CAR_Public/190405.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 69

                            Headlines

1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE: Burks Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
2 GOLD: Tenants' Class Action Over Hurricane Sandy Flooding Nixed
247.AI INC: Ford Appeals N.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Circuit
319 MEAT MARKET: Soriano et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
A-S MEDICATION: Appeals Ruling in PHI Suit to 7th Circuit

AFSCME: Public Union Dues Fights Persist
AMERICAN HONDA: Conti Sues Over Defective Vehicles
AMERICAN WEB: Curry Appeals Ruling in Solomon Suit to 4th Circuit
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
ARRIGO ENTERPRISES: Reichbart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing

AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter Sues over Biometric Data Collection
AXOS BANK: McSwain Suit Asserts California Law Violations
AZCONA INC: Underpays General Laborers, Reyes et al. Allege
BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Interchange Fees
BARK SHOP INC: Hernandez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
BIG FISH: Slapped With Class Action Lawsuit Again
BOXER PROPERTY: Kelsall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BRITISH AMERICAN: 2 Class Actions vs. Souza Cruz Pending in Brazil
BRITISH AMERICAN: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending

BROADCOM INC: High Court to Hear Oral Argument This Month
BSB BANCORP: Parshall Drops Suit over People's United Merger
BUCCINI/POLLIN: Settles Homeowners' Construction Class Action
BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
CALAVERA, CA: Class Action Over Marijuana Cultivation to Proceed

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees
CAMPING WORLD: Ronge and Strougo Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit
CAMPING WORLD: Seeks to Dismiss IUOE Complaint in NY State Court
CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAREFIRST INC: Appeal Filed in Attias Data Breach Suit

CARTERSVILLE, GA: Cartersville 70' Attorneys File Class Action
CASA PACIFICA: Faces Damron's Labor Suit
CITYWIDE PARKING: Faces Kemi Wage and Hour Suit in California
COLUMBUS, OH: Pennington Sues Over 1st Amendment Rights Violation
CONAGRA BRANDS: April 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

CONTINENTAL HOSTS: Rendon Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson and Chen Class Suits Consolidated
COVENANT TRANSPORT: Underpays Drivers, Tabizon Suit Alleges
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Faces Tabizon Class Action in Calif.
CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

DAKKOTA INTEGRATED: Fox Sues over Use of Biometric Data
DELTA AIR LINES: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Fan Suit Says
DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Davis Suit
DON DEO: Sierra Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Regular Pay
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Sues over Biometric Data Collection

ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Sues over Contract Breach
ESMARALDA FASHIONS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Aguilar Suit Says
EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Suit Removed to C.D. California
FEHE ENTERPRISES: Wallace Seeks Overtime Pay
FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia

GAP (ITM) INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Settlement in Giovagnoli Wins Final Approval
GREENSKY INC: IPO-Related Securities Class Actions Underway
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Abboud Sues over Auto-Dialed Calls
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Keippel Hits Share Price Drop

HILTON WORLWIDE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in New York
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Rexroad et al. Sue over Direct Injection Defect
IMMUNE DESIGN: Witmer Says Solicitation Statement Misleading
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL: Lopez Brings ADA Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
INUVO INC: Bid to Dismiss Franchi Class Suit Still Pending

INUVO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Action Underway
IRON MOUNTAIN: Removes Modica Suit to E.D. California
ISLAND YACHT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KA FAI MANAGEMENT: Mishandled Security Deposits, Li et al. Say
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suits Pending

KAUFMAN ENTERPRISES: Pierre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KITE PHARMA: Aguilar Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
KRAFT HEINZ: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing

LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Inc.'s Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
LORI LOUGHLIN: Faces Class Action Over College Admissions Scandal
LSCI INC: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Putative Class Action in New Jersey Underway
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter et al. Suit Moves to D. Maryland

MARRONE BIO: July 11 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MASSACHUSETTS: District Judge Faces Liviz Suit in D. Mass.
MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Pauli Class Suit Underway
MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Viky Class Action Underway
MCCARTHY'S BOAT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MDL 2804: Jefferson County to Retain Legal Counsel in Opioid Suit
MDL 2875: Duffy Suit v. Aurobindo over Valsartan Consolidated
MIDLAND CREDIT: Timmons Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Causes Cancer, Graef Alleges
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomlinson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOPHIE INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Ruling Still Pending
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Insurance Row Removed to E.D. Pa.
NCAA: Johnson Claims Damages Over Injuries Sustained

NCAA: Porcelli Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
NEW YORK: Faces Dorce Suit over Civil Rights Violation
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Kohmetscher Suit in S.D. Florida
NISOURCE INC: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Says

NORTHERN BIRCH: Samarasinghe Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
NORTHERN OIL: Jeffrey Fries Class Action Dismissed
NOSTRAND CRICKET: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
NOTTINGHAM'S LLC: James Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct.
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Menaldi Case Settlement Has Final Court Approval

OLIN CORPORATION: Amrex Files Anti-trust Suit in New York Ct.
ORACLE CORP: Kahn Swick Officers and Directors
ORACLE CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit over Hamilton Merger Underway
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Faces SEPTA Putative Class Action

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Nallagonda Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
OWENS CORNING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Class Suit
OWENS REALTY: Defending Against Suit over Ready Capital Merger
PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit Still Pending
POLARITYTE INC: Utah Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PRECISION DRILLING: Dyck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROTHENA CORP: Still Defends Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jury Rules Firm's Actions Hurt Investors
PURE DEBT SOLUTIONS: Faces Boehm Suit over Unauthorized Calls

REC BOAT HOLDINGS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces CIS Communications Suit in Missouri
RICO'S CHICKEN: Buitrago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROYAL SEAS: Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Bell Suit Says
SAM'S WEST: Sued by Lockwood Over False Ad for Gift Cards

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Puerto Rico
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Suit over Mexican Government Bonds Pending
SARIANA LLC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts

SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Does Not Pay Min. & OT Wages, Cano Suit Says
SEVEN SPORTS: Hopkins Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SITESOL: Palmerin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SPIGEN INC: Dennis Suit Asserts ADA Violation
SPLIT ROCK: Accused by Indiviglio Class Suit of Violating FACTA

SPROUT FARMERS: May 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
STEADFAST INCOME: Records $305,000 as Reimbursement at Dec. 31
STEWART BUILDERS: Sheffield Seeks OT Wages for Pump Operators
SUNNY DELIGHT: Wins SunnyD Mislabeling Lawsuit  
SUNTRUST BANK: Class Action Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees Okayed

SURE CHECK: Kind Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
SURGERY PARTNERS: Derivative Claims Remain in Klein v. HIG Capital
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss Amended NJ Complaint Underway
TAPESTRY INC: Amaro Seeks Redress for Unauthorized Calls
TGHI INC: Faces Dennis Suit Alleging ADA Breach

THULE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Dennis Suit Says
TOP TIER SAFETY: Edwards Suit Asserts FLSA Violations
TREASURE BAY: Shortchanges Casino Dealers' Wages, Overtime Pay
TRINITY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Suit Alleges
TRIUMPH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lopez ADA Class Action in New York

U.S. SOCCER: Moves to Transfer Unequal Pay Case to Illinois
U.S. SOOCER: Team Coach Supports Women Players' Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stellenbosch Lecturer Comments on Class Action
UNION PACIFIC: Flood Victims Reach Settlement
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Youth Immigration Status

UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Expand ICE Class Action
US BANK: Still Defends Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts
VISA USA: $4.1-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay
W.L. GORE: Dennis Brings ADA Class Action in E.D. New York
WAVERLY EASTERN: Faces Chen Suit Over Unpaid Wages

WEBCOLLEX LLC: Reyes Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Jubelt Files Securities Class Action in NY
WEIRTON, WV: Plant Demolition May Spur Class Action
WILCO LIFE: Breaches Settlement in Insurance MDL, LSCC Claims
WILLIAM SINGER: Sued by Olsen Over College Admissions Scandal

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND: Faces Albers' Suit over Data Breach
WORLDPANTRY.COM: Dennis Files ADA Suit v. Chocolate Co.
ZAGG INC: Dennis Asserts ADA Class Action in E.D. New York
ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action Suit
[*] Securities Class Action Settlements Totaled $5-Bil. in 2018


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.8MM Award vs. Caterpillar Reversed on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,684 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arconic, Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 People in UK Every Year

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BEI Amicus Brief Accepted in Terwilliger's Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $308MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,708 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Matters

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $89MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Cosmetics Recalled for Possible Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $56.0MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,089 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid DeLisle Judgment in December 2018

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $295MM Accrual at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,134 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Posts $849.3MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Shampoo Fails India Watchdog's Tests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Jury Clears J&J in Talc Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rehearing of Deere Appeal Denied, Opinion Modified

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 745 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Science Lab Technician Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 29


                            *********

1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE: Burks Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Burks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, DAVID A. KOST, DAVID
A. KOST, II, and DOW DOUGLAS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00716-L (N.D. Tex., March 22, 2019) is a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
in accordance with the FLSA in that they failed to pay Plaintiff
time and one-half his regular hourly rate for working weekly hours
worked in excess of 40, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January
2017 through September 2018.

Defendant 1and2 Automotive does business in the State of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Forester, Esq.
     D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
            matthew@foresterhaynie.com

          - and -

     Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
     WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
     6425 Willow Creek Drive
     Plano, TX 75093
     Phone: (972) 403-3330
     Email: jillwlfirm@gmail.com


2 GOLD: Tenants' Class Action Over Hurricane Sandy Flooding Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
tenant-driven class action lawsuit brought against two Lower
Manhattan buildings ravaged by Hurricane Sandy must be dismissed
because expert opinions meant to support negligence theories were
conclusory and unsupported by data and industry standards, a state
appeals court has ruled.

An Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote that ownership
and management company defendants in the lawsuit had established
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by, among other things,
showing that any property-related damages suffered by the tenants
were "caused by an act of God" and that, in opposition, the tenants
failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

"Plaintiffs . . . failed to provide evidence sufficient to support
these [negligence] theories since their experts' opinions were
conclusory and unsupported by objective data or citations to the
Building Code or industry standards," the panel wrote in its
decision, citing in part Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5
NY3d 1.

"Moreover," the panel wrote, "the opinion of one of plaintiffs'
experts was based on observations long after the storm and
subsequent to the installation of new floodgates" at the
buildings.

The lawsuit was lodged in November 2012, just weeks after
Superstorm Sandy devastated the New York area, and it was brought
on behalf of tenants at the adjacent 2 Gold Street and 201 Pearl
Street buildings, both of which were evacuated and sustained major
storm damage, court records say.

Among the causes of action against the defendants, which included
ownership companies 2 Gold LLC and 201 Pearl LLC and management
company TF Cornerstone Inc., were multiple negligence claims.
According to the complaint, tenants lost personal property and
suffered property diminution of value, among other damages, and
they were exposed to safety and health dangers from toxic fumes
that emanated from a gasoline spill into the floodwaters.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ellen Coin, in her 2017 summary
judgment dismissal decision, which the First Department affirmed,
wrote that the tenant-plaintiffs sought damages for loss and/or
diminution of personal property value. She also noted that Sandy,
said to be the largest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic
Ocean, sent surging waters that "overtopped the Buildings' flood
protections … depositing hundreds of thousands of gallons of
water" into a flooded common basement, which in turn "caused the
Buildings' 20,000 gallon oil tank to detach form the floor and
release approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel oil into the
floodwaters."

The First Department panel of Justices David Friedman, John Sweeny,
Rosalyn Richter, Jeffrey Oing and Peter Moulton wrote in their
March 7 opinion that defendants 2 Gold, 201 Pearl and TF
Cornerstone had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of
law.

"They submitted evidence showing that plaintiffs' damages, if any,
were caused by an act of God," the justices wrote, and they showed
that it was "not foreseeable" that "a storm of the magnitude of
Superstorm Sandy would strike lower Manhattan, and that compliance
with the Department of Buildings' mandated provisions for flood
protection would be inadequate."

