serious
blows to the head in practices and games for the NCAA's profit, the
NCAA failed to adopt or implement adequate concussion management
safety protocols or return to play guidelines during his time on
UND's football team," the suit reads.

Helminiak says that as a result of lack of concussion protocols he
now suffers from issues including but not limited to fatigue,
irritability, memory loss and suicidal thoughts.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount money for the players,
including dollars for "past, present and future medical expenses."
The suit also seeks compensation for other "out of pocket expenses,
lost time and interest, lost future earnings and all other damages
suffered," including any further damages.[GN]


NCAA: Tant Sues over Safety of Northwestern Student-Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------
JAY TANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and Northwestern COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01881 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of Northwestern University
student-athletes.

While in school, Northwestern football players were under
Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the
off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of
their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of
scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain
injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant
failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and
other Northwestern football players from the long-term dangers
associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Northwestern football players suffered brain and
other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Attia Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the court has issued
an order granting final approval of the settlement and entered
final judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by Holly Attia.

The Company has several wage and hour putative class action matters
pending in California. The earliest, filed in December 2015 and
amended in February 2016, was filed against The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. by Holly Attia and seven other named plaintiffs,
seeking to certify a class of non-exempt employees for alleged
violations for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to timely pay wages due at termination and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for restitution under
California unfair competition law and a representative claim for
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), and all related damages for alleged violations
(restitution, statutory penalties under PAGA, and attorneys' fees,
interest and costs of suit).

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in March 2016, and the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration and requested to stay the PAGA claim.
In June 2016, the court granted the motion and compelled
arbitration of the individual claims. The court retained
jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and stayed that claim pending the
outcome of arbitration.

In October 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the arbitration decision based on a recent
decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Morris v. Ernst &
Young, LLP, and reversed its order compelling arbitration. The
Company appealed. The parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this case, subject to court approval. The motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the court on
July 24, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the district court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

On February 25, 2019, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. The
associated appeal has been administratively closed due to the
pending settlement of the underlying action.

A PAGA representative action filed by Xuan Hien Nguyen asserting
the same factual allegations as the plaintiff in Attia was resolved
in connection with the Attia settlement, as Nguyen and her claims
were amended into Attia. On March 4, 2019, the Nguyen case was
dismissed with prejudice.

A PAGA representative action filed by Milca Connolly asserting
substantially identical claims and a putative class and
representative action filed by Ondrea Roces and Sophia Ahmed
seeking to certify a class of current and former sales associates
for alleged failure to pay wages for all hours worked,
recordkeeping and wage statement violations, and failure to timely
pay wages due at termination have been stayed pending the
settlement approval process in Attia.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Proceedings over Class Action Waiver Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the remanded portion
of the lawsuit related to the Company's Arbitration Agreement and
class action waiver is still pending before the National Labor
Relations Board.

In August 2015, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB")
affirmed an administrative law judge's recommended decision and
order finding that the Company's Arbitration Agreement and class
action waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").

The company filed its petition for review of the NLRB's order with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This case has been
stayed while another similar case has been pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was decided on May 21, 2018 and held that
class action waivers in arbitration agreements are lawful under the
NLRA and must be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 1, 2018, the NLRB filed a motion to remove this case from
abeyance, grant the company's petition for review regarding the
class action waiver issue consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision, and remand the remainder of the case to the NLRB.

On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
granted the NLRB's motion, and the remanded portion of the case is
pending before the NLRB.

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

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in Lopez Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the parties in the
putative class action lawsuit filed by Victor Lopez have reached a
settlement among all parties.

On October 27, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, and
Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Victor Lopez, an allegedly
visually-impaired and legally blind individual, in connection with
his visits to Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.'s website.

Mr. Lopez alleges, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, that Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.'s website is not fully and
equally accessible to legally blind individuals, resulting in
denial of access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
State and City Human Rights Laws. The defendant Companies filed a
joint answer denying the claims.

The parties have reached a settlement among all parties.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Status Conference in Cyber-Attack Set for April 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that a status conference
in the Cyber-Attack Class Actions Litigation has been set for April
12, 2019.

In January 2014, three class actions relating to a cyber-attack on
the company's computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were
filed and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs between
February and April 2014.

The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and other claims in
connection with their purchases by payment cards and sought
monetary and injunctive relief.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the
Cyber-Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases were voluntarily
dismissed.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was
filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint, and the
court granted the Company's motion on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, remanding
the case back to the district court.

The Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied. The Company filed a motion
for dismissal on other grounds, which the court denied.

The parties jointly requested, and the court granted, an extension
of time for filing a responsive pleading, which was due on December
28, 2016. On February 9, 2017, the court denied the parties'
request for another extension of time, dismissed the case without
prejudice, and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to
reinstate.

On March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate, which the
court granted on March 16, 2017. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class action
settlement resolving this action, which the court granted on June
21, 2017. On August 21, 2017, plaintiffs moved for final approval
of the proposed settlement.

In September 2017, purported settlement class members filed two
objections to the settlement, and plaintiffs and the Company filed
responses to the objections on October 19, 2017.

At the fairness hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court ordered
supplemental briefing on the objections. Objectors filed a
supplemental brief in support of their objections on November 9,
2017, and plaintiffs and the Company filed their supplemental
responses to the objections on November 21, 2017.

On January 16, 2018, an order was issued by the District Court
reassigning the case to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman due to the
prior judge's retirement. On September 17, 2018, Judge Coleman
denied final approval of the proposed settlement and decertified
the settlement class.

Judge Coleman has set a status conference for this matter for April
12, 2019.

Neiman Marcus said, "At this point, we are unable to predict the
developments in, outcome of or other consequences related to this
matter."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. It sells its products through stores and online sales
channels under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, MyTheresa, Last
Call, and Horchow brand names. The company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of
Mariposa Intermediate Holdings Llc.


NEW BALANCE: Schneider Wallace Discloses Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and The Wand Law Firm, P.C. regarding
the New Balance "Made in USA" Class Action Settlement.

Dashnaw, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No.
3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB. SUMMARY CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT NOTICE. A
federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

You may be a class member if you purchased at least one pair of
eligible New Balance shoe models labeled as "Made in USA" from
December 27, 2012 through January 24, 2019 in California. A list of
eligible shoe models can be found at www.shoesettlement.com.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

This lawsuit claims that New Balance violated certain consumer
protection laws in the marketing, labeling, and sale of its "Made
in USA" Shoes. New Balance denies it did anything wrong. The court
did not decide which side was right. Instead, the parties decided
to settle.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Monetary Compensation

The settlement will provide a fund of $750,000 that, subject to
court approval, will be used to pay (i) valid and approved claims
submitted by class members; (ii) the costs and expenses associated
with this Notice and claims administration; and (iii) enhancement
payments to named plaintiffs for their assistance in this lawsuit
on behalf of the class. If these payments are approved by the
court, it is estimated that $515,000 will be available to satisfy
the claims of class members. The maximum payment to each class
member is $10 for each pair of qualifying shoes, with a maximum of
$50 per person and $100 per household. The amount may decrease pro
rata, if the total number of valid claims exceeds $515,000.

Changes to Business Practices
Under the settlement, New Balance must change the way it labels its
shoes as "Made in USA."

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

To get a payment under the settlement, you must submit a claim form
that includes information about your purchase of qualifying shoes.
Claim forms can be found at www.shoesettlement.com.

Claim Forms must be submitted no later than June 6, 2019 online at
www.shoesettlement.com or by mail to Heffler Claims Group, Re:
Dashnaw, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., P.O. Box 42220,
Philadelphia, PA 19101-2220.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

If you purchased a qualifying pair of shoes, you may (1) do
nothing; (2) send in your claim; (3) exclude yourself; and/or (4)
object to the settlement.

If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment from the
settlement, however, you will be bound by the settlement's release
and waiver of claims summarized below in the paragraph titled "What
Do You Give up If You Stay in the Class?"

If you want to receive a payment from the settlement, you must send
in your claim as instructed above. You will be bound by the
settlement's release and waiver of claims summarized below in the
paragraph titled "What Do You Give up If You Stay in the Class?"

If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you must submit a
form that states you want to be excluded from this class action
lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you will not get a payment from
the settlement, but you will preserve all rights to sue New Balance
on your own.

Exclusion forms can be found at www.shoesettlement.com. They must
be submitted no later than June 6, 2019 online at
www.shoesettlement.com or by mail to Heffler Claims Group, Re:
Dashnaw, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., P.O. Box 42220,
Philadelphia, PA 19101-2220.

If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the settlement or
any part of it. Even if you object, you can still receive payment
from the settlement, if you timely submit your claim. If you wish
to object, you should file your objection with the court no later
than June 14, 2019. For instructions about how to object, refer to
the section below titled "How Can You Get More Information?"

WHAT DO YOU GIVE UP IF YOU STAY IN THE CLASS?

If you do not exclude yourself, by doing nothing, submitting a
claim form, or objecting to the settlement, you will give up your
right to sue New Balance on your own for any claims based on the
qualifying shoe purchases.

The complete Release and Waiver of Claims provision is included in
the Amended Settlement Agreement. For instructions to access it,
refer to the section below, titled "How Can You Get More
Information?"

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The court has appointed Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Aubry Wand of The Wand Law Firm, P.C. to
represent the class for purposes of the settlement. You have the
right to retain your own attorney to represent you in this lawsuit
at your own expense, or represent yourself without an attorney. Any
class member who does not enter an appearance through an attorney
or on his or her own behalf will automatically be represented by
class counsel.

THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING on July 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, before the Honorable M. James Lorenz in Courtroom 5B,
Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, located at 221 West Broadway,
San Diego, California 92101. The court will consider certification
of this lawsuit as a class action for settlement purposes, whether
to approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and whether to grant the motion for attorneys' fees and
costs of up to $650,000 to class counsel, and enhancement payments
of up to $5,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs for their
assistance in this lawsuit on behalf of the class. The motion for
attorneys' fees and costs and enhancement payments will be
available for review before you decide whether to exclude yourself
or object. For instructions on how to access it, refer to the
section below, titled "How Can You Get More Information?" You may
appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. If you do not appear,
you will be represented by class counsel.

The court may change the date and/or time of the hearing and/or the
matter may be submitted on the briefs without further notice. If
you are planning to attend, you should confirm the date and time in
advance.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

For more information, and to obtain copies of the full-length
notice of the class action settlement, the Amended Settlement
Agreement and other documents filed in this lawsuit;

         Contact:
         Toll free: (844) 271-4789
         Website: www.shoesettlement.com

Or write to:
         
         The Class Counsel
         Heffler Claims Group
         Re: Dashnaw, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.
         P.O. Box 42220, Philadelphia
         PA 19101-2220  [GN]


NEWELL BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
a consolidated class action suit in New Jersey, entitled, In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC).

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24,
2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case. The operative complaint
alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among
other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not
specified the amount of damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Issues Order on Dismissal Bids in Powell
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD E. POWELL, et al., as trustees of The United
Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund,
on behalf of that plan and other similarly situated benefit plans,
Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 18-CV-1951 (VSB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i)
granted in part Assurant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint; (ii) converted Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions to
dismiss to motions for summary judgment with respect to the two
threshold merits issues identified, and denied them otherwise; (ii)
denied the Defendants' remaining motions to dismiss; however, are
granted leave to re-file with respect to any arguments not
specifically disposed of in the Opinion & Order, following ruling
on Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Powell, Robert O'Toole, Robert Wilson, Brian Jordan,
Donald G. Schaper, and William R. Seehafer, as trustees of The
United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension
Fund bring the purported class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Defendants Ocwen
Financial Corp., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Ocwen Mortgage
Servicing, Inc. ("Ocwen"); Altisource Solutions, Inc., REALHome
Services and Solutions, Inc., Altisource Online Auctions, Inc.
("ASPS Subsidiaries"); Altisource Residential Corp; Altisource
Asset Management Corp. ("AAMC"); Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty
Insurance Co., American Security Insurance Co., Voyager Indemnity
Insurance Co., American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida
("Assurant"); HomeSure Services, Inc., Cross Country Home Services,
Inc., HomeSure of America, Inc., HomeSure of Virginia, Inc.
("HomeSure"); Southwest Business Corp. ("SWBC"); and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants committed
misconduct with respect to the management of residential mortgages
underlying two trusts in which their benefit plan invested.  They
allege claims under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty, in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Sections 1105 and 1109, and for prohibited
transactions, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(b).

The Plaintiffs are six trustees of The United Food & Commercial
Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund ("UFCW Plan").  In
2006, the UFCW Plan acquired Notes issued by two trusts created by
subprime lender American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. ("AHMI") --
AHMI Trust 2004-4 and AHMI Trust 2005-3.  The assets of those
trusts included securitized residential mortgages.  The secured
Notes provided for payment to Noteholders of principal and interest
on the mortgages that were pooled in the AHMI Trusts.  According to
the Plaintiffs, the UFCW Plan's investment provided the Plan with a
"beneficial ownership interest" in the securitized mortgages held
in the AHMI Trusts.

Pursuant to the Servicing Agreements governing the AHMI Trusts,
Defendant Ocwen is the "servicer" of the securitized mortgages in
those trusts.  As master servicer, Wells Fargo was responsible for
supervising and overseeing Ocwen in the performance of its duties
as servicer; Wells Fargo had the power to terminate Ocwen as
servicer for breach of those duties.  Wells Fargo also had a duty
to prosecute legal claims for servicer misconduct on behalf of
investors.

The Plaintiffs allege that since the 2008 financial crisis, Ocwen
has engaged in rampant misconduct and self-dealing in its capacity
as servicer for the AHMI Trusts.  Ocwen's alleged misconduct
includes: (1) failure to apply mortgage payments accurately; (2)
imposition of unauthorized fees; (3) imposition of force-placed
insurance when homeowners had adequate coverage;7 (4) failure to
provide accurate and timely information to homeowners about loss
mitigation services; (5) referral of loans to foreclosure while
homeowners pursued good-faith loan modification efforts; (6)
failure to honor in-process trial loan modifications; (7) provision
of false or misleading reasons for the denial of loan
modifications; (8) improper denial of loan modifications to
eligible homeowners; and (9) filing false documents with courts and
regulatory agencies.

Ocwen's history of forcing homes into foreclosure substantially
devalued the Plaintiffs' investment in the residential mortgages
underlying the AHMI Trusts.  The Plaintiffs further allege that,
despite receiving notice of Ocwen's failure to prudently service
mortgage loans on behalf of investors, Wells Fargo failed to
properly investigate Ocwen's reported misconduct.

Before the Court are the Defendants' eight independent motions to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") for
lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to
Defendants Front Yard and AAMC, and failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Among other things, Judge Broderick finds that to establish
standing to pursue injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate
a "real or immediate threat" of future injury.  Assurant is correct
that the FAC is entirely devoid of allegations of ongoing
wrongdoing by Assurant.  Rather, all allegations corroborate the
notion that Assurant's provision of force-placed insurance to Ocwen
ceased years ago.  Moreover, in 2015, Assurant and Ocwen entered
into a judicially-approved class action settlement in which they
committed to cease the very financial arrangements about which
Plaintiffs now complain.  For both of these reasons, the Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate a likelihood that they will be harmed by
Assurant in the future in a similar way.  He therefore agrees that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief against
Assurant.

He also finds that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), he
must either (1) exclude the numerous exhibits filed by Ocwen and
Wells Fargo in conjunction with their motions to dismiss, which
cast considerable doubt on the Plaintiffs' ability to support these
allegations; or (2) treat Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions not as
motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) but rather as motions
for summary judgment under Rule 56, and allow the parties a
reasonable opportunity to present additional pertinent information.
Because he finds that these documents may shed substantial light
on the threshold factual questions at issue in the litigation, the
Judge exercises his discretion to convert Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's
motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment so that he may
properly consider this additional, probative information.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Broderick granted in part Assurant's
motion to dismiss the FAC to the extent that the Plaintiffs may not
seek prospective relief against Assurant.  He denied in part
Altisource Defendants' motions to dismiss to the extent that they
challenge the Plaintiffs' standing and personal jurisdiction over
Front Yard and AAMC.  He also denied in part Defendants Ocwen's and
Wells Fargo's motions to dismiss to the extent that they challenge
the Plaintiffs' failure to allege that the securities at issue were
not "publicly-offered" or that benefit plan investor participation
in the securities was "significant."  He further denied in part
Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss to the extent it alleges that the
Trust Indentures' "no action" clauses bar the Plaintiffs' lawsuit.

The Judge converted Defendants Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions to
dismiss the FAC,to motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 with respect to the following two
issues: (1) whether the underlying mortgages in the AHMI Trusts
qualify as "plan assets" of the UFCW Plan; and, if so, (2) whether
Ocwen qualifies as a fiduciary of the UFCW Plan.  The Plaintiffs,
Ocwen, and Wells Fargo are directed to meet and confer regarding
the scope of and schedule for limited discovery on these two
threshold issues.  Within 30 days of the date of this Opinion &
Order, they will submit a proposed Case Management Plan outlining
their proposed schedule for limited discovery and supplemental
briefing relating to Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions for summary
judgment.

Because resolution in the Defendants' favor of either of the
threshold merits issues raised by Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions
would dispose of the action in its entirety, the Judge denied
without prejudice the remaining portions of the Defendants' motions
to dismiss the FAC, with leave to re-file following the disposition
of Ocwen's and Wells Fargo's motions for summary judgment.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at Docs. 88, 90, 93, 94, 98, 99, 103, and 105.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/MYkwJy from Leagle.com.

Ronald E. Powell, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial
Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, Robert O'Toole, as
Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers
Midwest Pension Fund, Robert Wilson, as Trustee of The United Food
& Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, Brian
Jordan, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union &
Employers Midwest Pension Fund, Donald G Schaper, as Trustee of The
United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension
Fund & William R. Seehafer, as Trustee of The United Food &
Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund,
Plaintiffs, represented by Justin Silver Brooks, Guttman Buschner &
Brooks PLLC, Aaron Lee Brody -- jbrody@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull &
Brody, David Charles Harrison -- DHARRISON@LOWEY.COM -- Lowey
Dannenberg P.C., Elizabeth Hardeman Shofner --
lshofner@gbblegal.com -- Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC, Michael
Jason Klein , Stull Stull & Brody, Scott Vincent Papp, Lowey
Dannenberg P.C. & Barbara J. Hart -- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey
Dannenberg P.C.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC & Ocwen
Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Defendants, represented by Aaron Michael
Rubin -- amrubin@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Claudia Wilson Frost -- cfrost@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Kenneth Patrick Herzinger -- kherzinger@orrick.com
-- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Richard Andre Jacobsen, Jr.
-- Rjacobsen@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP &
Thomas Nill Kidera, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Altisource Residential Corporation & Altisource Asset Management
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Joseph De Simone, Mayer
Brown LLP, Kevin Charles Kelly, Mayer Brown LLP & Paul Whitfield
Hughes, Mayer Brown LLP.

Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, American
Security Insurance Company, Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company &
American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Defendants,
represented by Katherine Leigh Villanueva, Drinker Biddle & Reath,
LLP, Brian Patrick Perryman, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Frank G.
Burt, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice & William Glenn
Merten, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

HomeSure Services, Inc., Cross Country Homes Services, Inc.,
HomeSure of America, Inc. & Homesure Protection of Virginia Inc.,
Defendants, represented by David John Fioccola, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Jessica Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Robert James Baehr,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Evan Miller,
Jones Day, Howard Fredrick Sidman, Jones Day & Rebekah B.
Kcehowski, Jones Day.

Altisource Solutions, Inc., REALHome Services and Solutions, Inc. &
Altisource Online Auctions, Inc., Defendants, represented by Joel
M. Miller, Miller & Wrubel, P.C., Charles Richard Jacob, III,
Miller & Wrubel, P.C. & Isabel Polly Sukholitsky, Goulston & Storrs
PC.

Southwest Business Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Russo, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP.


PREMIER CC: Medina Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Medina, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier CC, an unknown
business entity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19STCV05444 was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 20, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02091.

Plaintiff's Complaint asserts minimum wage and overtime claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Barry Y. Freeman, Esq.
     BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE & BURROUGHS, LLC
     One Cleveland Center
     1375 East Ninth Street, Suite 1700
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: 216.736.4223
     Facsimile: 216.615.3023

          - and -

     Kurt M. Varricchio, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KURT VARRICCHIO
     27651 La Paz Road, Suite 100
     Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
     Phone: 949.830.3501
     Facsimile: 949.830.3508


PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET: Suit Alleges Commercial Premises Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Presidente Supermarket, Inc.
alleging commercial premises liability. The case is captioned G. G.
ET AL vs. PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET NO. 23, INC., Case No.
2019-007881-CA-01 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade County, March 13, 2019).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Michael Hanzman.

Presidente Supermarkets was founded in 1990. Today, it operates
nearly 30 stores from Miami-Dade to Palm Beach County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
     CARLOS J. JIMENEZ LAW OFFICES
     1880 N Congress Ave, Ste 315
     Boynton Beach, FL
     Telephone: 561-253-0434


QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Zwick Partners LP and
Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems,
Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael
J. Culotta, is now in discovery.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the company and certain of its officers.

The Amended Complaint, filed on September 13, 2017, purports to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than
defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016 and alleges that we
and certain of our officers violated federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making alleged false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information
regarding aspects of our business, operations and compliance
policies.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS),
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash.

On June 23, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiff opposed on August 22, 2017. On April 19, 2018, the Court
denied the company'smotion to dismiss, and the company filed its
answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which Defendants opposed on August 31, 2018. The
motion for class certification is currently pending. On September
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding
additional alleged misstatements.

On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the new
allegations, which motion is currently pending.

The case is now in discovery, and the company is vigorously
defending the matter.

Quorum Health said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this
matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss
in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably
estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss
because discovery has only recently started and the case remains in
its early stages. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in
connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be
material."

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in
Brentwood, Tennessee.


RADIO FILM CONNECTION: Moffett Alleges False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Recording Radio Film
Connection, Inc. doing business as Recording Radio Film Connection
& CASA Schools over alleged violation of several laws including the
California False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code,
and Consumer Protection Acts of 50 states and the District of
Columbia.

The case is captioned TEAUSHA MOFFETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RECORDING RADIO
FILM CONNECTION, INC. dba RECORDING RADIO FILM CONNECTION & CASA
SCHOOLS, JAMES PETULLA, an individual, and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV08284 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, March 8,
2019). This case is assigned to Judge Elaine Lu.

Recording Radio Film Connection, Inc. is a corporation
headquartered in Los Angeles, CA. It maintains its principal
business office at 1201 West 5th Street, Suite M130, Los Angeles,
CA 90017 and offers school and externship programs for students in
the music, film, broadcasting, and culinary industry. It also
provides these programs and conducts its marketing through various
affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, and/or aliases. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
Celine Cohan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Tel: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
        mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
        ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com

RADIUS GLOBAL: Crooks Sues Over False Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Crooks, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Radius Global Solutions f/k/a Central
Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00530-GPC-KSC
(S.D. Cal., March 20, 2019) seeks damages and to enjoin the
deceptive business practices of the Defendant for damages arising
out of the Defendant's systematic unauthorized credit inquiries.

At some point prior to October 20, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly owed a
financial obligation to Defendant for collection when it was known
as Central Credit Services, Inc. This obligation arose from a $92
medical bill owed to a third party, LabCorp. Subsequently, but
still before October 20, 2016, the Debt was assigned, placed, or
sold to Defendant for collection purposes. On October 20, 2016,
Plaintiff filed Chapter Seven Bankruptcy and received a discharge
on or around January 21, 2017.

Plaintiff was unaware of the debt at the time of filing bankruptcy,
so it was not listed in his bankruptcy. However, the debt was still
discharged since the bankruptcy was a "no asset" Chapter Seven.
"After such a case has been closed, discharge ability is unaffected
by scheduling".

On February 20, 2017 Defendant pulled Plaintiff's credit report
again. The Defendant stated its permissible purpose was an "account
review", however at this point, there was no account to review and
the Defendant knew or should have known that. It also should have
seen the bankruptcy this time if it accidentally missed it the
first time. the Defendant has made repetitive derogatory reports
against Plaintiff's credit file, each of which was unnecessary,
cumulative, and lacking justification, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City and County of
San Diego, State of California.

Defendant is a limited liability company authorized to do business
in the State of California.[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
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: 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
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


RAVI SANWAL: Denial of McKinney Class Certification Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERNON McKINNEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
RAVI SANWAL et al., Defendants and Respondents (Cal. App.), Judge
Elena J. Duarte of the Court of Appeals of California for the Third
District, San Joaquin, affirmed the trial court's order denying
class certification.

The Adobe Hacienda Apartments consist of 171 residential units in
12 buildings (plus a pool house) on three contiguous parcels.  The
apartments are owned by Defendants Ravi and Manita Sanwal
("Sanwal"), sued individually and as trustees of their living
trust).  The City of Stockton, not a party, brought code
enforcement actions and issued abatement orders based on
inspections allegedly revealing shoddy conditions. The Plaintiffs,
former tenants Vernon McKinney, Theresa Hillman, and Brittani Silva
("McKinney") sued.  They alleged in part that Sanwal collected rent
during a statutory period while failing to remedy the problems and
charged excessive late fees.

McKinney alleged that the City's inspections of the apartment
complex resulted in hundreds of code violations in 2015, some of
which were serious or "habitability" violations.  Sanwal sued the
City in response to the City's enforcement actions, and in February
2016 the City entered into a settlement with Sanwal that in part
agreed all alleged violations had been resolved; the City then
filed a notice of "compliance and satisfaction" covering the
apartments.

As relevant in the case, McKinney's suit is predicated on Sanwal's
collection of rent after a statutory period Sanwal had to remedy
the alleged habitability violations; it is also based on Sanwal's
policy of charging allegedly unlawful late fees, an identical flat
$75 fee for each unit.  The complaint was limited to violations
pertaining solely to "common" areas.

The class certification motion did not embrace all the theories in
the operative complaint.  It proposed a "rent damages" class and a
"late fee" class.  The rent damages class would consist of all
current and former tenants from whom Sanwal collected rents after
the statutory abatement-compliance deadline, in violation of Civil
Code Section 1942.4.  The late fee class would consist of current
and former tenants who paid excessive late fees during a defined
period.