Then the justices pointed out that the class plaintiffs had
"assert[ed] that they presented sufficient evidence to raise
triable issues[,] including whether the buildings were adequately
flood proofed and prepared for the storm; whether there was a
deviation from the design drawings during construction that caused
water to accumulate against the floodgate; whether it was
unreasonable for defendants not to have an emergency plan; whether
defendants should have trained their superintendent in flood
preparation and not have permitted him to leave the buildings the
weekend before the storm; and whether it was unreasonable for
defendants not to call the emergency services offered by their
insurer."

But the justices found that the tenant class "failed to provide
evidence sufficient to support these theories since their experts'
opinions were conclusory and unsupported by objective data or
citations to the Building Code or industry standards," while noting
that "the opinion of one of plaintiffs' experts was based on
observations long after the storm and subsequent to the
installation of new floodgates."

Brittany Weiner, a partner at Imbesi Law in New York, said in an
email on March 11 that "plaintiffs are evaluating all available
options after reviewing the First Department's decision." She did
not say more about whether or not plaintiffs may seek leave to
appeal the First Department decision to the Court of Appeals.

Barbara Goldberg -- goldbb@mcblaw.com -- a Martin Clearwater & Bell
partner in New York and head of the firm's Appellate Department,
represented the company defendants in the appeal. She also could
not reached. [GN]


247.AI INC: Ford Appeals N.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Madison Copeland, Rudolph Dubrovszky, Michael Ford and
Noe Gamboa filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Michael Ford, et al. v. [24]7.AI, Inc., Case No.
5:18-cv-02770-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2019, Judge
Beth Labson Freeman (i) denied the parties' stipulated request to
set a schedule for further briefing; and (ii) granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the present action, Ford, under the
first-to-file rule.

The putative class action was filed on May 10, 2018, asserting
claims arising out of a 2017 data breach that affected customers of
several large companies, including Best Buy, Delta Airlines, and
Sears, all of which had hired [24]7 to provide sales support to
their customers, including online chat services.  The Plaintiffs
claim that the data breach was caused by [24]7's inadequate
security and that [27]7 delayed providing notice of the breach.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Ford, et al. v.
[24]7.AI, Inc., Case No. 19-15462, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Madison Copeland, Rudolph Dubrovszky, Michael
      Ford and Noe Gamboa's opening brief is due on May 13, 2019;

   -- Appellee [24]7.AI, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      June 13, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL FORD, RUDOLPH DUBROVSZKY, MADISON
COPELAND and NOE GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Clayeo Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Avenue, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  jwatson@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0602
          E-mail: jbourne@pswlaw.com
                  mweiner@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Appellee [24]7.AI, INC., is represented by:

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


319 MEAT MARKET: Soriano et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SORIANO and BRAULIO RENDON TRUJILLO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 319 MEAT
MARKET CORP. (D/B/A KEY FOOD), SAM ABED, RANDI ABED, and JUAN DOE,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01608 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of 319 Meat Market Corp. The
Defendants own, operate, or control a supermarket, located at 319
Kings Highway, Brooklyn, NY 11223 under the name "Key Food". The
Plaintiffs worked as helpers and bakers at the supermarket.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
employees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

A-S MEDICATION: Appeals Ruling in PHI Suit to 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants A-S Medication Solutions, LLC and Walter Hoff filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. v. A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-05105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this Telephone
Consumer Protection Act case involves unsolicited advertisements
sent by fax.  Physicians Healthsource filed the case in state court
in May 2012, and the Defendants removed it to federal court in June
2012.  On Sept. 27, 2016, the judge to whom the case was previously
assigned certified a Plaintiff class consisting of those who were
successfully sent the advertisement between Feb. 10 and Feb. 28,
2010.  In mid-October 2017, the case was transferred to Judge
Kennelly.

The appellate case is captioned as Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v.
A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1452, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before April 22, 2019, for A-S
Medication Solutions, LLC and Walter Hoff.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Appellants A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, and WALTER
HOFF are represented by:

          Michael F. Coyle, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLC
          409 S. Seventeenth Street
          500 Energy Plaza
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          E-mail: mcoyle@fraserstryker.com


AFSCME: Public Union Dues Fights Persist
----------------------------------------
David J. Pryzbylski, writing for The National Law Review, reports
that last year, the US Supreme Court made waves when it ruled
public employees generally cannot be forced to pay union dues. The
immediate aftermath of the decision gave rise to a myriad of legal
disputes, and those disputes persist.

For example, the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTWF) recently
announced that public employees in Michigan filed a class action
against a union in that state for potentially unlawful attempts to
force or coerce them into paying union dues. According to the press
release:

"Even after Michigan enacted its popular Right to Work Law
protecting workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a
condition of employment, union officials continued to harass and
threaten two public school employees in attempts to illegally
extract forced union fees from them. After years of union bosses'
intimidation tactics, [the employees] filed a federal class action
lawsuit, with free legal aid from Right to Work Foundation staff
attorneys, to enforce their First Amendment protections under the
Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision. Their lawsuit demands that
union officials stop the harassment, including the use of debt
collectors, and refund dues illegally obtained from potentially
thousands of other victims."

Shortly after launching the lawsuit, it appears the union caved and
agreed to cease its potential unlawful actions. It will be
interesting to see if unions continue to push the envelope despite
clear pronouncements that forced union dues in the public sector
generally are no longer permitted. Stay tuned. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: Conti Sues Over Defective Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------
Lesley Conti and Tom Conti on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02160 (C.D.
Cal., March 22, 2019) is a proposed class action for damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other persons and
entities nationwide who purchased or leased a fifth generation,
2018 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicle or 2019 Honda Pilot manufactured by
the Defendant.

The Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, warranted,
advertised, distributed, sold, and leased the Covered Vehicles,
which contain a defective integrated in-vehicle communication,
navigation, and entertainment system, commonly referred to as an
"infotainment system", that causes many of the Vehicles' features
to malfunction.

As a result of the defect, the Vehicles' infotainment systems
frequently freeze or crash (in which case no features connected to
system are operational, including the navigation technology, the
radio, and the rearview camera). These malfunctions pose a safety
risk because when the system malfunctions, unexpected audio or
video, or a blank or blue infotainment screen, can cause the driver
to become distracted. The defect can also render safety-related
systems (including backup camera functions) to fail.

Honda either knew of the defect before marketing the Vehicles or
failed to conduct adequate testing of the Vehicles system prior to
its release, asserts the complaint. Regardless, soon after the
release of the Vehicles, Honda must have known of the defect based
on the numerous customer complaints it received, and yet Honda
continued to market the Vehicles, the complaint relates.

Plaintiffs Lesley and Tom Conti purchased a new 2018 Honda Odyssey
EX-L from Great Lakes Honda in Akron, Ohio on or around June 12,
2017.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a California corporation with its
headquarters in Torrance, Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
     301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: (213) 330-7150
     Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
     Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Sean R. Matt, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
            sean@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     Todd Naylor, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8291
     Fax: (513) 345-8294
     Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
            tnaylor@gs-legal.com

          - and -

     John C. Weisensell, Esq.
     NIEKAMP, WEISENSELL, MUTERSBAUGH & MASTRANTONIO LLP
     23 South Main Street, Third Floor
     Akron, OH 44308
     Phone: (330) 434-1000
     Fax: (330) 434-1001
     Email: jack@nwm-law.com


AMERICAN WEB: Curry Appeals Ruling in Solomon Suit to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mark Curry and SOL Partners filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Royce Solomon, et al. v. Mark Curry,
et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00145-HCM-RJK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Newport News.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2019, Medley
Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that it continues to
defend the class action lawsuit alleging claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims
arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American
Web Loan.

The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in the case.

The other Defendants are AMERICAN WEB LOAN, INC.; AWL, INC.;
MACFARLANE GROUP, INC.; MACFARLANE GROUP, LLC; MEDLEY OPPORTUNITY
FUND II, LP; MEDLEY LLC; MEDLEY CAPITAL CORP.; OAKMONT FUNDING,
INC.; DINERO INVESTMENTS, INC.; CHIEFTAIN FUNDING, INC.; DANT
HOLDINGS, INC.; DHI COMPUTING SERVICE, INC.; SMITH HAYNES & WATSON,
LLC; MIDDLEMARCH PARTNERS; JOHN DOES 1-100; MEDLEY MANAGEMENT,
INC.; MEDLEY GROUP, LLC; BROOK TAUBE; SETH TAUBE; MIDDLEMARCH
SECURITIES, LLC; and RED STONE.

The appellate case is captioned as Royce Solomon, et al. v. Mark
Curry, et al., Case No. 19-1267, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROYCE SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; JODI BELLECI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL LITTLEJOHN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
GIULIANNA LOMAGLIO are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          David Watson Thomas, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT, PLLC
          P. O. Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0298
          Telephone: (434) 951-7224
          E-mail: dthomas@michiehamlett.com

Defendants-Appellants MARK CURRY and SOL PARTNERS are represented
by:

          Robert Madison Cary, Esq.
          Simon Andrew Latcovich, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-5901
          Telephone: (202) 434-5175
          E-mail: rcary@wc.com
                  slatcovich@wc.com

               - and -

          Kathryn E. Hoover, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500

               - and -

          Rachel S. Rodman, Esq.
          CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
          1700 G Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20552
          Telephone: (202) 435-7964


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A national shareholder rights litigation firm, disclosed the filing
of a class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo"
or "the Company") (NYSE: ) for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant or traceable
to Arlo's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Arlo's August
3, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), are encouraged to the firm
before March 25, 2019.

We also encourage you to Brian Schall, Esq., or Sherin Mahdavian,
Esq., of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, at, to discuss your rights free of charge.
You can also reach us through the firm's website at , or by email
at .

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Arlo's new battery for the Company's
Ultra camera systems suffered from flaws and quality issues. These
problems resulted in a shipping delay in the Ultra cameras. The
delays endangered Arlo's product from reaching the market for the
holiday season, and allowed competitors to capitalize on the issue,
gaining market share from the Company. At the same time, Arlo's
customers experienced problems with the product including excessive
battery drain. The battery issues were likely to negatively impact
the fourth quarter 2018 financial results. Based on these facts,
the Company's Registration Statement was false and materially
misleading. When the market learned the truth about Arlo, investors
suffered damages.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone:  
           Office: 310-301-3335
           Cell:   424-303-1964
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


ARRIGO ENTERPRISES: Reichbart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Alan Reichbart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arrigo Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram West Palm Beach, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80398-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 22, 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. This case
arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, promoting the
Defendant's services and goods.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Palm Beach
County, Florida.

Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave #1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-533-4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-400-4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
     utanski@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 786-351-8709
     Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter Sues over Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH02784 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 1, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiff's and the class members' sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. An employee who
leaves the Defendant does so without any knowledge of when their
biometric identifiers will be removed from the Defendant's
databases.

Automated Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1979. The company's
line of business includes providing health and allied services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AXOS BANK: McSwain Suit Asserts California Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel McSwain, on behalf of himself, all similarly others
situated, and the general public; Plaintiff, v. AXOS Bank, fka BANK
OF INTERNET USA; and DOES INCLUSIVE, 1-10, Defendant, Case No.
37-2019-00015782-CU-BC-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March
25, 2019) is a class action based on the Defendant's blatant and
willful violation of California laws requiring mortgage lenders
making loans secured by property located in California to pay the
borrower a minimum of 2% simple interest for money received in a
borrower's escrow account for the payment of property tax and
insurance.

AXOS requires borrowers such as Plaintiff to maintain an impound
escrow account in connection with their mortgages. Borrowers are
forced to pay money into the escrow account in advance, and AXOS
holds onto the money until it pays the property tax and insurance
for the mortgaged property. The money in the escrow account,
however, is the borrower's money and which mortgage lenders have
use of for investment. Accordingly, California law requires
mortgage lenders, including AXOS, to pay at least 2% interest on
the monies to the borrowers. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that
California's statutory requirement to pay interest is not preempted
by federal banking laws and regulations.

The complaint asserts that AXOS systematically and uniformly has
adopted a policy to violate California law. When Mr. McSwain
reached out to AXOS demanding his interest, AXOS incorrectly
asserted that is not required to pay interest. Meanwhile, in
quarterly earnings call, AXOS Financial, Inc. touted an increase in
non-interest bearing accounts. AXOS is, therefore, willfully not
complying with California law, then using the proceeds in order to
enrich itself and the investors of Axos Financial, Inc. This class
action is brought in order to force AXOS to pay its borrowers the
interest they are entitled to by law on the money that is theirs,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff McSwain was the trustor of a mortgage of which Defendant
AXOS was the beneficiary.

Defendant AXOS Bank, is a national bank with its Principle place of
business located at 4350 La Joila Village Drive, Suite 140, San
Diego, CA 92122.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
     Lilach Halperin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103

          - and -

     Michael G. Olinik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL G. OLINIK
     3443 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101
     San Diego, CA 92108


AZCONA INC: Underpays General Laborers, Reyes et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISMAR REYES; and FIDEL RAXCACO IZAGUIRRE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZCONA INC.;
and MANUEL AZCONA, Defendants, Case No. CV19-1188 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
28, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages and overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general
laborers.

Azcona Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 114415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Interchange Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") disclosed in its Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from February 1, 2019 to February 28, 2019,
that it remains a defendant in a number of putative class action
cases commenced in 2005 in various federal district courts by
merchants alleging that Visa U.S.A., Inc., MasterCard International
and their member banks conspired to fix interchange fees and
unlawfully bundle several separate and distinct services, such as
payment protection and transaction processing costs, in violation
of the U.S. antitrust laws.

The merchants also alleged that the defendants impose other
restraints on merchants in connection with accepting payment cards
and that such alleged restraints violate the antitrust laws.  Visa,
MasterCard and several other payment card issuing banks are also
defendants in the proceedings, which have been consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Eastern District of New York, MDL No.
1720.

The merchants' complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages
and injunctive relief.  By an order dated January 9, 2008, the
court dismissed class damage claims prior to January 1, 2004;
accordingly, the period over which any damages may be awarded is
January 1, 2004 to the date of the award.

On July 13, 2012, the parties filed a proposed settlement agreement
with the court under which the defendants agreed to pay the class
plaintiffs US$6.05 billion, to make network rule changes and to
give other relief.  The settlement agreement included a provision
pursuant to which Visa and MasterCard would reduce U.S. interchange
rates 10 bps during an eight-month period from July 29, 2013
through March 29, 2014.  On the same day, defendants announced that
they reached an agreement in principle to settle with a group of
individual plaintiffs that were not members of the class.  The
class settlement was approved by District Judge John Gleeson on
December 13, 2013, who then entered an agreed form of final
judgment on January 14, 2014.  The National Retail Federation and a
number of merchants appealed that judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On June 30, 2016, the
Second Circuit reversed Judge Gleeson's ruling approving the
settlement and remanded the action back to the Eastern District of
New York.

Following remand of the case, the District Court reappointed
counsel to represent members of the putative class seeking
primarily (but not exclusively) damages pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and appointed new counsel to represent
class members seeking primarily equitable relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  Counsel for the Rule
23(b)(3) putative class members moved for leave to file an amended
complaint adding factual allegations and legal theories to conform
to developments in the law, as well as damage claims for additional
years of alleged damages.  Counsel for the Rule 23(b)(2) putative
class members filed a separate complaint seeking broad equitable
relief against allegedly anticompetitive conduct as well as Visa
and MasterCard network rules.

On September 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein granted the
Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs' motion to amend in part and denied it in
part, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to add
their additional legal and factual theories, but holding that those
theories would only apply to the preceding four years and would not
relate back to the date of filing of the initial complaints in
2005.  On October 30, 2017, the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint.

The Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs appealed Magistrate Judge Orenstein's
ruling to District Judge Margo Brodie.  On August 30, 2018,
District Judge Brodie set aside Magistrate Judge Orenstein's
ruling, holding that plaintiffs' additional legal and factual
theories related back to the original filing dates for the Rule
23(b)(3) complaints and, for similar reasons, that comparable
theories advanced by merchants that elected not to participate in
the 2012 settlement and are suing the same defendants separately.

On January 16, 2019, BBD and the other bank defendants moved to
dismiss the Rule 23(b)(2) class plaintiffs' claims.  The briefing
on the motion is currently scheduled to be completed in April
2019.

A number of merchants, including several large retailers, elected
against participation in the 2012 class settlement, "opting out" of
that settlement and pursuing separate actions on the same or
similar claims as those alleged by the putative class plaintiffs.
Some of these merchants commenced new actions against Visa,
MasterCard and certain member banks, not including BBD.  Although
the class settlement fund was reduced to account for opt-outs,
resulting in a refund to BBD of a portion of its share of the class
settlement fund, total settlement payments by BBD to opt-out
plaintiffs may be higher than the amount of that refund.  If so,
BBD will be liable for its share of the excess over the refund
under the terms of a judgment sharing agreement with Visa,
MasterCard and the other payment card issuing bank defendants.  As
of the date hereof, Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of
these opt-out actions and BBD has contributed to the settlement of
those actions in accordance with the judgment sharing agreement.
The amount of those settlements has exceeded what each of those
plaintiffs would have been paid as a result of the class
settlement.

On February 17, 2017, BBD was named as a defendant in a case filed
in Harris County Texas District Court.  Plaintiffs allege that
Visa, MasterCard, and the named defendant member banks agreed, with
respect to Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards, to fix
interchange fees, unlawfully bundle separate and distinct services,
and otherwise engage in monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior
in violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of
1983.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
On April 5, 2017, certain defendants, including BBD, filed special
appearances in the Texas District Court on the grounds that the
court lacks personal jurisdiction over such defendants.  On the
same day, defendants jointly removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  On April 7, 2017, the
plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and filed an
amended complaint.  On August 3, 2017, the action was transferred
to the Eastern District of New York to be included in the pending
multi-district litigation, MDL No. 1720.  The District Court for
the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand on September 18, 2018.  On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint adding claims for violation of
Sections I and II of the Sherman Antitrust Act against all
defendants.  BBD answered the second amended complaint on December
21, 2018.  The District Court has yet to establish a calendar for
further fact discovery, expert discovery, and substantive motions.

On September 17, 2018, all defendants entered into a settlement
agreement with the Rule 23(b)(3) class plaintiffs to resolve their
claims.  On January 24, 2019, Judge Brodie preliminarily approved
the settlement of the Rule (b)(3) plaintiffs' claims.  A final
approval hearing has not been scheduled.  Because of the inherent
uncertainties involved in the Rule 23(b)(2) class action, the
"opt-out" plaintiffs' actions and the Texas action, it is too early
to reliably estimate the ultimate liability BBD may incur or
whether the results could be material to the operation or cash
flows of BBD.

Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclay card US,
provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for travel,
entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the
United States.


BARK SHOP INC: Hernandez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
---------------------------------------------------
Alexa Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bark Shop, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-20621 (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2019), seeks statutory damages
and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Bark Shop offers its members dog toys and treats. To promote its
services, it engages in sending unsolicited text messaging en
masse. Hernandez claims to have received such messages on his
cellphone. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Franke, writing for Reuters, reports that a once-promising
securities class action against Best Buy came to a whimpering end
on March 8, when U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank of St. Paul,
Minnesota, granted summary judgment to the electronics chain, which
had been accused of misrepresenting its projected earnings in a
conference call with analysts way back in 2010.

Judge Frank's ruling is obviously great news for Best Buy and its
lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who changed the course of
the case when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- in the first
appellate interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in
Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund -- decertified a Best Buy
shareholder class in 2016. There's a lesson for other securities
class action defendants from Best Buy's tenacity: It's expensive to
litigate shareholder class actions to the circuit courts and back
but sometimes the cost-benefit analysis cuts against settling when
you first lose a class certification decision.

The more important message from the Best Buy case, though, may be
the relatively limited impact of the 8th Circuit's analysis of
Halliburton. As you know, the Supreme Court held in Halliburton
that although shareholders are entitled to a presumption that
investors relied on corporate misstatements, defendants can rebut
that presumption. In practice, the Supreme Court's ruling meant
that securities class action defendants could attempt to block
class certification by showing that alleged misrepresentations
didn't impact the price of shares. The justices left considerable
ambiguity about the burden and standard of proof to show a lack of
price impact. The 8th Circuit's ruling in Best Buy, which said
defendants need only to show some evidence in order to shift the
burden to shareholders to prove price impact, buoyed defense hopes
that Halliburton would turn out to be a powerful weapon.

But the ruling hasn't gotten much traction. Based on Westlaw's
tally of decisions citing the 8th Circuit's Best Buy decision, only
a couple of trial courts have adopted the appellate court's
reasoning on how defendants can rebut the presumption. Other trial
courts have disagreed with the 8th Circuit's view of which side
bears the burden of proof. Most significantly, in a pair of 2017
rulings in class actions against Petrobras and Barclays, the 2nd
Circuit adopted a much tougher rebuttal standard, shunting aside
the 8th Circuit's Best Buy analysis as dicta. The 8th Circuit's
ruling, in other words, meant everything for Best Buy but not much
for anyone else.

That said, Judge Frank's handling of the Best Buy case after remand
from the 8th Circuit is worth recounting because future securities
defendants will surely try to replicate arguments that worked so
well for Simpson Thacher and its client. Based on the docket,
shareholders' lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd did not
consider the 8th Circuit's class decertification decision to be a
death blow for their case. In 2017, citing Judge Frank's previous
class certification decision, they asked for leave to file a
renewed motion for class certification.

Their key argument was that although the 8th Circuit had held that
Best Buy's share price did not rise in response to that 2010
conference call with analysts, the appeals court did not address
shareholders' "price maintenance" theory. Robbins Geller said it
had engaged an expert witness who would testify that the alleged
conference call misrepresentations kept Best Buy shares trading at
an artificially inflated price.

Judge Frank, however, read the 8th Circuit decision as the final
word on price impact. In June 2017, he refused (2017 WL 2728399)
even to allow Robbins Geller to file its renewed motion for class
certification. Shareholders' own original expert witness, Judge
Frank said, opined that the conference call statement didn't impact
Best Buy share prices, as the 8th Circuit noted in its
decertification decision. So price maintenance arguments by a new
expert, the judge said, are foreclosed by the conclusions of
shareholders' previous expert.

"The 8th Circuit was clear that plaintiffs had failed to show price
impact," Frank wrote. "The court is bound by that determination."

The case still wasn't over, though: Robbins Geller moved to amend
the shareholders' complaint, arguing for the revival of previously
dismissed claims that Best Buy issued a misleading press release
two hours before the allegedly misleading conference call. The
company's share price did rise significantly between the press
release and the analyst call, so if shareholders were permitted to
bring claims based on the public announcement, they'd have a better
shot at establishing price impact and winning class certification.

But Judge Frank adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation against
allowing shareholders to file an amended complaint, paving the way
for Best Buy's motion for summary judgment on claims by the
individual named plaintiff. Simpson Thacher argued that the lead
shareholder testified he did not rely on, or even listen to, the
conference call in which corporate officials allegedly
misrepresented the company's prospects. Robbins Geller countered
that Judge Frank had effectively prevented shareholders from
litigating as a class, but did not contest that the lead investor
didn't rely on the alleged misrepresentations. Judge Frank said in
the March 8 ruling that without reliance, the case is over.

It's hard to imagine another case with precisely parallel facts but
not so hard to foresee defendants arguing, especially in trial
courts in the 8th Circuit, that under Best Buy, they need only
provide some evidence casting doubt on price impact to block class
certification irreversibly.