Sanwal in part argued that none of the evidence submitted by
McKinney showed that any Plaintiff had ever actually paid a late
fee, pointing to deposition testimony by Sanwal that late fees were
routinely waived or credited toward rent.  As for the proposed
rental damages claim, Sanwal pointed to evidence that because of
the configuration of the complex, different units had different
access to different alleged "common" areas, therefore
individualized litigation of how each Plaintiff was impacted by
alleged defects would be necessary; in other words, there were few
if any common issues of fact.  Class certification would not
benefit the parties or the court, because there were substantial
individualized issues to be determined; therefore, the case was
more suitable to a regular multiple-plaintiff action or
consolidated actions.

The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the proposed Late
Fee Class lacks ascertainability and numerosity.  The proposed Rent
Damages Class lacks commonality in law and fact; more particularly,
there was no showing that common issues predominate.  Moreover,
there is no substantial benefit for certifying the classes.

McKinney timely appealed from a notice of the order denying
certification.  McKinney appeals from an order denying class
certification.  Generally speaking, McKinney contends the trial
court considered improper factors, improperly weighed the merits of
the alleged claims or defenses in its ruling, and gave insufficient
(or no) consideration to the benefits class certification would
confer on the parties and the judicial system.

Judge Duarte disagrees and will affirm the order denying class
certification.  She finds that even if the trial court was mistaken
about the "ascertainability" of the proposed class, that would not
undermine the validity of the alternate ground (lack of numerosity
of the proposed class) as found in the court's written ruling.

She also finds that to the extent McKinney contends the trial court
did not consider the benefits to the litigants and the court from
class certification, the Judge disagrees.  The court quoted
pertinent authority on this point and repeatedly referenced it in
discussing the contentions of the parties.  Further, under a
"Substantial Benefits" heading, the court explicitly found that
certifying the rental damages claim would not eliminate repetitious
litigation but would likely result in "more litigation (and
expenditure of both Court and tenant's resources) if the tenants
wish to pursue" damages based on flaws solely within their
individual units.  That was a rational and supportable finding
based on the claims and defenses raised, the evidence tendered, and
the probable tactics to be expected by both parties to the
litigation.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Duarte affirmed the order denying
class certification.  McKinney will pay Sanwal's costs of the
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/PIFSQX from Leagle.com.


RE-VI DESIGN: Court Decertifies Kneipp FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN KNEIPP, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RE-VI DESIGN, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-857-slc (W.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Stephen L.
Crocker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin (i) denied Kneipp's motion for class certification under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to
decertify the FLSA collective action.

Plaintiff Kneipp has brought the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin wage laws on behalf of himself
and similarly-situated employees of the Defendant.  In his FLSA
collective action, Kneipp contends that defendant Re-Vi incorrectly
relied on the exemption in 29 U.S.C. Section 207(g)(2) for
employees performing two or more kinds of work and calculated
overtime pay using the hourly rate for the type of work performed
by the employee during his or her overtime hours rather than a
weighted average or blended rate for the different types of work
performed throughout the entire workweek.

Kneipp's state law claims are somewhat different. He contends that:
(1) when an employee took a meal breaks lasting less than 30
minutes, Re-Vi did not compensate the employee for that time or
count the time as time worked for the purpose of computing overtime
pay; (2) Re-Vi calculated overtime pay using the rate for the type
of work performed during overtime hours, rather than the average
straight time (or blended) wage rate earned by the employee during
the workweek; and (3) Re-Vi failed to pay Kneipp prevailing wages
for work he performed on some qualifying projects.


On Aug. 21, 2018, the Court certified the following collective
action with respect to Kneipp's FLSA claim: All hourly Re-Vi
employees who, on or after Nov. 10, 2014, during a workweek had his
overtime pay computed using a straight time (or non-blended) rate,
which was lower than the highest straight time wage rate he
received during the workweek.
Dkt. 27.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 28, 2018, Kneipp filed his motion to certify
the following class with respect to his state law claims concerning
lunch breaks and overtime calculation: All hourly employees who
performed work for Re-Vi on or after Nov. 10th, 2015.  On the same
day, Re-Vi filed a motion to decertify the collective action.

Recognizing that the motion for decertification may be premature
because the opt-in period for putative FLSA class members had not
yet closed, Re-Vi filed an unopposed motion on Oct. 30, 2018,
asking to stay the briefing on its motion and the motion for class
certification until November 2018.  The Court granted that motion
on Nov. 1, 2018, and set new deadlines for Re-Vi to file a response
brief in opposition to Kneipp's motion for class certification and
supplemental arguments in support of its motion to decertify the
FLSA collective action, as well as deadlines for Kneipp's
responses.

On Nov. 20, 2018, Re-Vi responded to Kneipp's motion for class
certification, and filed a second unopposed motion to stay briefing
on the motion for class certification and motion to decertify
pending distribution of the opt-in notice to 10 additional
employees and further discovery.  The Court granted the motion to
stay and extended the parties' briefing deadlines to January 2019.
On Jan. 18, 2019, Kneipp filed a reply brief in support of its
motion for class certification.   However, Re-Vi did not supplement
its motion to decertify the collective action, and Kneipp never
filed a brief in opposition to the original motion to decertify,
presumably because no one opted in to the collective action.

The case now stands in the following posture.  Kneipp is the sole
named Plaintiff and has an individual claim under the FLSA for the
incorrect calculation of overtime pay under the exemption in 29
U.S.C. Section 207(g)(2), an individual prevailing wage claim under
Wisconsin law, and individual and proposed class action claims
related to lunch breaks and overtime calculation under Wisconsin
law.

Kneipp's motion to certify a state law class is fully briefed, and
the putative class consists of almost 160 Re-Vi employees for the
lunch break claim and 39 members for the overtime computation
claim.  Without ruling on the matter, Magistrate Judge Crocker
notes that the parties' briefs show the case for class
certification is not insubstantial.

He finds that regardless whether the Rule 23 requirements are
otherwise satisfied for Kneipp's proposed state law class, he is
denying his motion for class certification because the supplemental
state law class claims would substantially predominate over any
individual FLSA claims.  Re-Vi has not challenged the court's
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to Kneipp's individual
state law claims, and the Magistrate sees no reason to decline to
exercise it.  Therefore, Kneipp may continue to pursue his
individual state law claims in the Court if he chooses to do so.

In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Crocker (i) denied
Kneipp's motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA
collective action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VThCl2 from Leagle.com.

John Kneipp, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law
Firm, S.C.

Re-Vi Design, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith F. Ellison,
Wendorff, Ellison & David, LLP.


RESPOND POWER: Appeal in Gillis Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal
in the Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC, is still pending.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas but was later removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure
statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable rate contracts
with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be
charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers'
local utility company and alleged claims of deceptive conduct in
violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and breach of contract and of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by charging rates above the utility.

The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated
August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The
plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit and that court vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings.  

On July 16, 2018, the district court granted Respond Power LLC's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class action claims. Plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August
7, 2018. The Third Circuit has not yet ruled or set any hearings on
this appeal.

Spark Energy said, "The Company believes it has full indemnity
coverage for any actual exposure in this case at this time."  

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in Houston, Texas.


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on January 31, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Revolution Lighting
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVLT). The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is March 14, 2014 through November 14, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Revolution
Lighting Technologies, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, April
1, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please;

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Miller Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Ron Miller.

On November 8, 2018, Miller, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Massachusetts District Court") against the Company and three
of its former officers, Raymond P. Dolan, Mark T. Greenquist and
Michael Swade (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming to
represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the
period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by Order
dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the Defendants
made misleading forward-looking statements concerning Sonus'
expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance, which
statements were also the subject of the SEC Cease and Desist Order,
whose findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action. Briefing
on the issue was completed on January 30, 2019 and the
Massachusetts District Court is expected to issue a decision
shortly.

Ribbon Communications said, "The Company has not yet filed an
answer, and the Massachusetts District Court has not yet set a
schedule."

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Settlement Reached in Wisconsin Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 11, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that
the parties in the case entitled, In re Roadrunner Transportation
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), have
entered into a binding term sheet agreeing to settle the action for
$20 million, $17.9 million of which will be funded by the company's
directors and officers' insurance carriers.

Following the company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the company and
its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster.

On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the company's common stock
between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive.

The CAC alleges (i) the company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii)
Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the company's former Chairman Scott
Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P.
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to
be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding (a) the accuracy of the
company's financial statements; (b) the company's true earnings and
expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the company's disclosure
controls and controls over financial reporting; (d) the true nature
and depth of financial risk associated with the company's tractor
lease guaranty program; (e) the company's leverage ratios and
compliance with its credit facilities; and (f) the value of the
goodwill the company carried on its balance sheet.

The CAC seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On November 19, 2018, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9 million of
which will be funded by the company's D&O carriers ($4.8 million of
which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers' payment to
the company in connection with the settlement of the Federal
Derivative Action filed by Richard Flanagan in the Circuit Court of
Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin (Case No. 17-cv-004401).

Roadrunner said, "The parties are finalizing the Stipulation of
Settlement. The settlement is conditioned on a settlement of the
Federal Derivative Action, dismissal of the State Derivative
Action, and final court approval of the settlements in this action
and in the Federal Derivative Action."

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload Logistics (TL),
Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics. Roadrunner
Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers Grove,
Illinois.


SAVOUR SICHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Xiaochun Gao, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Savour Sichuan Inc., La Vie En
Szechuan Restaurant Corp., Yi Zhang, Weimin Hong, Dongmei Wei,
Xiaomen Gu, Jane Doe and John Doe #1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02515 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019) is an action brought by
Plaintiffs on their 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 failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 1, 2016
until February 6, 2018, and worked at both Savour Restaurant and
Szechuan Restaurant as waitress.

Defendant Savour Sichuan Inc., was and is a domestic limited
liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hui Chen, Esq.
     Hui Chen and Associates, P.L.L.C.
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 463-2666
     Email: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu


SEARS HOLDINGS: Granted Leave to File Sur-Reply in Kloppel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE KLOPPEL and ADAM WILSON, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, and
HOMEDELIVERYLINK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-6296-FPG (W.D.
N.Y.), Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York (i) granted Sears' motion for
leave to file a sur-reply, which the Court has considered; (ii)
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration regarding Sears'
motion to dismiss; and (iii) denied HomeDeliveryLink ("HDL")'s
motions to certify order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) and to stay proceedings pending the appeal.

Plaintiffs Kloppel and Wilson filed the putative class action on
May 9, 2017, alleging that Defendants violated New York law by,
among other things, misclassifying them as independent contractors
and taking illegal deductions from their wages.  On Feb. 28, 2018,
the Court issued a decision and order granting Sears motion to
dismiss, and granting in part and denying in part HDL's motion to
dismiss.

Before the Court is Sears' motion for leave, the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration, and HDL's Motions to Certify Order for
Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay Proceedings.

With regard to the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Judge
Geraci finds that the Court uses its discretion to deny the
Plaintiffs' motion.  They cite no controlling decisions or data
that the Court overlooked that would alter its conclusion as to
Sears.  Instead, they reference previously-cited cases in support
of an alternate theory allegedly mandating an outcome favorable to
them.  The Court already considered these cases and their attendant
conclusions when deciding Sears's motion to dismiss.  While the
Plaintiffs may have decided the issue differently, that does not
constitute sufficient grounds to grant their motion and reconsider
the Court's conclusion.  Consequently, their motion is denied.

As to the Motions to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and to
Stay Proceedings, he finds that there is no conflicting authority
as to the relevant issue in the case: the scope of the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act's (FAAAA) preemption.
HDL argues that the Court and other courts have analyzed the scope
of the FAAAA's preemption incorrectly.  The Judge finds that HDL
cannot establish the second prong by showing that the Court or
other courts analyzed the issue incorrectly.

HDL also contends that decisions issued by the First and Seventh
Circuits conflict.  It further argues that there is a Circuit split
as to the FAAAA's preemption of claims impacting service.   But
while Centuori explains that there is a Circuit split, it also
explains that most of the Circuits that considered the issue favor
a broad definition4 of "service."  One of those Circuits is the
Second Circuit.  So, a majority of Circuits have settled the issue,
the Second Circuit has considered it, and it is not an issue of
first impression.  The Judge finds that HDL has thus failed to
establish the second prong of Section 1292(b).  He therefore denied
HDL's motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Geraci granted Sears' Motion for
Leave, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, and
denied HDL's Motions to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and
to Stay Proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/fDQp8f from Leagle.com.

Mike Kloppel & Wilson Adam, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony S.
Almeida, The Sattiraju Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin J.
Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice, Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Ravi Sattiraju , The Sattiraju
Law Frim, P.C., pro hac vice, Samuel A. Alba --
sam@legalsurvival.com -- Friedman & Ranzenhofer, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Butcher
-- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Charles Andrewscavage --
CANDREWSCAVAGE@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, P.C. & Rodney O. Personius -- rop@personiusmelber.com --
Personius Melber LLP.


SERVICE KING: Gabriel Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned PHILIP GABRIEL, an individual, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Service King Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 30-2019-01042922-CU-OE-CXC was
removed from the Orange County Superior Court, in Kentucky to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on March 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00556.

Plaintiff seeks restitution for Service King's alleged failure to
authorize and permit all required meal and rest periods. Plaintiff
also alleges that "neither he nor the members of the plaintiff
class were provided meal or rest breaks that are Code compliant",
says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
     Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
     Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
     Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Phone: 858-652-3100
     Facsimile: 858-652-3101
     Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
            tim.johnson@ogletree.com
            jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
            nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com


SHELTER MUTUAL: Whitaker, Baggett Suits Remanded to Ark. State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DONALD K. WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and SAMUEL BAGGETT, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons and entities Plaintiff, Defendant, v.
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case Nos.
2:18-CV-02091, 2:18-CV-02190 (W.D. Ark.), Judge P.K. Holmes, III of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort
Smith Division,

From Jan. 15, 2011 until the present, Shelter has sold automobile
insurance in the State of Arkansas.  The putative class members in
both Whitaker and Baggett purchased automobile insurance policies
from Shelter.

Whitaker alleges that Shelter has violated these laws and
regulations and the medical coverage payment provision in putative
class members' policies by negotiating lower bills directly with
healthcare providers and retaining the difference, rather than
paying the amounts claimed to its insured customers.  Whitaker
seeks to certify a class of Arkansas residents who, from Jan. 15,
2011 onward, purchased a policy of insurance from Shelter; made a
claim for medical expenses under the policy's medical coverage
payment provision; for whom Shelter negotiated a lower bill with
the medical provider that did not exhaust the insured's $5,000
policy limit; and to whom Shelter did not pay the difference.

Baggett alleges that Shelter reduces the amount of benefits it pays
under the medical coverage payment provision to account for amounts
paid by other insurance policies owned by the insured.  Baggett
seeks to certify a class of Arkansas residents who, from March 13,
2013 onward, purchased a policy of insurance from Shelter; made a
claim for medical expenses under the policy's medical coverage
payment provision; and for whom Shelter reduced the amount it paid
under the medical coverage payment provision because of payments
made by another insurance plan.

To determine whether an adequate amount is in controversy in each
case, Shelter reviewed its claims system and obtained a report of
every policy during the class period where a claim was made under
the medical coverage payment provision and the policy limits were
not exhausted, then aggregated that amount, which exceeds $5
million.  Shelter's electronic recordkeeping system is designed in
such a way that Shelter is not able to determine the reason why
full payment was not made on any of those claims without doing an
in-depth claim review.

Before the Court are the two putative class actions against
Shelter.  Both cases were removed pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Plaintiff Whitaker's action was removed to
the Court on May 23, 2018 from the Circuit Court of Logan County,
Arkansas.

He seeks certification of the following class: Residents of the
State of Arkansas who, from Jan. 15, 2011 through the date of
resolution of the action, (a) purchased a policy of insurance from
the Defendant; (b) made a claim for automobile medical payment or
PIP benefits; (c) had their benefits reduced by the defendant's
discounting scheme and (d) failed to exhaust the limits of their
med pay or PIP benefits.

Plaintiff Baggett's action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Sept. 25, 2018 from the
Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and was transferred to
the Court on Nov. 7, 2018 because Shelter is the Defendant in both
Whitaker and Baggett, the classes are similarly defined, and there
is substantial overlap of claims and relief sought.

Baggett seeks certification of the following class: All Arkansas
residents, including Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons
for the period from March 13, 2013 to the present, who have or had
automobile liability insurance with a Med Pay provision issued by
Shelter, and who were denied Med Pay coverage because of payments
made by another insurance plan.

Despite these different class definitions, Shelter's notices of
removal in each case rely on amounts in controversy identified
based on the same internal analysis of claims.  Both cases will be
remanded because Shelter has not demonstrated that the Court can
exercise subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

In Baggett's case, Baggett filed a motion to remand and a brief in
support, and Shelter has filed a response and brief in opposition.
Baggett filed a reply with leave of Court.  In Whitaker's case, no
motion to remand has been filed, but after the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction was raised in Baggett's case, the Court entered
an order in Whitaker's case on Jan. 24, 2019 directing Shelter to
show that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed action.  Shelter has filed its response and brief in
support.  Whitaker did not file a reply.

Whether minimal diversity exists is not in question in either of
these cases.  What is in question is whether Shelter has provided a
plausible explanation for its claimed amount in controversy that
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA is
satisfied.

In each case, Judge Holmes holds that the answer is "no," and the
matters must be remanded.  He finds that Shelter has misidentified
the amount in controversy.  Shelter's jurisdictional allegations
are incorrectly premised on these cases putting into controversy
all medical coverage payment provision claims for which the policy
limits were not exhausted.  Neither the Plaintiff has identified
his putative class in a way that would plausibly put all those
claims into controversy.  Shelter did not even review a sample of
those claims to conduct a statistical analysis of likely reasons
that policy limits were not exhausted.

On the record before the Court, the Judge finds that it is just as
possible that payment on any given claim in Shelter's report did
not exhaust policy limits because the claim was for a small amount
as it is because Shelter negotiated a lower bill from the medical
provider or reduced the benefit paid because some other insurance
policy paid some of the amount claimed.  The amount in controversy
is not established by a preponderance of the evidence if a court
must resort to conjecture, speculation, or star gazing.  Because
Shelter has failed to establish that a sufficient amount is in
controversy for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA,
these matters must be remanded.

Accordingly, in the matter of Whitaker v. Shelter Mutual Insurance
Co., No. 2:18-CV-02091, Judge Holmes remanded the to the Circuit
Court of Logan County, Arkansas.  He terminated all pending
motions.  In the matter of Baggett v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.,
No. 2:18-CV-02190, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Pulaski
County, Arkansas.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/iSUjzz from Leagle.com.

Samuel Baggett, On Behalf of Himself and all Similarly Situated
Persons and Entities, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Mitchell
-- rustymitchell@taylorkinglaw.com -- David S. Mitchell, PA,
Kenneth Jerald Mitchell -- DavidMitchell@DavidMitchellLaw.com --
Taylor King & Associates, P.A., Marcus Neil Bozeman --
mbozeman@thrashlawfirmpa.com -- Thrash Law Firm, P.A. & Thomas P.
Thrash, Thrash Law Firm.

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James
Melton Sayes -- msayes@msslawfirm.com -- Matthews, Sanders & Sayes
& Sarah E. Greenwood -- sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com -- Munson,
Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A..


SOLID BIOSCIENCES: June 24 Status Conference in Lowinger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court in the class
action suit filed by Robert Lowinger has scheduled a status
conference for June 24, 2019.

On March 28, 2018, Robert Lowinger, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, in the Business
Litigation Section of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1884-00984), against the company,
Ilan Ganot, Jennifer Ziolkowski, its directors and certain of the
underwriters in its initial public offering.

The plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of our
common stock in or traceable to our January 25, 2018 initial public
offering and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the alleged
failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and potential
for adverse events related to our lead product candidate.

On April 30, 2018, all defendants including the company moved to
stay the proceedings in favor of the prior-filed federal court
securities class action. The plaintiff filed his opposition to this
motion on May 14, 2018, and defendants filed a reply in support of
their motion on May 24, 2018. After oral argument on June 13, 2018,
the court issued an order on June 22, 2018 allowing the motion to
stay and directing the parties to advise the court of the status of
the federal court action every six months.

On December 21, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report
informing the court of the voluntary dismissal of the federal
actions and of plaintiff's intent to move to vacate the stay. The
court has scheduled a status conference for June 24, 2019.

Solid Biosciences Inc., a life science company, engages in
identifying and developing therapies for duchenne muscular
dystrophy (DMD) in the United States. Solid Biosciences Inc. was
founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI and WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-215-RB-JHR (D. N.M.), Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Kris Terry's expert testimony from
the class certification hearing.

Southland produces natural gas from various "gas only" wells in New
Mexico.  It produces the gas and related natural gas products
pursuant to the lessee's interest it holds in numerous oil and gas
lease agreements that it acquired through assignment from Energen
Resources Corporation on Jan. 1, 2015.  These lease agreements
contain provisions providing that individuals and entities holding
the lessor's interest will be paid royalties on natural gas
production.

The Plaintiffs allege that Southland has improperly calculated
their royalty payments by not basing payments on the actual sale
proceeds of the natural gas products derived from their wells.
Instead, they argue, Southland consistently deducts post-production
costs like treatment (which removes impurities from residue gas to
make it marketable) and processing (which separates out natural gas
liquid products to make them available for sale) from their royalty
payments.  The Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to their lease
agreement language, such "post-production" costs should not be
deducted from royalty payments, which are meant to be calculated
solely on gross profits and not adjusted for the cost of
post-production processing.  They thus allege that Southland
significantly underpays royalties for the sale of natural gas
liquids and residue gas, and are seeking damages in the amount of
the underpayments plus interest, as well as a declaratory judgment
that Southland must calculate royalties without the deduction of
post-production costs.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative
class including all individuals and entities who have been paid
royalties by Southland at any time since Jan. 1, 2015, and hold a
lessor's interest in a lease agreement that contains one of four
different types of royalty payment provisions.

Asserting that the proposed class meets the class certification
requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3), the Plaintiffs have moved to certify their putative class.
The question of certification has not yet been fully briefed, and
the Court will hear arguments on the certification issue at an
upcoming hearing.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to exclude all of the proposed expert
testimony of Ms. Terry, who Southland has retained to provide her
opinions as an expert in the oil and gas industry concerning the
usage of terms, the customs and practices of the oil and gas
industry, and the historical context and circumstances that have,
over time, informed the understanding of the parties to oil and gas
agreements.  They argue that Ms. Terry's proffered testimony is
comprised of inadmissible opinions regarding contract
interpretation of the four types of royalty provisions at issue,
purports to opine on a question of law, and encroaches on the
Court's role in deciding whether the proposed class is properly
ascertainable.  

Southland counters that Ms. Terry's four expert opinions are all
reliable opinions that will assist the Court in making its class
certification determination, and the Plaintiffs' disagreement with
the opinios is not in any way dispositive as to their
admissibility.  Southland has proffered an expert witness, Ms.
Terry, to opine on the customs, practices, usage of terms, and
historical context that inform lease provisions in the oil and gas
industry.

Though he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the proffered
expert testimony of Ma. Terr, Judge Brack finds that it is
sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' concerns that Ms. Terry's testimony
relevant to the class certification will also be relevant to the
underlying issue of how their royalty payment provisions should be
interpreted.  He will thus carefully and conscientiously consider
the weight of Ms. Terry's expert testimony only as it serves to
assist in determining whether the proposed class meets requirements
of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance,
superiority, and ascertainability under Rule 23.

Ms. Terry may not make legal conclusions for the Court and may only
present facts in the form of expert opinions that are within her
scope of experience and expertise and are relevant to the Court's
class certification decision.  He finds that Ms. Terry's expert
testimony as summarized in her expert report meets these
requirements and limitations, but the Plaintiffs can object during
the class certification hearing if they believe Ms. Terry's
testimony is straying from the narrow boundaries of permissible
expert testimony on the class certificate issue.

Therefore, Judge Brack denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude All
of the Proposed Opinion Testimony of Defendant's Expert Kris Terry;
and denied as moot the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File
Surreply.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/GjP3am from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ulibarri, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman,
Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. &
Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George
A. Barton, PC.

Southland Royalty Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew A.
Zidovsky -- mzidovsky@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.,
Sharon Theresa Shaheen -- sshaheen@montand.com -- Montgomery &
Andrews & Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, P.C., pro hac vice.


SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Veilleux Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in
Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet.

Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC (Electricity Maine), an entity acquired by Spark Holdco,
LLC (Spark Holdco) in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers
through fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and
other communications prior to and following the acquisition.  

Plaintiffs allege claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade
Practice Act, civil conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek damages
for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts
with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorney's fees.

Discovery is ongoing in this matter.

Spark HoldCo and Electricity Maine intend to vigorously defend this
matter and the allegations asserted therein, including the request
to certify a class. Electricity Maine and Spark HoldCo intend to
file a motion to compel arbitration of certain Plaintiffs' claims
as the applicable Terms of Service in this case contain an
arbitration provision and class action waiver. The Company believes
it has full indemnity coverage for any actual exposure in this case
at this time.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in Houston, Texas.


ST. ANNE'S HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Lawsuit From Veterans
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rukavina, writing for CBC News, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court justice has approved a class-action lawsuit launched
by veterans alleging the transfer of the veterans' hospital in
Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue from federal to provincial responsibility led
to a serious decline in service and quality of care.

Larry Kanemy, Esq. a lawyer representing the veterans, told CBC
News that the lawsuit was approved at a hearing on Feb. 20.

The suit alleges when the federal government transferred
responsibility for the hospital to the regional health authority in
Montreal's West Island in 2016, things went downhill.

"There are incompetent staff, insufficient staff, a diminution of
key services," Kanemy said.

"Where they used to have in-house services with regards to medical
attention, that's all been outsourced or moved out."

He said when the transfer happened, the province signed a deal
promising to maintain the standard of care, and that hasn't
happened.

Veterans running out of time

The lead plaintiff in the case is 96-year-old Wolf Solkin, a
veteran of the Second World War.

Kanemy said he was pleased the court agreed to his request to
prioritize the case, given the age of many of the veterans.

"You have to understand these are WWII and Korean War veterans, and
the average age is 93 years old. By natural attrition, time is of
the essence," Kanemy said.

He estimates half of the veterans living in the hospital at the
time of the transfer have since died.

He said their families would receive compensation in the event the
suit is successful.

He estimates the amount of the reward could be as high as $30
million.

The lawsuit is also seeking a guarantee that the standard of care
at the hospital will return to the level it was at before the
transfer. [GN]


STITCH FIX: Expects TV Advertising Suits to be Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company expects
the four class action lawsuits, which have been deemed to be
related to television advertising, to be consolidated into one.