Shareholders' lawyer Shawn Williams of Robbins Geller said
investors are weighing their options after the March 8 decision.
[GN]


BIG FISH: Slapped With Class Action Lawsuit Again
-------------------------------------------------
Francesco Marconi, writing for Best Online Casino, reports that
Sites News Online social games providers Big Fish Games has once
again been slapped with a class action lawsuit that is questioning
the legality of its social casino gaming products in the state of
Washington. The lawsuit which was filed at the US District Court of
the Western District of Washington at Seattle and is being led by
Plaintiff Manasa Thimmegowda named the Big Fish Games and
Aristocrat Leisure, its owner, as the defendants.

According to the plaintiff, Big Fish Games and Aristocrat Leisure
have violated Washington State gambling laws by operating Big Fish
Casino as well as a number of other similar social casino games. As
of this writing, online gambling is still illegal in the state. The
plaintiff reportedly began playing at Big Fish Casino using her
smartphone back in November 2017 and, as outlined in the lawsuit,
she spent over $3,000 buying virtual chips within a single month
just so that she could continue playing.

The social gaming providers games can only be played with the
casino's so-called virtual chips. While first-time players are
usually provided with a bundle of free chips, they can use to play
the games, they have to buy additional virtual chips once in order
to keep playing after the freely-awarded chips run out.

Previous Troubles

Big Fish Casino has had legal troubles in the state since back in
2015 when a player from the state sued it and Churchill Downs, its
then owner, for encouraging the purchase of virtual chips for real
money in order to allow them to play the Big Fish casino games.
These troubles extended all the way to 2018 when the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finally issued a ruling which was not
in the operator's favor.

According to the court, Big Fish Casino's virtual chips were "a
thing of value" and under the state's gaming law, the purchase of
such chips, online or otherwise, constituted illegal gambling. The
new lawsuit that the social games provider has been hit with gives
a deeper insight into the proliferation of smartphone gambling
services as well as the rapid growth of "free-to-play" games. In
Big Fish Casino's case, the term "free-to-play" games is a misnomer
since while the gaming apps are free to download from mobile app
stores, the company has managed to "reap huge profits by selling
thousands of 'in-app' items". This usually starts with relatively
small amounts of money but it can quickly escalate to hundreds or
even up to thousands of dollars. Obviously, if this is the case,
both companies are in quite a hot mess.[GN]


BOXER PROPERTY: Kelsall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kelsall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxer Property Management Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01062 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019) is a
collective action seeking to recover overtime compensation, other
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated regularly worked over
40 hours in a week while employed by Defendant but were not paid
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a work week, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated onsite leasing agents worked
at a Boxer Property office located on one of Boxer Property's
privately held and to-be-leased commercial properties.

Boxer Property Management Corporation is a Houston-based
corporation that is qualified to conduct business in the State of
Texas and in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
     Patrick J. Raspino, Esq.
     WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
     1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 528-4455
     Facsimile: (713) 528-2047


BRITISH AMERICAN: 2 Class Actions vs. Souza Cruz Pending in Brazil
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 currently two class
actions being brought in Brazil against subsidiary Souza Cruz.

In August 2007, the Sao Paulo Public Prosecutor's Office filed a
medical reimbursement claim against Souza Cruz S.A. ("Souza Cruz").
A similar claim was lodged against Philip Morris Brasil Industria
e Comercio Ltda.  On 4 October 2011, the Court dismissed the action
against Souza Cruz, with a judgment on the merits.  The plaintiffs'
appeal to the Court of Appeal failed by unanimous vote (3 to 0).
The Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Special Appeal to the
Superior Court of Justice, which was denied on November 12, 2018 by
a decision that is subject to further appeal.

In 1995, the Associacao de Defesa da Saude do Fumante ("ADESF")
class action was filed against Souza Cruz and Philip Morris in the
Sao Paulo Lower Civil Court alleging that the defendants are liable
to a class of smokers and former smokers for failing to warn of
cigarette addiction.  The case was stayed in 2004 pending the
defendants' appeal from a decision issued by the Lower Civil Court
that held that the defendants had not met their burden of proving
that cigarette smoking was not addictive or harmful to health.

On November 12, 2008, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals overturned the
lower court's unfavorable decision of 2004, returning the case to
the lower court for production of evidence and a new judgment.
Following production of evidence, on 16 May 2011, the lower court
granted Souza Cruz's motion to dismiss the action in its entirety
on the merits.  The plaintiffs' appeal to the Sao Paolo Court of
Appeals was unsuccessful.  The plaintiffs then filed a Special
Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which was rejected under
procedural grounds on 20 February 2017.  The plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the rejection in the Superior Court of Justice on 15
March 2017.

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: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The putative Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action styled
Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. remains pending, according to
British American Tobacco p.l.c.'s Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. is a case filed in November
1997 in the Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana against
various US cigarette manufacturers, including subsidiaries R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRTC) and Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of such manufacturers.  This
putative Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action was brought
on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though
not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to second-hand
smoke from cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, and who
allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company said, "In March 2016, the court entered an order
staying the case, including all discovery, pending the completion
of an ongoing smoking cessation programme ordered by the court in a
now concluded Louisiana state court certified class action, Scott
v. American Tobacco Co."

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

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.


BROADCOM INC: High Court to Hear Oral Argument This Month
---------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments in a Supreme Court appeal related to the class
action complaint of Gary Varjabedian, et al., against Broadcom
Inc., are scheduled for April 15, 2019, according to Broadcom's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended February 3, 2019.  The case is
currently in the United States Supreme Court.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG.  The
complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its
directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to
assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of
directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or
omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by
Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto.  The
complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order
appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the
putative class.  On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified
money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted
with prejudice on January 13, 2016.  Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
or the Ninth Circuit Court, on January 15, 2016.  The appeal is
captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
No. 16-55088.

On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief,
on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed
their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant
filed his reply brief.  The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral
arguments on October 5, 2017.  On April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
Court issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the
decision of the U.S. Central District Court and remanding
Plaintiff-Appellant's claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act to the U.S. Central District Court for
reconsideration.

On May 4, 2018, the Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for
Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court.  On July 13, 2018,
Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the Petition for
Rehearing En Banc.  On September 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court
issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On January
4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.  On
February 19, 2019, the Defendants-Appellees (as Petitioners in the
United States Supreme Court) filed their opening brief.  The
Plaintiff-Appellant's brief was to be filed by March 21, 2019 and
oral arguments are scheduled for April 15, 2019.

The Company said, "We believe these claims are all without merit
and intend to vigorously defend these actions."

Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of
semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed
signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and
analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through
four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications,
Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other.  Broadcom Inc. is based
in San Jose, California.


BSB BANCORP: Parshall Drops Suit over People's United Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
BSB Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that Paul Parshall's derivative and putative
class action complaint related to the proposed merger of the
Company with and into People's United Financial, Inc. has been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.  Specifically, on March 6,
2019, Paul Parshall filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, which was entered on the docket on March 11, 2019.

On January 31, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual
stockholder of the Company, filed, on behalf of himself and all of
the Company's stockholders other than the named defendants and
their affiliates (the "Purported Class"), a derivative and putative
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. Robert J. Morrissey et al.,
naming each Company director, People's United and the Company as
defendants.

The complaint alleged that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in connection with the
Proposed Merger.  The complaint also alleged that the January 23,
2019 proxy statement/prospectus ("Proxy Statement/Prospectus")
included in People's United's Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission omitted certain
information regarding the Proposed Merger.

The Proxy Statement/Prospectus was the proxy statement for the
Company's special meeting of stockholders to approve the Proposed
Merger, and People's United's prospectus with respect to the shares
of People's United's common stock to be issued to Company
stockholders in the Proposed Merger.  The relief sought by the
complaint included preliminary and permanent injunction from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Merger,
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and rescission and
rescissory damages if the proposed merger is completed.

BSB Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for Belmont
Savings Bank that provides commercial and retail banking services
to small businesses, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and
other customers in the United States.  The Company was founded in
1885 and is headquartered in Belmont, Massachusetts.


BUCCINI/POLLIN: Settles Homeowners' Construction Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Baker, writing for Delaware News Journal, reports that a
yearslong legal fight over who is at fault for rotting structural
beams within Wilmington's taxpayer-supported Christina Landing
townhomes came to a close just before it was set to go to trial on
March 11.

In 2015, homeowners Jason and Amanda Jones filed the suit against
two home warranty companies and the Buccini/Pollin Group, the
politically influential builder of the prominent development.

Constructed in 2004 and 2005, the homes were designed to spark a
back-to-the-city movement in Wilmington by bringing well-heeled
professionals to the economically struggling southern banks of the
Christina River.

Yet, much of the hope dissolved years later when the residents
learned that the beams holding up their enclosed terraces were
rotting away.

A resulting lawsuit claimed breach of contract, negligent
construction, negligent repair, breach of warranty, bad faith and
consumer fraud.

Last year, a Delaware judge certified the case as a class action
over BPG's objections.

On March 7, lawyers announced that the claims had been settled.

Rot has appeared in beams holding up second and third floor
enclosed terraces at the Christina Landing townhomes in
WIlmington.

Terms of the settlement went undisclosed and neither BPG nor the
attorney for the homeowners, Kevin Guerke, would comment for this
story. Last year, Guerke had called the suit a "multimillion-dollar
class action."

Now, residents who live among the rows of the stately, 3-story
townhomes must decide whether to accept the terms.

When contacted by The News Journal on March 11, Helene Lotierzo,
wasn't aware that the years of litigation could be coming to an
end.

She expects that her neighbors will vote to approve the settlement
as long as "it's fair." For her, that would mean recouping most of
the $35,000 spent, to date, on legal fees and on replacing rotting
beams that hold up second and third-floor enclosed terraces.

"If (the amount) is a slap in the face, then we won't accept it,"
she said.

On March 8, counter-claims that BPG had brought against its
construction subcontractors also were settled.

Michael Silverman, an attorney for Sun Builders Inc., said BPG's
allegations lacked any "credible evidence" to show that his client
had done "anything to play any part in the damage."  

While Silverman settled the claims, he said it was for a "nuisance"
amount -- small enough to demonstrate that his client was not
liable, he said.

"It was an amount low enough that it made no sense to go to trial,"
Silverman said.

'Widespread leaks'
Until their support beams were found to be rotting away, the
enclosed terraces at the prominent townhomes gave residents an
unobstructed view of Wilmington's downtown and historic waterway.

Their construction, just across the river from the Wilmington train
station, had been a "public-private project of great importance to
the economic vitality of Wilmington and the state," elected
officials said in 2005.

As such, the state and the city directed about $25 million to
accommodate the construction of the larger Christina Landing
development, which included the townhomes and their adjacent
high-rise residential buildings.

Less than a decade later, many of the residents were fuming when
they learned that a vapor barrier, ice and water guard and metal
flashing installed around the skeleton of the structures had
failed.

Last year, Guerke said new "repair costs will be substantial."

"A contractor has to deconstruct the wall cavity to remove both
structural beams, which hold up the terraces, replace them and then
rebuild the wall without taking the entire front of the house
apart," he said. "It's a tricky and complex process."

While BPG may foot the bill for those repairs, now that it has
settled the case, it likely will pursue reimbursement of those
costs from the two home warranty companies with which it had
contracted when it sold the homes.

Buccini/Pollin spokesman Michael Hare last year said the larger
dispute "is over whether the warranty company is liable for the
damage."

A case in Delaware's federal court, postponed until the completion
of the class action between BPG and Home Buyers Warranty Corp. and
National Home Insurance Company now looms.

In previous court filings, the warranty companies claimed the
insurance plans didn't cover the defects that caused the rot in the
townhomes. [GN]


BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kevin Ferrell, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated; Cheryl Baker,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; the
Plaintiffs, vs. Buckingham Property Management, a California
corporation; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC554213 (Filed
August 8, 2014), was transferred from Los Angeles County Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California on March 11, 2019. The United States District Court
Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00332-LJO-SAB to the proceeding.

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

Buckingham Property Management, founded in 1982, specializes in
professional management of residential real estate. It currently
manages over 7,500 units in a wide range of conventional and
compliance apartment communities. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

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


CALAVERA, CA: Class Action Over Marijuana Cultivation to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Schroyer, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that a
class action lawsuit against a rural California county that
prohibited marijuana grows after collecting taxes and fees from
hundreds of cultivators is poised to proceed after a judge's ruling
that overruled objections from the county.