On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.

The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by the company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our active
client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising
between June 2018 and October 2018.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


Stitch Fix said, "We expect the four lawsuits, which have been
deemed to be related cases by the court, to be consolidated into
one."

On December 12, 2018, a derivative action was filed against the
company's directors in the same court, alleging the same violations
of securities laws as alleged in the four putative class action
cases and breach of fiduciary duties.

Stitch Fix, Inc. sells a range of apparel, shoes, and accessories
through its Website and mobile app in the United States. It offers
denim, dresses, blouses, skirts, shoes, jewelry, and handbags for
men, women, and kids under the Stitch Fix brand. The company was
formerly known as rack habit inc. and changed its name to Stitch
Fix, Inc. in October 2011. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SWEEP INC: Denied Workers Proper Compensation, Caro Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES CARO, an individual, himself and all members of the putative
class, Plaintiff, v. SWEEP INC. CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV09393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 20, 2019)
asserts that through its unlawful misclassification scheme, SWEEP
avoids the costs of providing compensation to its workers, denying
them much needed protection in the event of work-related injuries
or illnesses.

SWEEP'S unlawful conduct of misclassifying workers also allows it
to deprive Plaintiff and other workers of fundamental employment
rights, such as the right to minimum wages, the right to mandated
meal breaks, the right to mandated rest breaks, the right to
premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks, the right to
accurate itemized wage statements, the right to the prompt payment
of full wages within time limits designated by law, and the right
to workers compensation protection, guaranteed to employees under
various provisions of the Labor Code and applicable wage order,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff MOISES CARO is a citizen of the State of California and
worked as an independent contractor for Defendant.

SWEEP INC. CORPORATION is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Rex Parris, Esq.
     Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
     John M. Bickford, Esq.
     Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
     PARRIS LAW FIRM
     43364 10th Street West
     Lancaster, CA 93534
     Phone: (661)949-2595      
     Facsimile: (661)949-7524



TARGET CORP: Appeal Still Pending in ERISA Class Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the  appeal in the ERISA
class action in relation to Target's expansion of retail operations
into Canada, has not yet been heard or decided.

On July 12, 2016 and July 15, 2016, Target Corporation, the Plan
Investment Committee and Target's current chief operating officer
were named as defendants in two purported Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions filed in the
Court.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the First
ERISA Class Action) on December 14, 2016, alleging violations of
Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure and
naming Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven present or
former officers as defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Target
Corporation 401(k) Plan or the Target Corporation Ventures 401(k)
Plan (collectively, the Plans) at any time between February 27,
2013 and May 19, 2014 and whose Plan accounts included investments
in Target stock.

The plaintiffs sought damages, an injunction and other unspecified
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to take action to prevent Plan participants from
continuing to purchase Target stock during the class period at
prices that allegedly were artificially inflated.

After the Court dismissed the First ERISA Class Action on July 31,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a new ERISA Class Action (the Second
ERISA Class Action) with the Court on August 30, 2017, which had
substantially similar allegations, defendants, class
representation, and damages sought as the First ERISA Class Action,
except that the class period was extended to August 6, 2014.

On June 15, 2018, the Court granted the motion by Target and the
other defendants to dismiss the Second ERISA Class Action. On July
16, 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal. That
appeal has not yet been heard or decided.

Target Corporation operates as a general merchandise retailer in
the United States. The company offers beauty and household
essentials; food assortments, including perishables, dry grocery,
dairy, and frozen items; and apparel, accessories, home decor
products, electronics, toys, seasonal offerings, and other
merchandise. Target Corporation was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


TARGET CORP: Still Defends Minnesota Suit over Canada Expansion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in Minnesota in relation to
Target's expansion of retail operations into Canada.

On May 17, 2016 and May 24, 2016, Target Corporation and certain
present and former officers were named as defendants in two
purported federal securities law class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota (the Court).

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint (First Complaint) on November 14, 2016, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada
Disclosure and naming Target, its former chief executive officer,
its present chief operating officer, and the former president of
Target Canada as defendants.

On March 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter
or amend the final judgment issued on July 31, 2017, dismissing the
Federal Securities Law Class Actions. On April 18, 2018, the
plaintiff appealed the Court's final judgment.

That appeal has not yet been heard or decided.

Target Corporation operates as a general merchandise retailer in
the United States. The company offers beauty and household
essentials; food assortments, including perishables, dry grocery,
dairy, and frozen items; and apparel, accessories, home decor
products, electronics, toys, seasonal offerings, and other
merchandise. Target Corporation was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


TEAM CAROLINAS: Fails to Refund Drivers' Expenses, Huffman Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karol Huffman, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Team Carolinas, Inc. d/b/a Domino's and Osman Qasim, Case No.
4:19-cv-00034-FL (E.D.N.C., March 12, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing
to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby, failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum
wage for all hours worked.

Headquartered in Salisbury, North Carolina, Team Carolinas, Inc.,
is a domestic corporation authorized to do business under the laws
of North Carolina.  Team Carolinas operates the Team Carolinas
Domino's stores.  Osman Qasim is an owner and operator of Team
Carolinas.

The Defendants operate 54 Domino's Pizza franchises in North
Carolina and South Carolina (the "Team Carolinas Domino's"
stores).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary-Ann Leon, Esq.
          THE LEON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          704 Cromwell Dr., Suite E
          Greenville, NC 27858
          Telephone: (252) 830-5366
          E-mail: maleon@leonlaw.org

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          OF COUNSEL TO MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          OF COUNSEL TO MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


TREMONT MARKERT: $19.8MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: TREMONT SECURITIES LAW, STATE LAW AND INSURANCE
LITIGATION, This Document Relates to All Actions, Master File No.
08 Civ. 11117 (CM)(GWG)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded
the Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $19,866,014.25.

The Madoff-related class action was litigated before and settled by
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  On appeal by certain objectors, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Griesa's
handiwork in nearly every respect.  It remanded the case for one
reason and one reason only: to revise the lodestar cap downward, to
reflect what the Circuit deemed the counsel's limited risk in
bringing this action.

Judge Griesa having died on Dec. 24, 2017, the matter was
reassigned to Jugde McMahon's docket.  She asked Chief Magistrate
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein to prepare a Report on Remand.  This he
has done.  He recommends that attorneys' fees for the Class Counsel
be awarded in the amount of $19,866.25, based on a revised lodestar
of 1.0 -- which is to say, no multiplier (the original lodestar
multiplier awarded by Judge Griesa was 2.5).  The Class counsel
have represented that any remaining work they are required to do
will be performed without further compensation.

Nonetheless eight individuals, styling themselves the Tremont Fund
Objectors, have filed objections to the Report. They principally
concern issues that go well beyond the mandate.  

In his excellent Report, Judge Gorenstein anticipated and answered
every objection raised by the Tremont Fund Objectors.  Judge
McMahon finds no flaw in his reasoning.  Therefore, for
substantially the reasons articulated by the Class Counsel in their
Response to the Objections, she overruled the objections in their
entirety; adopted the Report as the Opinion of the Court; and
awarded Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of
$19,866,014.25, as recommended by the learned Chief Magistrate
Judge.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CqRZh4 from Leagle.com.

Arthur M. Brainson, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Uri Seth
Ottensoser, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Jeffrey D. Lerner --
Lerner@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Joseph R. Seidman
-- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Sandy A.
Liebhard -- Liebhard@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP &
Stephanie M. Beige -- Beige@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP.

Yvette Finkelstein, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Daniel W.
Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Demet Basar,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Jeffrey D. Lerner, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Sandy A.
Liebhard, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Stacey Breen Kelly, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & Stephanie M. Beige, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP.

Group Defined Pension Plan & Trust, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Jeffrey L. Koenig, Hecht, Kleeger, Pintel, & Damashek, Jeffrey D.
Lerner, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Sandy A. Liebhard, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP &
Stephanie M. Beige, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP.

Arthur E. Lange, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle
& Cappucci LLP, Robert N. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP &
Stephen David Oestreich, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

Arthur C. Lange, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle
& Cappucci LLP, Robert N. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP,
Stephen David Oestreich, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Reed R.
Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Harry Hodges, Robert Schulman, Jim Mitchell, Rupert Allan & Lynn O.
Keeshan, Defendants, represented by Seth M. Schwartz, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Austin Capital Management GP Corporation & Austin Capital
Management Limited, Defendants, represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts --
gjritts@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Harold Keith Gordon --
hkgordon@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr. --
rjbedell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice.

Sandra L. Manzke, Defendant, represented by Carrie Ann Tendler --
carrie.tendler@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, Jonathan David
Cogan -- jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, Michael
Sangyun Kim -- michael.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP & Maggie
E. Sklar, Kobre & Kim, LLP, pro hac vice.

Oppenheimerfunds, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Adam Kotler
-- david.kotler@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP.


TREVENA INC: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel in PA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevena, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held a hearing to
appoint the lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and a consolidated
amended complaint will be filed after the appointments are made.  

In October and November 2018, the Company and certain of its
current and former officers were sued in three purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, or the EDPA.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and the
officers made false and misleading statements in violation of
federal securities laws regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including certain statements made
relating to the Company's End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages, and
attorneys' fees and other costs. In January 2019, the three
lawsuits were consolidated into one action.

On March 6, 2019, the District Court held a hearing to appoint the
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and a consolidated amended
complaint will be filed after such appointments are made.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of treatment options that target
and treat diseases affecting the central nervous system. The
company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Detainees' Bid for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Unknown Parties, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kirstjen M
Nielsen, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB (D.
Ariz.), Judge David C. Bury of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

On Nov. 18, 2016, the Court issued a preliminary injunction in the
class action lawsuit brought by civil detainees, being held
pursuant to civil immigration laws, against Defendants the
Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the
Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection
("CBP"), the Chief of CBP, and the Arizona Joint Field Command and
Chief Patrol Agent-Tucson Sector.  The Court found that the
Plaintiffs established they were likely to succeed on the merits of
their claims, were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tipped in their
favor, and the injunction was in the public interest.  The Court
ordered the Defendants to immediately comply with CBP's 2008 Hold
Rooms and Short Term Custody Policy and the National Standards on
Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search ("TEDS") standards and
that the standard requiring clean bedding includes mats for
detentions exceeding 12 hours.

Both parties appealed.  The Defendants argued that the Court
misapprehended Bell v. Wolfish, and the injunction was too rigid
and unduly burdensome.  The Plaintiffs argued that the Court should
have required the Defendants to provide beds with mattresses,
showers, and medical care provided by medical professionals.  On
March 21, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
entry of the preliminary injunction.

There has been no assertion of non-compliance, therefore, it has
been the status quo since Nov. 18, 2016.  Discovery is closed, and
the Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on the issue of beds.

According to the Plaintiffs, CBP detains tens of thousands of
people each year in the Tucson Sector and holds them in conditions
that violate the Constitution.  Men, women, and children are jammed
together in crowded hold room cells and forced to lie on soiled,
cold concrete floors, next to toilets and trash.  Surveillance
video shows people being repeatedly stepped over as others make
their way to and from the toilets.  These degrading and unsanitary
conditions deprive the Class Members of their constitutional right
to sleep.  According to the Plaintiffs, the law is clear: civil
pretrial detainees must be given beds or mattresses raised off of
the floor if they are held for any period requiring sleep.
Anything less, including floor mats, is a violation of their Fifth
Amendment Due Process rights.

Judge Bury finds that the individuals detained awaiting civil
commitment proceedings are entitled to Fourteenth Amendment
protections at least as great as those afforded civilly committed
individuals and at least as great as those afforded to pretrial
detainees who are individuals accused but not convicted of a crime.
Conditions identical or similar to, or more restrictive than,
those in which a criminal counterpart is held raise a presumption
of punishment.  Likewise, conditions of pre-adjudication civil
confinement substantially worse than conditions of confinement
imposed post-civil commitment, also, raise a presumption of
punishment.

Assuming the evidence at trial reflects the existence of
alternative, less harsh methods of detention are imposed upon
commitment to either civil or criminal detention facilities, both
presumptions arise.  Then, the Defendant must show why the
conditions of confinement at the CBP stations are not excessive.
To do this, the Defendant must do more than offer a bare assertion
of a legitimate, non-punitive justification, such as: ensuring a
detainee's presence at trial, maintaining jail security, and
effective management of a detention facility. Such assertions have
been defeated by the presumptions.  To rebut the presumptions, the
Defendant must establish that the challenged condition of
confinement is not excessive in relation to the purpose of the
Plaintiffs' pre-commitment detention.  At trial, the Defendants
will be afforded an opportunity to rebut the presumptions that the
conditions of confinement, including floor-sleeping with or without
floor mats, are punitive because they are not related to 24/7
detainee processing.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit applied both presumptions to a civil
detainee held, pre-commitment under the California Sexually Violent
Predator ("SVP") Act, in administrative segregation with criminal
detainees who were able to identify him as a sex-offender because
SVP detainees were required to wear red uniforms.  The Court
compared the criminal-like pre-commitment detention to the
treatment-like conditions he would find once committed to a
facility under the SCP Act. The Court noted that King v. Los
Angeles County's pre-commitment confinement was especially harsh
because the red jumpsuit subjected him to threats and assaults by
inmates for being a child molester.  The Court's discussion of
legitimate non-punitive justifications was specific to the
penological interests involved in King's detention which was that
he was being held for commitment as a civil detainee in a
treatment-type facility.  Within this context, the Court assessed
the severity and duration of the pre-commitment conditions of
confinement.  This brings the analysis full circle back to the fact
intensive inquiry that is necessary to determine whether the
challenged conditions of confinement amount to punishment.