The lawsuit -- filed last August on behalf of several hundred MJ
farmers in Calaveras County -- seeks the return of roughly $16
million in taxes and fees paid to the county.

The county has already agreed to refund nearly $1 million in fees,
but that wasn't enough to settle the dispute.

Now the ball is in the county's court, said attorney Henry
Wykowski, one of the lawyers representing the Calaveras growers.

"We expect that we'll hear from the county, and if we can settle
it, we will, and if not, then we've done these before and we'll
move forward," Wykowski said, pointing to the $1 million fee refund
as a sign that county officials "know that they're in trouble" on
this issue.

He estimated that even if the matter goes to trial, it wouldn't
happen for at least another year.

The Calaveras County counsel could not be immediately reached for
comment. [GN]


CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that five public
school teachers on March 11 filed a proposed class action against
the California Teachers Association and their local labor union
affiliates, alleging that school districts continue charging them
union dues even though they are no longer members.

The educators, including one from Hayward and one from Fremont,
said in a complaint filed in San Francisco federal district court
that they weren't told they could opt out of joining the local
teachers unions. When the teachers later resigned their
memberships, they say union leaders told them they had to continue
paying dues until a specified withdrawal period arrived.

The teachers, represented by the Dhillon Law Group of San Francisco
and the Washington-based Freedom Foundation, argue that the ongoing
dues violate Janus v. AFSCME. The 2018 ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court held that forcing non-union members to pay fair-share fees --
covering the costs of collective bargaining -- violates
public-sector workers' First Amendment rights.
"The fact that the union is continuing to deduct dues but has
accepted [the employees'] resignation shows that they are really
only concerned about the money," Mariah Gondeiro-Watt, Freedom
Foundation's California counsel, said at a press conference on
March 11 in San Francisco. "We want to establish going forward that
the unions must obtain the affirmative consent of the employees
before they deduct union dues."

The suit also names five school district superintendents and
Attorney General Xavier Becerra for enforcing state statutes the
plaintiffs say allow the continued, unwanted collection of union
dues.

"This is just another lawsuit from the Freedom Foundation to
continue the attack on public education and public employees,"
California Teachers Association spokeswoman Claudia Briggs said in
an email.

The Freedom Foundation, a critic of public employee unions and
their political power, has been a leader in efforts to encourage
workers to opt out of union membership in the wake of Janus. Max
Nelson, the nonprofit's director of labor policy, told Marketplace
last fall that his organization has a $3 million to $4 million
budget for a campaign targeting public workers. Their pitch has
included mailers, door-to-door visits with employees, billboards
and videos.

The suit filed on March 11 in San Francisco is similar to a class
action filed by Freedom Foundation attorneys last year in the U.S.
District Court for western Washington, which alleges the state and
public-sector unions are conspiring to continue charging union fees
to nonmember employees.

Harmeet Dhillon, lead counsel for the California plaintiffs, said
the proposed class action seeks a refund of any dues taken
improperly from class members as well as an order that employees be
told that they are not required to join a union and that if they do
sign on with a bargaining unit their dues could be spent on
political activities with which they disagree.

The Supreme Court's decision last year in the Janus case overturned
decades-old precedent that permitted public sector unions to
collect fair-share fees.

A similar suit, titled Friedrichs v. California Teachers
Association, ended in a deadlocked 4-4 ruling at the Supreme Court
in 2016. The even divide, caused after the death of Justice Antonin
Scalia, left in place a Ninth Circuit decision that favored the
union. [GN]


CAMPING WORLD: Ronge and Strougo Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, that on February 27, 2019, lead plaintiffs
in the "Ronge" and "Strougo" suits filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.  and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and
the underwriters of the May and October 2017 secondary offerings of
the Company's Class A common stock.  

The Company said, "On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge
v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us,
certain of our officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").
On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us, certain of
our officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.  and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint").

"The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs appointed by the court.  On February 27, 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against us, certain of
our officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.  and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and
October 2017 secondary offerings of our Class A common stock.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.  Additionally, it alleges that certain of our
officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C.  violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the
Company.  The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of our Class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and
August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, rescission, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court
deems just and proper."

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a
portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources
for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Seeks to Dismiss IUOE Complaint in NY State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc., along with other defendants, has
moved to dismiss a putative class action complaint styled
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, the complaint was filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of all
purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock issued pursuant
and/or traceable to a secondary offering of such securities in
October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint").  The IUOE Complaint names as
defendants Camping World, and certain of our officers and
directors, among others, and alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly
materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts
necessary to make certain statements not misleading.

On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a
portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources
for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Douglas Rodriguez, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carbel USA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 705142/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Queens Cty., March 25, 2019)
complains on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant, under the Civil Practice Law and Rules that he and they
are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendant for working
more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of
at least 1.5 times the regular rate and 1.5 times the applicable
minimum wage rate, and entitled to costs and attorney's fees,
pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA"), and the N.Y.
Lab. Law,("NYLL").

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 2016 to February
5, 2019.

Carbel USA LLC was a for-profit Limited Liability Company with
offices located at 182-08 149th Avenue, Springfield Gardens, NY
11413.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CAREFIRST INC: Appeal Filed in Attias Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Chantal Attias, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Chantal Attias, et al. v. CareFirst,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2019, Judge
Christopher R. Cooper granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

In May 2015, the District of Columbia-area health insurer CareFirst
announced that it had suffered a data breach that compromised the
personal information of millions of its policyholders.  The
Plaintiffs in the putative class action are among those whose data
was accessed.  They seek compensation for the breach through both
tort- and contract-based claims under District of Columbia law, as
well as statutory claims under several D.C., Maryland, and Virginia
consumer-protection laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Chantal Attias, et al. v.
CareFirst, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-7020, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Chantal Attias, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Richard Bailey, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Latanya Bailey,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Lisa
Huber, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Andreas Kotzur, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Curt Tringler, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and Connie Tringler, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
          PAULSON & NACE PLLC
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-1999
          E-mail: cnace@paulsonandnace.com

Defendants-Appellees CareFirst, Inc., doing business as Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Carefirst BlueCross
BlueShield, doing business as CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc.; Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as
Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as Carefirst Blue
Cross Blue Shield; CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc., doing business as
Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.; and CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., doing
business as Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as
BlueCross and BlueShield of Maryland Inc.,, doing business as
CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc., are represented by:

          Matthew Gatewood, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          700 6th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001-3980
          Telephone: (202) 383-0100
          E-mail: matt.gatewood@sutherland.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Owen, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          Grace Building, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          E-mail: robertowen@eversheds-sutherland.com


CARTERSVILLE, GA: Cartersville 70' Attorneys File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Swift, writing for The Daily Tribune News, reports that
attorneys representing seven individuals arrested in late 2017 as
part of the infamous "Cartersville 70" incident have filed a class
action lawsuit against the City of Cartersville and numerous
members of both the Cartersville Police Department and Bartow
County Sheriff's Office.
  
The complaint was formally filed in the United States District
Court's Northern District of Georgia in Rome on March 11. The suit
accuses more than two dozen representatives of the Cartersville
Police Department, Bartow County Sheriff's Office and
Bartow-Cartersville Drug Task Force of several wrongdoings,
including unconstitutional search and seizure, violation of right
to privacy, false imprisonment and battery.

Serving as counsel for the seven plaintiffs are three attorneys
from the Southern Center for Human Rights and two lawyers from
Marietta's The Merchant Law Firm, P.C.

"We were contacted by some of the victims early on and we've been
in communication with them over a period of time," Southern Center
for Human Rights Senior Attorney Gerald Weber told The Daily
Tribune News. "We did what is called a 'demand letter,'
essentially, to the defendants trying to resolve the case before
litigation. They declined to do that, and now we've filed a
lawsuit."

In total, the complaint lists more than 30 defendants, including
CPD deputies Joshua Coker, Gary Turner, Luke Pulliam and Chase
Randall. Cartersville Police Department Sgt. Cullen LaFrance is
also listed in the suit, as is Bartow-Cartersville Drug Task Force
Maj. Mark Mayton. The suit also mentions 20 unnamed CPD deputies
and five unnamed BCSO deputies.

In an incident that garnered international attention, more than 60
people were arrested for possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana at a house party at 2 Cain Drive on Dec. 31, 2017. Of the
64 partygoers arrested that morning, the complaint states that 50
were African-American.

"What we are looking for is justice for our clients," Weber said.
"Their lives changed on that day and they will never be the same.
We want a jury to look at what happened to them, to look at these
people and who they were and to say 'We are sorry for what happened
to you and you deserve some compensation for having your life
turned into a nightmare.'"

According to the filing in Rome on March 11, "plaintiffs seek
damages and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all visitors
who were seized, arrested and charged with crimes on Dec. 31, 2017,
and whose charges were dismissed on Jan. 12, 2018."

Legal counsel for the plaintiffs argue the City of Cartersville is
liable for damages due to its "policy of warrantless entry," adding
that the "plaintiffs' seizure and subsequent mass arrest lacked
probable cause and was excessive and unreasonable in its duration
and scope."

At the heart of the lawsuit, Weber said, are two CPD policies. "One
is they have a policy that allows for the entering of homes without
a search warrant based solely on the purported smell of marijuana,"
he said.

The other is a policy allowing CPD personnel to seize all occupants
of a home or dwelling without what Weber described as "any
individual suspicion or probable cause."

"These were policies of the City, according to the officers
themselves," he said. "Both of these policies are violations of
clear law that's been on the books from the Supreme Court for years
and years and years."

Furthermore, the suit accuses the defendants of acting "with malice
and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their
official functions" during the mass arrest. According to the
complaint, some of those arrested were denied "proper treatment"
for medical conditions at the Bartow County Jail — that includes
an arrestee who alleged that she was not given anti-seizure
medication until three days into her detention.

"A pregnant woman was denied prenatal pills and received no care
when she vomited repeatedly in a holding cell garbage can," the
suit alleges. "A diabetic received a dosage of insulin that
exacerbated his condition."

The complaint also alleges that an arrestee was told to "just piss
on yourself" by BCSO personnel while waiting in the detention
center garage, while another arrestee claims that an officer
grabbed her phone to prevent her from recording the mass arrest as
it happened.

"Those who complained about their treatment were either threatened
with tasers or taken to small isolation cells with padded walls and
concrete floors and no bed or place to sit," the complaint
described conditions for arrestees at the local jail. "A hole in
the floor served as the toilet. Visitors sent to isolation cells
were denied blankets to stay warm. Some wrapped toilet paper around
their arms, torsos and feet because they were so cold."

At least one named plaintiff in the suit claims that a BCSO deputy
placed him in an isolation cell for approximately seven hours after
complaining about the temperature of the holding cell. He claims
that he was threatened with "indefinite isolation" when he asked
for toilet paper.

There is a possibility, Weber said, that potential criminal charges
could arise from the civil suit. He recounted a case several years
ago, in which a district attorney brought charges against a sheriff
and several deputies in the wake of a "mass search" of 700 students
at a school.

"It's possible that there could be criminal prosecutions, but we
don't have the power to do that, it's the law enforcement agencies
that make those determinations," he said. "What happens in the
criminal court largely depends on how different law enforcement
agencies look at and prioritize the issue."

The suit also alleges the BCSO of "illegally" posting the mug shots
of arrestees online, claiming the actions of five unnamed BCSO
employees were a violation of Georgia's arrest booking photograph
disclosure laws. Twenty unnamed CPD personnel are also cited in the
complaint for their part in the mass arrest incident.

"Those are ones that still have to be identified," Weber said. "We
have requested that information from the lawyers for the
defendants."

According to the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a trial jury,
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury and
punitive damages according to federal and state law pertaining to
the individual defendants. The suit is also seeking "a declaratory
judgment stating that a law enforcement officer violates an
individual's rights under the United States and Georgia
Constitutions when he searches, detains and arrests that person
without consent or individualized suspicion that the individual has
violated the law," as well as similar declaratory judgments
regarding the posting of booking photographs online and the
warrantless entry of homes and/or detention of home occupants based
on the suspected smell of marijuana.

Weber acknowledged that a resolution is unlikely to happen anytime
soon, and that the case could drag out in the courts for the
foreseeable future.

"Much depends on the trajectory of the case, the court and what
motions are filed by both sides," he said. "I generally regard
these cases as at least taking a few years to resolve, and
sometimes that's an underestimate and sometimes that's an
overestimate . . . this case is far more complex in terms of the
number of plaintiffs and the number of defendants, so it could last
quite a bit longer than that."

BCSO representative Sgt. Jonathan Rogers and CPD representative Lt.
Mike Bettikofer each told The Daily Tribune News that their
respective departments do not normally comment on ongoing lawsuits.


Cartersville City Manager Tamara Brock said the same -- "We can't
comment on potential or pending litigation."

Weber did not have a monetary estimate for how much the class
action lawsuit would seek in damages against the defendants.

"We generally kind of trust the jury on this," he said. "In this
case, all of our clients had their lives really upended. I mean,
people lost jobs, they got kicked off of sports teams, they had
their military service deferred, and because the defendants posted
the photographs up and failed to take them down in violation of
State law, there was kind of this continuing damage to them . . .
and it's going to haunt them the rest of their lives, even though
the charges were dismissed." [GN]


CASA PACIFICA: Faces Damron's Labor Suit
----------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Casa
Pacifica Centers for Children and Families. The case is captioned
Cassandra Damron as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated vs. Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and
Families, Case No. 56-2019-00526044-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., Ventura
County, March 11, 2019).

Headquartered in Camarillo California, Casa Pacifica offers
adolescent and family services designed to treat victims of abuse
and neglect, substance abuse, homelessness, and other behavioral
and mental health issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
     Lidman Law, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone:  424-322-4772
     Facsimile: 424-322-4775
     E-mail: info@lidmanlaw.com


CITYWIDE PARKING: Faces Kemi Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR KEMI, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. CITYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., a
California corporation; HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08552
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2019), arises out of an
alleged ongoing wrongful scheme by the Defendants to deny their
employees the benefits due under California's wage and hour laws
for work performed in California.

Citywide Parking Management, Inc., is a California corporation with
its principal office located in Irvine, California.  Citywide is in
the business of providing valet parking services throughout
southern California, including Hawaiian Gardens Casino.

Hawaiian Gardens Casino is a California corporation with a place of
business located in Los Angeles County.  HGC operates Hawaiian
Gardens Casino, and provides valet parking services for patrons of
its casino.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names,
capacities, relationships and extent of participation in the
alleged conduct of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


COLUMBUS, OH: Pennington Sues Over 1st Amendment Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Pennington, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Communications Workers of America, Local
4502, and the City of Columbus, Case No. 2:19-cv-00937-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants are
violating the First Amendment by prohibiting employees from
stopping the deduction and collection of union dues from their
wages during the term of a collective bargaining agreement, except
for its last 30 days, without proof these employees waived their
First Amendment rights.

The City of Columbus is a municipal corporation that can sue and be
sued in its own name.  The office of the Mayor of the City of
Columbus is located at the City Hall, in Columbus, Ohio.

CWA is a labor organization whose headquarters is located in
Columbus, Ohio.  CWA is the exclusive representative of a unit of
employees employed by the City of Columbus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald C. Brey, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          65 E. State Street, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 438215
          Telephone: (614) 334-6105
          E-mail: dbrey@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          Aaron B. Solem, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org
                  abs@nrtw.org


CONAGRA BRANDS: April 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 23, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Conagra Brands, Inc.
(NYSE: CAG), if they purchased the Company's shares between June
27, 2018 and December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period")
and/or traceable to its October 2018 secondary public offering.
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Conagra and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cag/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by April 23, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Conagra and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On December 20, 2018, the Company disclosed disappointing financial
results for 2Q 2019, including net sales for its recently-acquired
Pinnacle segment that were "below expectations due to weak
performance across a range of significant brands," which resulted
in much negative scrutiny by analysts, questioning whether Conagra
had performed proper due diligence in the transaction.

On this news, the price of Conagra's shares plummeted.

The case is West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra,
19-cv-01323.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


CONTINENTAL HOSTS: Rendon Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL EFRAIN RENDON, PANTALEON LEON, and SANTOS MARLENE LOPEZ
SIGUENZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. CONTINENTAL HOSTS, LTD. (d/b/a GLEN ISLAND
HARBOUR CLUB ), BRUCE R. LEWIN , JAMIE MEADOW, and ALBERT DUGA, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02482 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2019),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled the club, located at
50 Glen Island Park, New Rochelle, NY 10805 under the name "Glen
Island Harbour Club". The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and
sous chefs at the restaurant. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants allegedly
failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other
similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson and Chen Class Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended February 17, 2019, that the court has
consolidated the class action suits Johnson v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., et al. and Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018).  


The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.  

They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.  

On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions.

Costco Wholesale said, "The Company expects the consolidated action
to be vigorously defended."

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COVENANT TRANSPORT: Underpays Drivers, Tabizon Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TABIZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07242 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Tabizon was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Covenant Transport, Inc. provides truckload for-hire and dedicated
contract transportation. The company was founded in 1985 and is
based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Covenant Transport, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          David Lee, Esq.
          DAVID LEE LAW
          515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658-4722
          E-mail: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Faces Tabizon Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, 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 class
action suit initiated by Richard Tabizon has been removed from
state court to the U.S. Federal District Court in the Central
District of California.

The company's Covenant Transport subsidiary is a defendant in a
lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018 in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles, California.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action case wherein he alleges violation of
multiple California wage and hour statutes from October 31, 2014 to
present, including failure to pay drivers separately for rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay
minimum wage (for on-duty not driving time), waiting time
penalties, and failure to reimburse for business expenses.  

Tabizon is also seeking Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA")
penalties based on these claims from September 11, 2017 through the
present.

The case was removed from state court on December 6, 2018 to the
U.S. Federal District Court in the Central District of California.

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage
services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant
Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health
Corporation. The case is styled as Labourers' Pension Fun of
Central and Eastern Canada, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Health Corporation, Larry J.
Merlo, David M. Denton and Eva C. Boratto, Defendants, Case No.
651700/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Mar. 22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "CD-E Other Commercial".

CVS Health Corporation is an American retail pharmacy and health
care company headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     GANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER
     360 LEXINGTON AV, 14TH FL
     NEW YORK, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 922-9250


DAKKOTA INTEGRATED: Fox Sues over Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------
RAVEN FOX, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAKKOTA INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03620 (Ill. Cir., March 20, 2019), seeks
to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary
biometric data, pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when Dakkota hires an employee, her or
she is enrolled in its third-party employee database(s). Dakkota
uses the employee database to monitor the time worked by Dakkota's
hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
Dakkota employees are required to have their hand geometry scanned
by biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendant's -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- one's hand geometry is a set of unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes Dakkota's employees to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. For example, if a database containing hand geometry scans or
other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax,
Uber,
Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Face book/Cambridge Analytica
data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.

By the time BIPA passed through the Illinois legislature in
mid-2008, most companies who had experimented with using
individuals' biometric data stopped doing so. However, Defendant
failed to take note of the shift in Illinois law governing the
collection, use and dissemination of biometric data. As a result,
Defendant continues to collect, store, use and disseminate
individuals' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the lawsuit
says.

Dakkota is an automotive supplier that manages the assembly and
sequencing of integrated automotive interiors for original
equipment manufacturers. Dakkota has locations throughout the
Midwest, including a location in Chicago.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

DELTA AIR LINES: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Fan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01520 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2019) arises from Delta's
overtime violations.

Delta systematically denies its employees the overtime compensation
to which they are entitled under California law, asserts the
complaint. In particular, Delta fails to take into account all
required forms of compensation when calculating the "regular rate"
upon which employees' overtime compensation is to be determined
under California law, the complaint relates.

Howard Fan was employed by Delta as a customer service agent at Los
Angeles International Airport from September 2010 until August
2018.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose principal
place of business is in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Scott A. Brooks, Esq.
     Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 531-1900
     Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
     Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
            sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com
            mgordon@maternlawgroup.com

          - and -

     James M. Finberg, Esq.
     Eileen B. Goldsmith, Esq.
     Eric P. Brown, Esq.
     ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
     177 Post Street, Suite 300
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 421-7151
     Fax: (415) 362-8064
     Email: jfinberg@altber.com
            egoldsmith@altber.com
            ebrown@altber.com


DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Davis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, et al., filed with the Supreme
Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the matter titled DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, et al., Petitioners v.
Davis Neurology, P.A., Case No. 18-1190.

Response is due on April 12, 2019.

The Lower Court Decision was issued on July 23, 2018, in the
lawsuit entitled Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of itself and all
other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. DoctorDirectory.com LLC; Everyday Health Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees, John Does, 1-10, intending to refer to those
persons, corporations or other legal Entities that acted as agents,
consultants, Independent contractors or representatives, Case No.
17-1820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.  The Lower Court Rehearing Request was denied on December
11, 2018.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Eighth
Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the case styled DAVIS NEUROLOGY,
P.A., on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons
similarly situated v. DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM, LLC and EVERYDAY HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 4:16-CV-00682 BSM (E.D. Ark.).

Davis Neurology, PA, brought a putative class action in Arkansas
state court, alleging that defendants DoctorDirectory.com, LLC and
Everyday Health, Inc. (Doctor Directory), violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The alleged violation occurred
when the Defendants sent Davis Neurology an unsolicited facsimile
that contained an invitation to participate in a research
study.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Doctordirectory.com, LLC, et al., are
represented by:

          Maria Z. Vathis, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 602-5000
          E-mail: maria.vathis@bclplaw.com


DON DEO: Sierra Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Regular Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
CESAR E. SIERRA and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), vs. DON DEO FOOD SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DON DEO BREWING
BAR & GRILL, JOSE E. VERARDI and OSCAR GUEVARA, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21071 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and
regular hours, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess
of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after December 2017,
without being properly compensated. The Defendants did not use any
time keeping device, but Plaintiff was required to sign
time-sheets. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages
at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour
that he worked in excess of 40.

Don Deo Food Services owns and operates grocery stores in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Sues over Biometric Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMIL KANACEVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAPER and KRAMER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH02807 (Ill., Cir., Cook Cty., March 1, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
practice of collecting fingerprints from its workers is unlawful
and a serious invasion of its worker's right to privacy concerning
their biometric information. The Defendant has failed to provide
the required disclosures to inform its workers that it was
collecting their biometric identifiers and information, and failed
to inform the workers of how long the Defendant intended to keep
this highly sensitive information.

Draper and Kramer, Incorporated provides property and financial
services in the United States. The company was founded in 1893 and
is based in Chicago, Illinois. Draper and Kramer, Incorporated
operates as a subsidiary of DKH, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and –

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Sues over Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Elite Limousine Plus, Inc., and First Corporate Sedans, Inc., have
been named as defendants in a class action captioned as, SHAHID
BUTTAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. ELITE LIMOUSINE PLUS, INC., FIRST CORPORATE SEDANS,
INC., GUY BEN ZION, AMIR BEN ZION, SHAFQUAT CHAUDHARY, and DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 651088/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21,
2019).

The action alleges (i) breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment,
(ii) violations of New York General Business Law, including
violations of the Franchise Disclosure Act, (iii) violations of the
Freelance Isn't Free Act, and (iv) fraudulent conveyance under
various sections of the New York Debtor & Creditor Law, arising out
of Defendants' business relationship with Plaintiff(s). The case
seeks damages in excess of $3,000,000.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          David Slarskey, Esq.
          Evan Fried, Esq.
          SLARSKEY LLC
          800 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 658-0661

ESMARALDA FASHIONS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Aguilar Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Giovanny Aguilar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Esmaralda Fashions Inc. (d/b/a
Esmaralda Fashions) and David Asherian, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02602 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Aguilar and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.