For these reasons, Judge Bury denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.  He lifted the stay in the case.  The
parties will jointly file Pretrial Order in this case within 30
days of the filing date of the Order.  Thereafter, the Court will
set a pretrial conference; the case is ready for trial, and the
trial date will be set at the pretrial conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5prHJt from Leagle.com.

Unknown Parties, Plaintiff, represented by Akari Atoyama-Little --
aatoyamalittle@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Colette Reiner
Mayer -- crmayer@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Elisa
Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Elizabeth Gilmore
Balassone -- ebalassone@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Linton
Joaquin, National Immigration Law Center, Louise Carita Stoupe --
lstoupe@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Mary Kenney, American
Immigration Council, Megan Sallomi, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights, Nora A. Preciado, National Immigration Law Center, Pieter
S. DeGanon -- pdeganon@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Kathleen E. Brody, ACLU & William Bradford Peard, ACLU.

Norlan Flores, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Colette Reiner Mayer, Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Elisa Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights, Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Linton Joaquin, National Immigration Law Center, Louise Carita
Stoupe, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Mary Kenney, American Immigration
Council, Megan Sallomi, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Nora A.
Preciado, National Immigration Law Center, Pieter S. DeGanon,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Kathleen E. Brody, ACLU & William Bradford
Peard, ACLU.

Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Secuirty, in her official capacity, Kevin K McAleenan, Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Carla L
Provost, Acting Chief of U.S. Border Patrol & Rodolfo Karisch,
Arizona Joint Field Command & Chief Patrol Agent-Tucson Sector,
Defendants, represented by Christina Parascandola, US Dept of
Justice, Sarah B. Fabian, US Dept of Justice, Carlton Frederick
Sheffield, US Dept of Justice - Civil Division, Colin Kisor, US
Dept of Justice & Michael Anthony Celone, US Dept of Justice.

Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated, Intervenor, represented by David
Jeremy Bodney, Ballard Spahr LLP.


UNITED STATES: Philbrick Sues Over New Medicaid Eligibility Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL PHILBRICK, IAN LUDDERS, KARIN VLK, JOSHUA VLK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALEX
M. AZAR II, SEEMA VERMA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00773-JEB (D.D.C.,
March 20, 2019) is a case challenging the ongoing efforts of the
Executive Branch to bypass the legislative process and act
unilaterally to fundamentally transform Medicaid, a cornerstone of
the social safety net.

The Medicaid Act establishes a health insurance program that
provides coverage to more than 75 million people in the United
States. Medicaid enables states to provide a range of federally
specified preventive, acute, and long-term health care services to
individuals "whose income and resources are insufficient to meet
the costs of necessary medical services".

The Social Security Act, of which the Medicaid Act is a part, does
permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive certain
federal Medicaid requirements, but only in narrow
circumstances--when necessary to allow a state to carry out an
experimental or pilot program that is likely to promote the
objectives of the Medicaid Act. New Hampshire obtained such a
waiver to change the way that the State provided coverage to the
Medicaid expansion population group.

While this request was pending, HHS announced a new Medicaid waiver
policy in a January 2018 letter to State Medicaid Directors. On May
7, 2018, citing the State Medicaid Letter, the Secretary approved
the NHHPP Premium Assistance Program Amendment, adding work
requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility.

The complaint asserts that the approved waiver will harm Plaintiffs
and individuals throughout the State who need a range of health
services, including check-ups, mental health services, insomnia
treatments, vision services, surgeries, and medications. Without
access to Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs will be forced to forgo
treatment for their conditions or will incur significant medical
debt when their conditions become so severe that they have no
choice but to seek treatment in acute care and emergency department
settings. Without retroactive coverage, when Plaintiffs experience
gaps in coverage, they will be forced to skip medical treatment or
incur out of pocket expenses and medical debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are enrolled in the New Hampshire Medicaid program.

Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of the United States Department
of
Health and Human Services and is sued in his official
capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jane Perkins, Esq.
     Sarah Somers, Esq.
     Sarah Grusin, Esq.
     Catherine McKee, Esq.
     National Health Law Program
     200 N. Greensboro Street, Suite D-13
     Carrboro, NC 27510
     Phone: 919-968-6308 (x101)
     Email: perkins@healthlaw.org
            somers@healthlaw.org
            grusin@healthlaw.org
            mckee@healthlaw.org

          - and -

     Kay E. Drought, Esq.
     New Hampshire Legal Assistance
     154 High Street
     Portsmouth, NH 03801
     Phone: 603-206-2253
     Email: kdrought@nhla.org

          - and -

     Raymond Burke, Esq.
     New Hampshire Legal Assistance
     117 N. State Street
     Concord, NH 03301
     Phone: 603-206-2214
     Email: rburke@nhla.org

          - and -

     Travis W. England, Esq.
     National Center for Law and Economic Justice
     275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New
     York, NY 10001
     Phone: 212-633-6967
     Email: england@nclej.org


USHEALTH ADVISORS: Duhe Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Duhe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60740(S.D. Fla.,
March 21, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

USHealth Advisors, LLC utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS
marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and
advertising about its events, including at least 1 unsolicited text
message to Plaintiff. Through the unsolicited SPAM text message,
USHealth contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
regarding an unsolicited service via an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS"). Plaintiff did not provide USHealth or its agents
prior express consent to receive text messages, including
unsolicited text messages, to his cellular telephone, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida.

USHealth Advisors, LLC, is a Texas Limited Liability Company and
citizen of the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-524-2820
     Facsimile: 954-524-2822
     Email: seth@epllc.com

          - and -

     Scott D. Owens, Esq. (FBN 597651)
     SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: 954-589-0588
     Facsimile: 954-337-0666
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com

          - and -

     Justin H. Jaffe, Esq.
     lowercase, pllc
     3250 NE 1st Ave., Suite 305
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: 833-569-3335
     Email: justin@lowercaselaw.com



UXIN LIMITED: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Uxin Limited (NASDAQGS: UXIN)
Class Period: Pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
June 27, 2018 initial public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 12, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uxin-limited-loss-form?wire=3

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state that: (1) Uxin was likely to stop providing
complementary services such as inspections to its customers; (2)
instead, Uxin would connect consumers to dealers who would provide
such complementary services; (3) as a result, Uxin's 2B business
would be materially impacted; and (4) consequently, Defendants'
statements in the Registration Statement regarding Uxin's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading.

To learn more about the Uxin Limited class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


VALE SA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vale S.A. ("Vale" or the "Company") (NYSE: VALE) and
certain of its officers and directors.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
indexed under 19-cv-01610, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Vale shares between April 11, 2017 and January 28, 2019,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Plaintiff's claims are asserted against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vale securities between
April 11, 2017, and January 28, 2019, you have until March 29,
2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Vale together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron ore
and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally.  It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments.  The Company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009.  Vale was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

Vale has a history involving dam failure in connection with its
mining activities.  On November 5, 2015, Brazilian authorities
reported that an iron-ore mine operated by Samarco Mineração SA
("Samarco") (jointly owned by Vale and BHP, another mining entity)
burst, killing dozens of people and devastating the local
community.  The cause of the collapse was the failure of a tailings
dam, used to hold water and discarded minerals from the nearby
iron-ore mine.

The complaint alleges that Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Vale had failed to adequately assess the risk and damage
potential of a dam breach at its Feijão iron ore mine especially
in light of its experience in 2015; (ii) Vale's programs to
mitigate health and safety incidents were inadequate; (iii)
Defendants filed to disclose that Vale's auditor was not
independent, as required under Brazilian mining law; (iv)
Defendants failed to disclose that an internal report commissioned
by Vale in 2018 to assess the stability of the tailings dam raised
concerns over its drainage and monitoring systems; (v) Defendants
failed to disclose the existence of information that the dam was at
risk of "liquefaction," the same issue that led to the 2015
collapse of the Samarco dam; and (vi) as a result, Vale's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On January 25, 2019, Reuters reported that Vale's tailings dam had
burst at its Feijão iron ore mine.  A "torrent of sludge tore
through the mine's offices, including a cafeteria during
lunchtime."

On this news, shares of Vale fell $1.20 per share or over 8% to
close at $13.66 per share on January 25, 2019.

Then, on January 26, 2019, BBC News reported that hundreds of
people affected by the dam's breach remained missing, in part
because the dam's alarm system failed at the time of the accident.
A report by a Folha de S. Paulo newspaper stated "the risk of
collapse of the dam had been mentioned in a ‘tense meeting' that
approved its license last month[.]"

That same day, Reuters reported that Brazil's National Mining
Agency ordered Vale to suspend operations at its Corrego de Feijão
iron ore mining facility as a result of the dam burst.  The article
also stated that "State prosecutors . . . [seek] $1.3 billion [] in
Vale's accounts for handling damages . . . adding that
[prosecutors] expect[] more funds to be frozen in the future."

On January 28, 2019, Reuters reported "Brazil's top prosecutor said
on Monday she will pursue criminal prosecutions after the collapse
of a tailings dam operated by mining giant Vale SA killed at least
58 people and left hundreds missing, and that executives may be
punished."

That same day, Reuters reported that "Brazilian securities industry
regulator CVM has opened a probe into miner Vale SA's filings
related to a burst tailings dam in the town of Brumadinho[.]"

On this news, shares of Vale plunged by $2.46 per share, or
approximately 18%, to close at $11.20 per share on January 28,
2019.

On February 6, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported report that
the Company was in possession of a detailed report written months
before the disaster indicating that the dam was not certifiable.
Then on February 7, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that
"[a] safety auditor who inspected a Vale SA mine-tailings dam that
collapsed in January killing at least 150 people told police he
felt pressured to attest to its stability, despite indications it
was unsafe, because he feared losing business with the company".
         
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


VERDE ENERGY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Richardson Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that Verde Companies received a
favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court agreeing with
the Verde Companies that the call system used in Richardson et. al.
v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. suit was not an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) as defined by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC; Verde Energy
USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions, LLC
(collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail energy
providers and were formed on various dates from December 27, 2007
to November 13, 2014. The Company acquired the Verde Companies on
July 1, 2017.

Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) or a prerecorded voice to the purported class
members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by
continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the
calls to cease.

Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class
and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct.
Discovery closed and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs'
claims were filed on November 24, 2017.

The Verde Companies received a favorable ruling on summary judgment
with the court agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call
system used in this case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA.

Spark Energy said, "As part of an agreement in connection with the
acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the
Verde Companies are handling this matter. The Company believes it
has full indemnity coverage for any actual exposure in this case at
this time."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in Houston, Texas.


VIP LASER: Friedman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
---------------------------------------------------
Zach Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VIP Laser, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21100 (S.D. Fla., March
21, 2019) is an action against the Defendant to secure redress for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, 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 himself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is a skincare and laser clinic.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


WASHINGTON GAS: Continues to Defend Silver Spring Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Gas Light Company said in its Form 10-KT report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2019,
for For the Transition Period from October 1, 2018 to December 31,
2018, that the National Transportation Safety Board has scheduled a
board meeting, open to the public, on April 23, 2019, in relation
to the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment complex
on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the Silver Spring incident, the cause of which has not been
determined. The NTSB scheduled the board meeting "to determine the
probable cause" of the incident.

A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been filed
against WGL and Washington Gas in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland. All of these suits seek unspecified damages for
personal injury and/or property damage. The one action seeking
class action status has been amended to assert property damage and
loss of use claims. The trial date for the hearings has been
scheduled for December 2, 2019.

Washington Gas said, "We maintain excess liability insurance
coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal
self-insured retention. We believe that this coverage will be
sufficient to cover any significant liability that may result from
this incident. Management is unable to determine a range of
potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring and
therefore we have not recorded a reserve associated with this
incident. Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be a party to
the investigation and in that capacity, has worked closely with the
NTSB to help determine the cause of this incident."

Washington Gas Light Company, a regulated public utility, sells and
delivers natural gas to retail customers in the United States. As
of November 3, 2018, it served approximately 1.1 million customers
in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The company
was incorporated in 1848 and is based in Washington, the District
of Columbia. Washington Gas Light Company is a subsidiary of WGL
Holdings, Inc.


WAVERLY RESTAURANT: Lazazzera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lazazzera, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Waverly Restaurant LLC d/b/a The Waverly
Inn, Graydon Carter, Sean Macpherson and Eric Goode, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02492 (S.D. N.Y., March 20, 2019) is a case
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs at one-and-one-half times their regular rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, and failed to keep records
required by the FLSA even though Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs have been and are entitled to overtime, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff David Lazazzera was employed by Defendants as a server at
The Waverly Inn from 2015 to 2019.

Waverly Restaurant LLC is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York that owns and operates the
restaurant Waverly Inn which is located at 16 Bank Street, New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 688-5640
     Fax: (212) 688-2548


WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Park Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN PARK, Plaintiff, v. WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., et
al., Defendant, Case No. 12cv1380-LAB (LL) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry
Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Park's motion to certify the case as a class
action.

On May 19, 2009, Plaintiff Park purchased a gift certificate online
for his son from Gamestop.com.  After entering his credit card
information, Park saw an offer for a coupon to save on his next
Gamestop purchase.  He clicked on the offer, and was directed to a
new window.  He says he did not realize he had been directed away
from the Gamestop website to a new website. This new window
provided the details of the coupon offer and explained that by
providing an email address the customer would be agreeing to a
subscription to a membership-fee based program known as Complete
Savings.  Park says he did not look for and did not see these
disclosures, and did not intend to sign up for a membership
program.

The enrollment page asked him to provide his email address twice
and click an acceptance button.   By clicking this acceptance
button, Park subscribed to a fee-based membership program known as
Complete Savings, operated by Webloyalty. Park never re-entered his
billing information for this subscription; rather, the data was
shared by a method known as "data pass," which allowed Webloyalty
to obtain his billing information directly from Gamestop.com.  Park
says that he was not aware that he had been redirected away from
the website Gamestop.com.

The first charge by Webloyalty was made one month later, on June
19, 2009.  Park says that in April of 2011 he discovered
unauthorized charges to his bank account totaling $264, which were
the charges made by Webloyalty. He requested a refund, and
Webloyalty granted him only a partial refund of $48, for the four
previous months.

Park has brought the putative class action, with the putative class
consisting of all persons who did not directly provide their
billing information to Webloyalty, but who were charged for a
subscription-based program at any time since Dec. 29, 2010.  A
different putative class action, Berry v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., was
filed in the District on June 25, 2010, and Park says he was a
member of the putative class in that case.  The Berry decision was
vacated on appeal, because although Webloyalty had debited the
Plaintiff's bank account, it had later given him a full refund,
resulting in his lacking a cognizable injury.  This deprived him of
standing, and the court of jurisdiction.

The third amended complaint ("TAC") brings claims under the federal
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, California's Unfair Business
Practices Act, Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, and four
state law causes of action based on various theories of conversion.
The state and federal unfair trade practices claims are each
divided into two claims, based on different theories, and are to be
brought by different putative classes.  Under one theory,
Webloyalty's practices of charging consumers' credit or debit cards
without obtaining expressed informed consent, and of using
information obtained through the "data pass" process are unfair.
Under the second theory, Webloyalty's practices are unfair because
they violate the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.   The
claims based on alleged violations of ROSCA were brought in the
name of a nationwide post-ROSCA class (based on Connecticut's
unfair trade practices law) and a California post-ROSCA class
(based on California's unfair trade practices law).

Now before the Court is Park's motion to certify the case as a
class action.

Although Judge Burns' order does not discuss every argument in the
pleadings, he has considered them as part of his analysis.  He has
also considered counsel's arguments at the hearing.

The Judge finds the commonality and numerosity requirements are
met.  The typicality requirement is only partially met.  Some of
Park's claims are not typical of the class, and he is subject to a
statute of limitations defense based on facts unique to him.  He
also lacks standing to seek injunctive relief, even though at least
some class members likely have standing.  Park also does not
remember the enrollment process, which means he cannot point to
anything Webloyalty said or failed to say and instead must rely on
indirect evidence to show that the class members likely did not see
the disclaimers and likely did not knowingly consent to having
their cards charged.  This, however, requires individualized
fact-finding. With a different class representative who remembered
the enrollment process, many of these individualized issues would
be eliminated.

In addition, the class's EFTA claims may be time-barred depending
on when they first knew Webloyalty was charging their accounts.
This too would require extensive individualized fact-finding.
Although a class action would be a superior method of resolving
these claims, the individualized fact-finding would render it
unmanageable.  And for the same reasons, the Judge also finds that
individual issues predominate.

Park cannot represent the class as to some claims and theories,
some of his claims are different from the class's, and one of his
claims is subject to a unique defense.  He also likely has some
conflicts of interest with the class members and may not represent
their interests vigorously.  For these reasons, the Judge finds him
not fully adequate as a representative.

A class action would be a superior method of adjudicating the
class' claims, if a class could be certified.  But having
considered all the relevant criteria, he concludes that a class
should not be certified.  Accordingly, he denied the motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vq41uX from Leagle.com.

Kevin Park, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC, James
Richard Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law
Group, APC & Alisa A. Martin -- alisa@amartinlaw.com -- Amartin
Law, PC.

Webloyalty.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aaron Shawn Thompson --
aaron.thompson@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Hale, Jessica R. Lisak --
jessica.lisak@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Butts -- john.butts@wilmerhale.com --
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, John J.
Regan -- john.regan@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Jules Brown --
reginald.brown@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Seth B. Orkand, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen N. Provazza --
stephen.provazza@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Perla --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher T. Casamassima --
chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale.


WEISER SECURITY: Holcomb Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JAMAL F. HOLCOMB, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Weiser Security
Services, Inc., a Corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCVO3843 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on March 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02108.

Plaintiff filed this class action on February 7, 2019, against
Defendant and various Doe defendants in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court asserting the following causes of action: (a)
Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (b) Failure to Pay Overtime
Compensation; (c) Meal and Rest Break Violations; (d) Failure to
Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; (e) Failure to Pay Wages at
Termination; (f) Failure to Maintain Required Records; (g) Failure
to Reimburse for all Business-Related Expenses; (h) Unfair Business
Practices; and (i) Violation of California Labor Code.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Bradley E. Schwan, Esq.
     Keith J. Rasher, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2049 Century Park East
     5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
     Phone: 310.553.0308
     Facsimile: 310.553.5583
     Email: bschwan@littler.com
            krasher@littler.com


WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Cotton Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: CHRISTOPHER DEE COTTON ALLISON HEDRICK COTTON,
Chapter 13, Debtors, CHRISTOPHER DEE COTTON and ALLISON HEDRICK
COTTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated,
IGNACIO PEREZ And GABRIELA PEREZ, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & CO. and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00499-RJC, Case
No. 14-30287 (W.D. N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, granted (1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Certification of Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement; and (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Non-Taxable Costs and Class Representative Service
Awards.

The matter came before the Court for hearing on the application of
the Parties for approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release
dated Aug. 31, 2018.  On Nov. 2, 2018, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of North Carolina granted preliminary
approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the
Agreement between Plaintiffs Christopher Dee Cotton, Allison
Hedrick Cotton, Ignacio Perez, and Gabriela Delfina Perez ("Class
Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the
Class, and the Defendants.  The Bankruptcy Court also provisionally
certified the Class for settlement purposes and approved the
procedure for giving Class Notice to the members of the Settlement
Class.  

The Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Withdraw the
Bankruptcy Reference and set a Final Approval Hearing to take place
on March 4, 2019.  It finds that the Class Notice substantially in
the forms approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the Preliminary
Approval Order was given in the manner ordered by the Bankruptcy
Court, constitutes the best practicable notice, and was fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

On March 4, 2019, the Court held a duly noticed Final Approval
Hearing.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Conrad finally certified, for settlement purposes only, thes Action
as a class action, with the Class defined as those individual
borrowers who (i) maintained a home mortgage loan owned or serviced
by Wells Fargo Bank, (ii) are currently or were formerly in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, and (iii) were solicited by Wells Fargo
Bank for a No-Application Modification within 120 days prior to or
any date after the filing of the petition for the Chapter 13
bankruptcy or the date of conversion of a Chapter 7, 11, or 12
bankruptcy to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and prior to final dismissal
or discharge of such Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.

He confirmed the prior appointments of (i) Plaintiffs Christopher
Dee Cotton, Allison Hedrick Cotton, Ignacio Perez, and Gabriela
Delfina Perez as the Class Representatives; and (ii) Theodore O.
Bartholow, Karen L. Kellett and O. Max Gardner (of counsel) of
Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, Derick Henderson of Sigmon & Henderson,
PLLC, and Abelardo Limon of Limon Law Office as the Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge approved
the Settlement set forth in the Agreement and finds that the
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to
the Parties.  He further finds that the Settlement set forth in the
Agreement is the result of good faith arm's-length negotiations
between experienced counsel representing the interests of the
Parties.  Accordingly, the Settlement embodied in the Agreement is
finally approved in all respects, there is no just reason for
delay, and the Parties are directed to perform its terms.

Final Judgment is entered with respect to the Released Claims of
all Settlement Class Members, and the Released Claims in the Action
are hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.  The Amended
Complaint is dismissed, and the Action will be closed.  All claims
in the Action are dismissed.  Nothing in the Order is intended to
waive or prejudice the rights of the Class Members who have timely
excluded themselves from the Class, as identified in Exhibit E of
the Declaration of James Parks Regarding Class Notification and
Settlement Administration filed with the Court on Feb. 18, 2019.

Part II of the Order regarding the Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
application will in no way disturb or affect the Judgment, and will
be considered separate from Part I of the Order entering Final
Judgment.  Judge Conrad authorized the Parties to implement the
terms of the Agreement.  Without further order of the Court, the
Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any
of the provisions of the Agreement.

No later than 30 days after the Effective Date, the Settlement
Administrator will file with the Court, under seal (in order to
protect the names and addresses of the Class Members), a list of
the names and addresses of all Members of the Class to whom the
Class Notice was sent.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order and
Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is
directed.

For the reasons stated on the record and in the parties' briefs,
the Judge finds that the Class Counsel's request for $4,562,704.18
in attorneys' fees and $54,466.77 in expenses is reasonable, as is
the $10,000 service award for each of the four class
representatives.

He therefore (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Certification of Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement.  Specifically, Final Judgment is hereby entered
with respect to the Released Claims of all Settlement Class
Members, and the Released Claims in the Action are dismissed in
their entirety with prejudice.

He also granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Non-Taxable Costs and Class Representative Service Awards.
Specifically, the Judge awarded the Class Counsel (i) attorneys'
fees in the amount of $4,562,704.18 and (ii) expenses in the amount
of $54,466.77.  He approved a service award for each class
representative in the amount of $10,000.  The Clerk of the Court is
directed to close the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/h3qZtQ from Leagle.com.

Christopher Dee Cotton & Allison Hedrick Cotton, Plaintiffs,
represented by Abelardo Limon, Jr., Limon Law Office, pro hac vice,
Caitlyn Nicole Wells, Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, pro hac vice,
Frederick Leigh Henderson, Jr. --  sigmonbankruptcylaw.com --
Sigmon & Henderson, PLLC, Karen Lynn Kellett, Kellett & Bartholow
PLLC, pro hac vice, O. Max Gardner, III & Theodore O. Bartholow,
III -- thad@kblawtx.com -- Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, pro hac vice.

Ignacio Perez & Gabriela Perez, Plaintiffs, represented by Karen
Lynn Kellett, Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, Theodore O. Bartholow, III,
Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, Caitlyn Nicole Wells, Kellett & Bartholow
PLLC & Frederick Leigh Henderson, Jr., Sigmon & Henderson, PLLC.

Wells Fargo & Co. & Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants, represented
by William Carter Mayberry -- bmayberry@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP.


WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses D. Burch's Suit
----------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas E. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, dismissed the case,
DENNIS BURCH, Plaintiff, v. BENITA MURPHY, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03311 (S.D. W.Va.).

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or,
in the alternative, Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations.  By
Standing Order filed in the case on June 19, 2017, the action was
referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission
of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition ("PF&R").
Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on Feb. 25, 2019,
recommending that the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or, alternatively, grants its Motion to Strike Class Action
Allegations.

Judge Johnson holds that the Court is not required to review, under
a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions
of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or
recommendation to which no objections are addressed.  In addition,
the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a
specific error in the Magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.  

Objections to the PF&R in the case were due on March 14, 2019.  To
date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, Judge Johnson adopted the PF&R, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the action.  He
further directed the the Clerk to remove the action from the docket
of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8xOHoE from Leagle.com.

Dennis Burch, The Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Being Those
State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with
the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10,
1997, Plaintiff, pro se.

Benita Murphy, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Michael
Trupo, Carole B. Greene & Peggy Pope, Members, West Virginia Parole
Board, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by
Keith D. Fisher, OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


WESTJET: Loses Appeal in Proposed Lawsuit on Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------
Abbotsford News reports that WestJet has lost an appeal of a court
decision that refused to throw out a proposed class-action lawsuit
accusing the airline of fostering a culture that tolerates
harassment of female employees.

Former flight attendant Mandalena Lewis is suing over alleged
gender-based discrimination, accusing her former employer of
breaking its promise to provide a harassment-free workplace for
women.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed WestJet's application to
strike the legal action in 2017, rejecting the company's argument
that the dispute belongs before a human rights tribunal and
workers' compensation board.

The airline took its argument to the B.C. Court of Appeal and a
three-judge panel ruled against it on Feb. 21, saying in a written
decision that nothing in the relevant statutes removes the
jurisdiction of the courts in this case.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and neither
WestJet nor Lewis immediately responded to requests for comment on
the decision.

The lawsuit proposes to represent all of WestJet's past and current
female flight attendants whose employment included a so-called
anti-harassment promise, but the case has yet to be approved as a
class-action. [GN]


WESTPAC: Class Action Relies On ASIC's Resources
------------------------------------------------
Michael Janda, writing for ABC News, reports that Australian law
firm Maurice Blackburn is partnering with London-based litigation
funder Harbour to sue Westpac for failing to properly check whether
borrowers could afford the home loans they were granted.

At the moment, the Tate family is the face of the case, but the
litigators are hoping thousands of others will join.

The Tates are claiming more than $400,000 in losses from their
failed property investments, funded by Westpac loans they say they
should never have been granted.