Further, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Aguilar
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff Aguilar is a former employee of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control a clothing store, located at
141 West 36th street, New York, NY 10018 under the name "Esmaralda
Fashions".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620




EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JORGE CHACON, as an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS FASHION
OPERATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01047766-CU-OE-CXC
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, to the United States District Court, Central
District of California on March 22, 2019, and assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00564.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant had a consistent
policy and/or practice of failing to pay Class Members and Subclass
Members with the correct overtime rates, willfully failed and
refused to timely pay wages to former Class Members and Subclass
Members at the conclusion of their employment, and failed to
compensate Class Members and Subclass Members with proper overtime
and double overtime rates. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant failed to incorporate performance based sales bonuses and
commission that are non-discretionary into the overtime and double
time regular rate calculations, says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Sarah E. Ross, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
     Phone: 310.772.7292
     Fax: 310.553.5583
     Email: sross@littler.com

          - and -

     Tiffany Nicole Cruz, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2050 Main Street, Suite 900
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: 949.705.3000
     Fax: 949.724.1201
     Email: tncruz@littler.com


FEHE ENTERPRISES: Wallace Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
A labor-related class action has been filed against Fehe
Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned STASHA WALLACE and BRITTANY
STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. FEHE ENTERPRISES, INC. and HELEN EDOIMIOYA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01139-LMM (N.D. G.A., March 11,
2019).

Plaintiffs Stasha Wallace and Brittany Stallworth bring this
collective action on behalf of all current or former Direct Support
Professionals, and other similarly situated persons, employed by
Defendants Fehe Enterprises Inc. and Helen Edoimioya. In violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as a regular and routine
practice, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and
similarly situated persons (1) minimum wage for all hours worked;
and (2) overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. Defendants directed Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons
to submit false timesheets, fictitiously stating that they only
worked approximately 12 hours per day -- when they actually worked
far more -- for which Defendants paid them a flat rate per day.

Fehe Enterprises, Inc. is a for-profit Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia, at 5532 Old
National Highway, Building G, Suite 275, College Park, Georgia
30349. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin M. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
     246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
     Decatur, GA 30030
     Telephone: 678-780-4880
     Facsimile: 478-575-2590
     E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Robert Rutledge and Carol Barclay on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-C-364-D was removed from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
on March 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00217.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC or FAS is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
      HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
      P. O. Box 959
      Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
      Phone: (304) 574-2727
      Fax: (304) 574-3709
      Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Katlin L. Connelly Zarisky, Esq.
      GORDON & REES
      707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Phone: (412) 577-7400
      Fax: (412) 347-5461
      Email: kzarisky@gordonrees.com


GAP (ITM) INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GAP (ITM)
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01518-CAS-SS (Cal. Super., March 4, 2019) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' website
at https://www.gap.com/ denies the Plaintiffs and Class Members,
along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access, and
therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered
and integrated with the Defendants' stores. Due to the Defendants'
failure and refusal to remove access barriers on its website, the
Plaintiffs and other visually-impaired persons have been and are
still being denied equal and full access to the Defendants' stores
and the numerous accessories, footwear and apparel goods offered to
the public through the Defendants' Website in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Gap (ITM) Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Gap, Inc. The
company offers apparel, accessories, and personal care products for
men, women, and children under the Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic,
Athleta, Intermix, and Hill City brands. The Gap, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Settlement in Giovagnoli Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalSCAPE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court in the class
action lawsuit initiated by Anthony Giovagnoli has entered an order
and final judgment approving the settlement.

On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action
complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On
November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead
plaintiff (the "Lead Plaintiff"), and he filed the First Amended
Complaint on July 26, 2018 (the "Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint named, Matthew Goulet, James Albrecht, Thomas
Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas Hicks (collectively,
the "individual Defendants") and the Company as defendants for
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements
regarding, inter alia, the Company's previously reported financial
statements. The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted a Stipulation of
Settlement to the Court on September 13, 2018. Under this
settlement, the Company's and Individual Defendants' insurance
carrier has provided the Class with a cash payment of $1,400,000,
which includes the cash amount of any attorney's fees or litigation
expenses that the Court may award Lead Plaintiff's counsel and
costs Lead Plaintiff may incur in administering and providing
notice of the settlement.

In exchange, Lead Plaintiff has agreed that the settlement will
include a dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice and a
release of all claims against the Company and the Individual
Defendants by the Class.

The Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement on December 18, 2018. On December 18, 2018, the Court
also awarded Plaintiff's Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel 25% of
the settlement fund ($350,000) in fees and $12,721 in reimbursement
of expenses, which was paid from the settlement fund.

GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and
provides associated services for secure information exchange, and
data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide.
GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio,
Texas.


GREENSKY INC: IPO-Related Securities Class Actions Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors are currently subject to putative
securities class actions in connection with the Company's initial
public offering.

On November 12, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named in a putative class action filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned Langere v.
GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).  The
Langere complaint asserts on behalf of purchasers in the Company's
IPO claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "1933 Act") based on alleged misstatements in the registration
statement filed in connection with the IPO and seeks unspecified
damages.  Certain underwriters of the IPO are also named as
defendants.  Since the filing of Langere, at least four additional
putative class actions have been filed in the same court
(collectively, the "State Cases"), asserting substantially similar
allegations and claims under the 1933 Act against a common set of
defendants: Dobek v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 655707/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Zou v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No.
655744/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Coombs v. GreenSky, Inc., et al.,
Index No. 656134/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); and Zhang et al.  v.
GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 656164/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).  Two
of these actions, Dobek and Zou, also set forth additional claims
under Section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act based on alleged
misstatements in the prospectus filed in connection with the IPO.

The Company and its officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously in all respects in regard to the State Cases,
which are in the process of being consolidated.  Under certain
circumstances, the Company may be obligated to indemnify some or
all of the other defendants in the State Cases.  At this time, due
to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate its costs or any potential liability related to
the State Cases.

On November 27, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named in a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Mustafin v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-11071
(S.D.N.Y.).  The Mustafin complaint asserts on behalf of purchasers
in the IPO claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933
Act based on alleged misstatements in the registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with the IPO and seeks
unspecified damages.  Certain underwriters of the IPO are also
named as defendants.

On January 4, 2019, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York captioned Yu v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00100
(S.D.N.Y.), asserting substantially similar allegations and claims
under the 1933 Act against a common set of defendants (together
with Mustafin, the "Federal Cases").

The Company and its officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously in all respect in regard to the Federal
Cases.  Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated
to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the Federal
Cases.  At this time, due to the uncertain nature of litigation,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate its costs or any
potential liability related to the Federal Cases.

GreenSky said, "As the Company is unable to determine the
probability of the outcomes of these actions, and cannot reasonably
estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, we have not recorded
a liability as of December 31, 2018 related to the IPO
litigation."

GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions.  The
Company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Abboud Sues over Auto-Dialed Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
has been filed over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  The case is captioned MONICA ABBOUD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-1035 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2019).
Plaintiff Monica Abboud bring this class action complaint and
demand for jury trial against Defendant Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc. to (1) stop Defendant's practice of placing
auto-dialed and pre-recorded voice calls to cellphone owners and
(2) to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Defendant HII is a corporation incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida whose primary place of business and
corporate headquarters is located at 15438 N. Florida Avenue, Suite
201, Tampa, Florida 33613. Defendant HII is a health care
telemarketer that operates My Benefits Keeper, a healthcare app.
HII makes telemarketing calls to persons who may be interested in
purchasing health insurance products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     1105 Milford Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713-322-6387
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Telephone: (720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
             tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Keippel Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julian Keippel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin
Southwell and Michael D. Hershberger, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00421 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2019), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Health Insurance Innovations distributes individual and family
health insurance plans, including short-term medical insurance
plans and guaranteed-issue and underwritten health benefit
insurance plans.

Defendants failed to disclose that a substantial portion of its
revenues were derived from third parties that utilized deceptive
tactics to sell insurance policies, including overstating the
policy's coverage and selling under licenses of employees who had
no involvement in the underlying sales. On this news, the company's
share price fell $1.93, or nearly 6%, to close at $31.20 per share
on November 27, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Keippel purchased Health Insurance Innovations securities and lost
from the decline in its value after corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

             - and -

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


HILTON WORLWIDE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Worldwide,
Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02625 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019).

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

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., formerly Hilton Hotels Corporation,
is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and
franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and resorts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



HYUNDAI MOTORS: Rexroad et al. Sue over Direct Injection Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSIE REXROAD, DEONTE WITCHER, EDUARDO SILVERA, CLAUDIA GALINDO,
GUAN PERRY, MELISSA GURTLER, and JULIE ESQUEDA, individually 19 and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS CORPORATION, HYUNDAI MOTORS AMERICA,
KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01461 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2019),
contends that certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles contain an engine
defect that can cause the vehicles to spontaneously catch fire with
drivers and passengers barely escaping to safety. Specifically, a
design/and or manufacturing defect in Class Vehicles' gasoline
direct injection ("GDI") engines restricts oil flow to the engines'
parts, such as the connecting rod bearings, causing those parts to
wear out prematurely and seize. Not only can engine seizure cause
engine failure, it can cause engine parts to break off and knock
holes into the engine, leaking fluids and igniting a fire.

As a result of the Engine Defect, Class Members, as well as
passengers, other drivers, and 20 bystanders, are exposed to an
unreasonable risk of accident, injury, or death should their
vehicles engulf into flames or result in engine failure.

Hyundai and Kia know of this Engine Defect and the safety risk it
poses to consumers. But Hyundai and Kia also advertise on their
websites that they conduct extensive testing. Moreover, Hyundai and
Kia share the same testing facility in California City, California.
Hyundai and Kia's joint testing should have alerted them to the
defect in their GDI engines, the lawsuit says.

Hyundai Motor Company, commonly known as Hyundai Motors, is a South
Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Seoul. Kia Motors Corporation, commonly known as Kia Motors,
headquartered in Seoul, is South Korea's second-largest automobile
manufacturer, following the Hyundai Motor Company, with sales of
over 3.3 million vehicles in 2015.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Tanya S. Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  tkoshy@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-Mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-Mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

IMMUNE DESIGN: Witmer Says Solicitation Statement Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMUNE DESIGN CORP., ED PENHOET, DAVID
BALTIMORE, FRANKLIN M. BERGER, LEWIS COLEMAN, SUSAN L. KELLEY,
CAROLS PAYA, WILLIAM R. RINGO, MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., and
CASCADE MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00532-UNA
(D. Del., March 18, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction
announced on February 21, 2019, pursuant to which Immune Design
Corp. will be acquired by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Cascade
Merger Sub Inc. On February 20, 2019, Immune's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Merck.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to acquire all of Immune's outstanding common stock
for $5.85 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on
April 1, 2019. On March 5, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Immune is a late-stage immunotherapy company that employs
next-generation in vivo approaches to enable the body's immune
system to fight disease. The Company's technologies are engineered
to activate the immune system's natural ability to generate and/or
expand antigen-specific cytotoxic immune cells to fight cancer and
other chronic diseases.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL: Lopez Brings ADA Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercontinental
Hotel Group Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On
Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Intercontinental Hotel Group Resources, LLC,
Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02644 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. owns, manages,
franchises, and leases hotels.

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation owns and operates a chain of
hotels and resorts in North America, South America,
Central-America/the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, Australasia/the
Oceania, the Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


INUVO INC: Bid to Dismiss Franchi Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the
"Franchi" putative class action lawsuit remains pending, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On January 4, 2019, a purported stockholders of Inuvo, Adam
Franchi, filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Franchi
v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. A-19-787021-C in the District Court of
the State of Nevada in the County of Clark.  The complaint names
Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants.
It also names ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. and various
entities created to effect the merger as defendants.  The complaint
asserts breach of fiduciary duties claims arising from the adequacy
of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions made in a
joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus, and seeks an
injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger
transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are
consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees.