If Maurice Blackburn and Harbour can attract 5,000 others like them
to join the action, even if their losses averaged half that amount,
Westpac would be facing a billion-dollar lawsuit.

And we know there could easily be another 5,000 claimants out
there, because Westpac admitted as much in its failed settlement
attempt with the corporate regulator ASIC.

Although banking analysts point out that few people have managed to
lose quite as much on property as the Tates, given that prices are
higher in most places than they were when the responsible lending
laws took effect in 2011, so many may not have damages to claim.

You see, the case Maurice Blackburn filed today is nothing new, it
mirrors the case ASIC is currently bringing against Westpac in the
Federal Court.

The only difference is that ASIC, as the regulator, is seeking
penalties, while the litigants seek compensation and their lawyers
and funders chase their (generous) cut.

An illustration of how generous this cut can be is that the
Australian Law Reform Commission is considering a cap so that class
action lawyers and funders can't between them take more than half
of the compensation awarded.

So, for a minimal upfront outlay to lodge the case, the two
companies have staked their claim to a potential payday worth
hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the end, if the class action succeeds, the only unambiguous
winners are likely to be the lawyers and litigation funder -- the
aggrieved customers get back only what is not soaked up in legal
costs (although this is better than nothing), while current
borrowers may see higher interest rates and Westpac shareholders
lower dividends as the bank tries to recoup its losses.

Class actions often lean on ASIC investigations
As with many of these class actions following hot on the heels of
ASIC court cases, Maurice Blackburn's statement of claim relies
heavily on material unearthed by the corporate regulator at
taxpayer expense.

If it wasn't for ASIC's inquiries, and its coercive powers, Maurice
Blackburn would have to seek "discovery" of the relevant documents
from Westpac, a lengthy and expensive legal process that doesn't
always turn up what you hope for.

The law firm's staff would then have to sift through those
documents to find the relevant ones and build a case from scratch
-- again a costly process.

Ian Ramsay, a professor of corporate law at the University of
Melbourne, says that's why class actions often follow regulatory
action.

"The regulator expends resources obtaining information, which then
facilitates private litigation."

Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer Ben Slade, Esq. acknowledges
that the public availability of key documents through the ASIC v
Westpac case was essential to forming its own statement of claim.

In fact, it is the current lack of information about the other
major banks in this area that is a key reason why this class action
is targeted at Westpac, with Maurice Blackburn seriously
considering lawsuits against other banks as and when documents
become available.

ASIC tests the waters

But not only does ASIC's case provide much of the material for the
class action, the regulator will also probably foot the bulk of the
legal bill. Here's how.

As ASIC v Westpac is already underway in the Federal Court, the
class action won't be heard until after that case is concluded.

Ben Slade acknowledges that a win for ASIC would be "very helpful"
in prosecuting his clients' case against the bank.

If the Federal Court adopts a hardline view on the requirements in
the responsible lending laws to check borrowers' capacity to make
their repayments, and rejects the use of spending benchmarks like
the controversial household expenditure measure (HEM), then it is
hard to see what defence Westpac has left against the class
action.

The best the bank can hope for is the difficulty many claimants may
have in quantifying the level of financial damages they've
suffered, because they got home loans they shouldn't have. While
property prices were rising such people were rare, now prices are
falling in major markets they are becoming much more common.

If ASIC wins, odds are that Westpac would rapidly seek to settle
the class action.

On the other hand, if ASIC loses there is a high chance that
Maurice Blackburn would drop the class action, depending what
reasons the judge gives.

While Ben Slade told reporters at the press conference that the
class action "doesn't descend into the finer detail of the ASIC
case", he admitted to me that it's conceivable that an ASIC loss
"may be a dampener on our claims".

The most risky outcome for Maurice Blackburn, its clients and
Harbour is one where ASIC and Westpac agree on a revised settlement
that contains very limited admissions by the bank, meaning that
both the substance of the case and the meaning of the law remain
largely untested.

That is the outcome Ian Ramsay thinks is still most likely.

"Westpac will still have the same motivation not to agree to
anything in a settlement with ASIC that would make it easier for a
class action to succeed."

And it could leave Maurice Blackburn and its clients diving in to
murky waters littered with unseen obstacles.

Outsourcing enforcement

If ASIC and Westpac can reach a settlement that is acceptable to
the court -- one that doesn't get rejected for applying "admirable
ingenuity" to "gloss over the the very real differences which exist
between them" -- that would reflect the pattern of the past.

ASIC has traditionally tended towards doing deals with alleged
corporate wrongdoers, accepting "enforceable undertakings" and
court settlements to avoid lengthy, and costly, legal battles that
it often loses.

In some cases, including one discussed in detail at the royal
commission, the regulator was asking companies whether the terms of
the agreements were acceptable, and even allowing them to see the
draft press releases announcing the penalties.

That's meant that, at least until now, class action lawsuits
supported by litigation funders were often essential to enforcing
corporate law in Australia -- given that ASIC's penalties were so
light, companies, their managers and directors were much more
likely to fear Maurice Blackburn or one of the other class action
firms than they were the regulator.

Appearing before the commission in November, new ASIC boss James
Shipton said the regulator was going to take a tougher approach,
including a lot more court action.

But ASIC's willingness to settle the Westpac case for $35 million
-- which was demonstrably less than the profit the bank made from
the allegedly irresponsible loans -- highlights there is still some
way to go in achieving penalties that truly strike fear into
corporate Australia.

First mover advantage

So why don't Maurice Blackburn and Harbour wait until after the
ASIC v Westpac case was resolved before launching their class
action, you ask?

It's a simple case of first mover advantage.

The class action and litigation funding field is a crowded space
these days, and you can bet there is a flock of law firms and their
financial backers circling over Kenneth Hayne's final report and
related ASIC actions looking for carcases to pick apart.

By filing its case, Maurice Blackburn has staked its claim over
this limb of Westpac's wounded body.

Not only is the firm likely to attract the bulk of prospective
litigants, being first also gives it some precedence over other
firms that may file later when a court wants to whittle it down to
a single suit. [GN]


WIRECARD AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Wirecard AG (OTCMKTS: WRCDF, WCAGY)
Class Period: April 7, 2016 - February 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 9, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Wirecard AG made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) for the period spanning from 2015 to 2018, a
senior Wirecard executive in Singapore had been accused of forging
and backdating contracts, including falsifying accounts and money
laundering; (2) an external law firm commissioned to investigate
Wirecard's Singapore office had reportedly found evidence of
"serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts";
(3) Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls
over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of
those weaknesses; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

To learn more about the Wirecard AG class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


WIRECARD AG: Zhang Investor Disclosed Filing of Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Wirecard AG (OTC:
WCAGY, WRCDF) from April 7, 2016 through February 1, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Wirecard investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=wirecard-ag&id=1718
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free
at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for the period
spanning from 2015 to 2018, a senior Wirecard executive in
Singapore had been accused of forging and backdating contracts,
including falsifying accounts and money laundering; (2) an external
law firm commissioned to investigate Wirecard's Singapore office
had reportedly found evidence of "serious offences of forgery
and/or of falsification of accounts"; (3) Wirecard had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (4) as
a result, defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. [GN]


WUXI PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against WuXi PharmaTech (Cayman) Inc. ("WuXi" or the "Company")
(NYSE: WX) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 19-cv-01654, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who sold WuXi securities between September 1,
2015 and December 10, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), or purchased securities during the Class Period and held
such shares through December 10, 2015, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who sold WuXi securities during the Class
Period or purchased WuXi securities during the Class Period and
held such shares through December 10, 2015, you have until April
23, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

WuXi purports to be an integrated R&D services platform along the
entire value chain of drug discovery and development, with one of
the broadest integrated service and technology platforms in the
life-science industry, from discovery to preclinical development to
clinical development.

Originally incorporated in China, on March 16, 2007, the Company
reincorporated in the Cayman Islands in advance of its initial
public offering ("IPO") of its American Depositary Shares ("ADS"),
each representing eight ordinary shares, on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE"), in August 2007.

Upon its reincorporation in the Cayman Islands, the Company became
a holding company for its numerous pharmaceutical, biotechnology,
and medical device research and development services companies
operating in the United States and China. Among the Company's
subsidiaries were WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics, and WuXi NextCODE.

Through WuXi AppTec, the Company provided comprehensive and FDA,
OECD, CFDA, and GLP-compliant bioanalysis services to support
preclinical and clinical development for small molecule drugs,
biologics, vaccines and pharmacodynamic biomarkers.  WuXi Biologics
was the Company's biologics services provider that offered
comprehensive, integrated and highly customizable services through
our teams of scientists, proprietary technology platform and
know-how, state-of-the-art laboratories, and cGMP-compliant
manufacturing facilities to pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies. WuXi NextCODE is a leading genomic analysis and
bioinformatics company with operations in the United States and
Iceland, which the Company acquired on January 9, 2015, $65
million.

On April 30, 2015, the Company announced that the day prior it had
received a preliminary non-binding proposal letter to acquire all
outstanding shares of the Company for $46.00 in cash per ADS. The
take-private offer was made by a group of investors led by Wuxi's
founder, chairman, and chief executive officer ("CEO"), Li and Ally
Bridge Group Capital Partners ("Ally"), a global healthcare-focused
investment group, founded and led by Mr. Frank Yu.

On August 14, 2015, the Company announced that it had entered into
a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
with New WuXi Life Science Limited ("Parent") and WuXi Merger
Limited ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, for
approximately $3.62 billion, equal to $46 per ADS (the "Merger").

The Company's extraordinary general meeting of shareholders where
WuXi shareholders were asked to approve the acquisition was
scheduled for November 25, 2015.  In support of the forthcoming
shareholder vote, the Defendants issued numerous false and
misleading statements, designed to undervalue the Company by
omitting Defendants' intentions to spin-off and publicly list
shares of its various subsidiaries in the People's Republic of
China.

Not long after WuXi was delisted from the NYSE on December 10,
2015, Defendants put their plan into action and started to spin-off
off and/or publicly listed the securities of its subsidiaries,
including WuXi Biologics, WuXi NextCODE, and WuXi AppTec, resulting
in astronomical gains for Defendants within the short period since
consummation of the Merger.

On June 6, 2017, it was announced that Defendants had completed an
IPO of its former subsidiary, WuXi Biologics, raising over $510
million, at a valuation of over $3 billion. In June 2018 it was
reported in Asian financial media that Defendants (defined below)
sold a 4.08% equity stake in WuXi Biologics for $505 million,
equating to a total equity value of over $12.3 billion for the
company.

In September 2017, WuXi NextCODE raised $240 million in its series
B financing round, valuing the company at $1.2 billion. One year
later, on November 27, 2018 WuXi NextCODE announced that it closed
its series C financing round, raising an additional $200 million.

Lastly, On May 8, 2018, WuXi AppTec completed its A-share initial
public offering and listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, after
receiving fast-track approval by China's securities regulator. The
offering raised $354 million, at a $3.5 billion valuation.

After seeing its stock price on the Shanghai Stock Exchange more
than triple since its IPO, in July 2018, WuXi AppTec filed a
prospectus in Hong Kong to become dual listed. On December 12,
2018, WuXi AppTec announced that it had raised $1.01 billion in its
Hong Kong debut listing. WuXi AppTec's Honk Kong IPO valued WuXi's
former subsidiary at $10.2 billion, approximately three times the
value Defendants paid for the entire Company barely two years
prior.

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


WUXI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons or entities
who sold WuXi PharmaTech (Cayman) Inc. (NYSE: WX) securities
between September 1, 2015 and December 10, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period") or purchased securities during the
Class Period and held such shares through December 10, 2015. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for WuXi investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the WuXi class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1516.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) WuXi's public statements misrepresented and/or omitted
material information that was necessary for WuXi shareholders to
make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of
the merger between WuXi with New WuXi Life Science Limited and WuXi
Merger Limited for approximately $3.62 billion; (2) defendants had
plans to spin-off and publicly list WuXi's various subsidiaries, in
a series of highly accretive transactions; and (3) as a result,
WuXi's statements about its business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1516.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


YRC INC: Southern Furniture Says Shipment Fees Excessive
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed over YRC Inc.'s alleged
widespread and systematic practice of overcharging its customers by
intentionally using inflated shipment weights when determining
shipment prices. The case is captioned Southern Furniture Leasing,
Inc., Plaintiff, v. YRC, Inc.; Roadway Express, Inc.; and Yellow
Transportation, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02129-KHV-KGG
(D. Kan., March 8, 2019).  The Plaintiff alleges that YRC's reweigh
practices are a breach of the form contract, a violation of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing that underpins that contract,
and a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

YRC, Inc. is a Delaware entity with its principal place of business
in Overland Park, Kansas. YRC, Inc. does business as YRC Freight
and is the successor to Roadway Express, Inc., and Yellow
Transportation, Inc. In 2003, Yellow Transportation, Inc. purchased
Roadway Express, Inc. In 2009, Yellow Transportation, Inc. and
Roadway Express, Inc. combined corporate structures to officially
operate as a single entity.  Yellow Transportation, Inc. and
Roadway Express, Inc., and subsequently YRC Freight, Inc., operated
in coordination and together with regard to the reweighing
practices at issue. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Eric D. Barton, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Sarah B. Ruane, Esq.
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP
4740 Grand Ave. Ste. #300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: 816-701-1100
Fax: 816-531-2372
E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
        thudson@wcllp.com
        sruane@wcllp.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 ***