Inuvo believes the claims asserted are without merit.  Inuvo
intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

On February 5, 2019, Inuvo filed motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay, the Franchi action, pending the resolution of
the first-filed D'Arcy action.  A hearing on the Franchi motion is
yet to be scheduled.

Inuvo, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in October 1987.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.


INUVO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the
putative class action lawsuit filed by Les Thomas remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

On January 8, 2019, respectively, a purported stockholder of Inuvo,
Les Thomas, filed putative class action lawsuit, captioned Thomas
v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. T19-57, in the District Court of the
State of Nevada in the County of Clark.  The complaint names Inuvo
and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants.  The
complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duties claims arising from
the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions
made in a joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus, and
seeks an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the
merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions
are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees.

Inuvo believes the claims asserted are without merit.  Inuvo
intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit.  On January 25, 2018,
the Thomas plaintiff filed a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the merger.  A hearing on the preliminary injunction was
scheduled for March 18, 2019.

On February 14, 2019, Inuvo filed motions to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay, the Thomas action, pending the resolution of
the first-filed D'Arcy action.  A hearing on the Thomas motion was
scheduled for April 1, 2019.

Inuvo, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in October 1987.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.


IRON MOUNTAIN: Removes Modica Suit to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JENNIFER MODICA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 100, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin (Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-1140) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on March 1, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00370-TLN-EFB. The case is assigned to Troy L. Nunley and
referred to Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan.

Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. was founded in
2012 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ISLAND YACHT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Yacht
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop And On Behalf
Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Island Yacht
Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02634 (S.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 25, 2019).

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

Island Yacht Management, Inc. is a professional and experienced
yacht management and repair company dedicated to serving private
boats in the British Virgin Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


KA FAI MANAGEMENT: Mishandled Security Deposits, Li et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZHUOER LI; YELISEI MURAUSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KA FAI MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-0670C (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 28,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful practices of
mishandling and failing to properly withhold and promptly return
residential tenant's security deposits in violation of the Security
Deposit Law.

Ka Fai Management, Inc. is a Massachusetts company engaged in
providing property management services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
          1 State Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

               - and -

          Edward Rice, Esq.
          45 Pierce Street
          Malden, MA 02148
          Telephone: (617) 475-0909
          E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Saccardi, Esq.
          58 Day St.
          Somerville, MA 02144
          Telephone: (617) 500-3198
          E-mail: chris@attorneysaccardi.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss putative
shareholder class actions against it remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.  and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints generally allege violations of the federal
securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.  All the
remaining cases are in the New York federal court, and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.  Kandi has moved to
dismiss the remaining cases and that motion remains pending.

Kandi Technologies Group Inc manufactures small vehicles including
all terrain vehicles (ATVs), golf carts, motor cycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy saving mini-cars. The company is based in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.


KAUFMAN ENTERPRISES: Pierre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Pierre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kaufman Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 604065/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Nassau Cty., March 25, 2019) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, spread-of-hours pay, and other damages
on behalf of all of Defendant's current and former Assistant Store
Managers ("ASMs") based on Kaufman Enterprises' violation of the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and appropriate rules and regulations.

Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been victims of Kaufman
Enterprises' common policy and plan that has violated their rights
under the NYLL by requiring ASMs to work over 40-hours a week
without overtime pay and shifts with a spread of over 10 hours a
day without the benefit of spread-of-hours pay, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Pierre was employed by Defendant from April 2007 through
October 2017.

Kaufman Enterprises operates 16 McDonald's restaurants across
Suffolk and Nassau County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     Garrett Kaske, Esq.
     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 499-9100


KITE PHARMA: Aguilar Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kite Pharma, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Aguilar, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kite Pharma, Inc., TRINET HR
CORPORATION, TRINET HR III INC., TRINET HR III-A INC., TRINET HR V
INC., Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10001 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Mar. 22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Promissory Note/Collections
Case".

Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, develops cancer
immunotherapy products with a primary focus on genetically
engineered autologous T cell therapy with chimeric antigen
receptors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represnetd by Lavi Joseph, Esq.



KRAFT HEINZ: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP with the assistance
of former California Deputy Attorney General and Special Counsel,
Tiffany Johnson, Esq., is investigating potential claims against
The Kraft Heinz Company ("Kraft Heinz") (NASDAQ: KHC) for
violations of state and federal securities laws.

On February 21, 2019, Kraft Heinz announced that it had received a
subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission in October
2018 in connection with an investigation into the Company's
"procurement area, more specifically the [c]ompany's accounting
policies, procedures, and internal controls related to its
procurement function." Additionally, Kraft Heinz announced
disappointing quarterly results, including a $15 billion charge
related to the value of its Kraft and Oscar Mayer trademarks, and
cut its dividend from 63 cents per share to 40 cents per share.
Following this news, shares of Kraft Heinz fell sharply, closing
down 27.46% on February 22, 2019.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or if you are an Kraft Heinz
shareholder and are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim
Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471.
If emailing, please include a phone number.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
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 company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master
File No. 2:17-cv-04150

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL
and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and
seek damages on their behalf.  

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

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: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
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 company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania
entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).


Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
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.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Inc.'s Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 company continues to defend a putative class action suit
initiated by TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
(LNL), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that 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 own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors
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.  

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

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.


LORI LOUGHLIN: Faces Class Action Over College Admissions Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER KAY TOY, JOSHUA TOY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated (estimated at over 1,000,000) v. LORI
LOUGHLIN, MOSSIMO GIANNULLI, FELICITY HUFFMAN, GREGORY ABBOTT,
MARCIA ABBOTT, GAMAL ABDELAZIZ, DIANE BLAKE, TODD BLAKE, JANE
BUCKINGHAM, GORDON CAPLAN, I-HSIN "JOEY" CHEN, AMY COLBURN, GREGORY
COLBURN, ROBERT FLAXMAN, ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ, MANUEL HENRIQUEZ,
DOUGLAS HODGE, AGUSTIN HUNEEUS, JR., BRUCE ISACKSON, DAVINA
ISACKSON, MICHELLE JANAVS, ELISABETH KIMMEL, MARJORIE KLAPPER, TOBY
MACFARLANE, WILLIAM E. MCGLASHAN, JR., MARCI PALATELLA, PETER JAN
SARTORIO, STEPHEN SEMPREVIVO, DEVIN SLOANE, JOHN B. WILSON,
HOMAYOUN ZADEH, ROBERT ZANGRILL, BILL MCGLASHAN, WILLAIM SINGER,
DONNA HEINAL, RUDOLPH MERIDITH, MARK RIDDELL, JOHN VANDEMOER, IGOR
DVORSKIY, GORDON ERNST, WILLIAM FERGUSON, LAURA JANKE, AND DOES
1-99, Case No. CGC-19-574501 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
March 13, 2019), arises from the college admissions cheating
scandal prosecuted by Andrew Lelling, the U.S. District Attorney of
Massachusetts.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired with others
known and unknown: (1) to bribe college entrance exam
administrators to facilitate cheating on college entrance exams;
(2) to bribe varsity coaches and administrators at elite
universities to designate certain applicants as recruited athletes
or as other favored candidates, thereby, facilitating the
applicants' admission to those universities; and (3) to use the
facade of a charitable organization to conceal the nature and
source of the bribe payments.

The Defendants are identified as conspirators.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel King, Esq.
          3680 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite P04 -1313
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 909-7580
          E-mail: daniel@firstratelaw.com


LSCI INC: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LSCI, INC D/B/A SUN-TEC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00704 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the
TCPA.

As part of its marketing strategy, the Defendant calls unsuspecting
parties on their cellular telephones with pre-recorded messages in
order to sell them goods and services. The Defendant caused
thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant sells, installs and maintains solar energy products
including solar water heaters, solar pool heaters and solar
photovoltaic systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-533-4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-400-4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Putative Class Action in New Jersey Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is facing a putative class action complaint
filed on in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on February 11, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section
20(a) for control person liability) by making misrepresentations
about the Company and its business, including the Company's risk
management and underwriting policies and practices.  

According to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, the putative class action complaint was
filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L.
Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck.

Plaintiffs further claim that these misrepresentations inflated the
price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth
about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock
price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

The Company said, "Maiden has not yet been served with the
complaint, but believe the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  There exist and the Company expects
additional lawsuits to be filed against the Company, its
subsidiaries and its respective officers due to the diminution in
value of our securities as a result of our operating results and
financial condition.  It is currently uncertain as to the effect of
such litigation on our business, operating results and financial
conditions."

Maiden Holdings, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides
reinsurance solutions to regional and specialty insurers primarily
in Europe and internationally.  The Company writes treaties on a
quota share basis and excess of loss basis.  It also offers auto
and credit life insurance products through its insurer partners to
retail clients.  Maiden Holdings, Ltd. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter et al. Suit Moves to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit GARY METER and RONALD BOWERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC and STARWOOD INTERNATIONAL & RESORT
WORLDWIDE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00025, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on March 1, 2019.
The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00513-PWG-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to
the Judge Paul W. Grimm.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erin Green Comite
          SCOTTSCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main St.,
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTTSCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


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

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

Plaintiffs,

vs.

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


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

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
         Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         (212) 262-6700

Dated:  March 5, 2019
By Order of the Court

1 The current proposed settlement is in addition to another partial
settlement -- the "MBI Settlement" -- previously approved by the
Court, resulting in an aggregate recovery of $12 million,
$3,869,616 of which was allocated and distributed (net of fees and
expenses) to members of the EY Settlement Class.  If approved, the
proposed EY Settlement will constitute an additional and
supplemental distribution of settlement funds to the EY Settlement
Class. [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: District Judge Faces Liviz Suit in D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ILYA LIVIZ SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HON. JUDGE LEO T. SOROKIN,
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10392 (D. Mass., March 2, 2019) alleges violation of
the Plaintiff's constitutional rights and the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

According to the Plaintiff, he filed a Parents' Class Action
against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Aug. 9, 2018. A Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8, was held before the
Defendant Judge on January 22, 2019, and was shortly dismissed on
January 24, 2019.

The Defendant Judge has ordered the Plaintiff to produce names of
the parties that were listed under pseudonyms. The Plaintiff wanted
to first speak with the court in regarding how to best handle this
order.

The Defendant Judge responded that he don't give legal advice to
the Plaintiffs or to the Defendants.

The Defendant Judge has the requisite knowledge and ability to give
correct legal advice, but as the Defendant Judge stated previously,
he is not allowed to give legal advice. The case was dismissed
without the Defendant Judge telling the Plaintiff in advance
pursuant what legal basis, and no legal help was offered to correct
in advance.

The State of Massachusetts is located in the Northeastern region of
the United States. The State provides a full range of services
including law, education, public libraries, transportation, and
business development. Massachusetts has an economy that is
primarily based on health care, biotechnology, finance, and
tourism. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ilya Liviz, Esq.
         NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR JURISTS
         Central Street
         Lowell, MA 01852
         Telephone: (978) 606-3632
         E-mail: ilya.liviz@gmail.com


MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Pauli Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking
dismissal of the class action commenced by Christopher Pauli.

On January 9, 2019, MBT was sued by David Pill ("Pill"), a
purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of and a putative class of all
MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and their
affiliates. On January 18, 2019, MBT was sued by Christopher Pauli,
a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of himself and a putative
class of all MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and
their affiliates.

Both the Pill case and the Pauli case were filed as putative class
actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and are titled as follows: (i) David Pill v.
MBT Financial Corp, et al., and (ii) Christopher Pauli v. MBT
Financial Corp, et al. Both cases name each MBT director and MBT as
defendants.

Both complaints allege violation of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The allegations are that MBT and its
directors violated the Exchange Act by omitting certain material
information from First Merchants' Registration Statement on Form
S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"),
which includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the
shares of First Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT
stockholders in the proposed merger and the MBT proxy statement for
the MBT special stockholders' meeting that was held on February 14,
2019.

The relief sought by the complaint includes preliminary and
permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the proposed merger, directing MBT to amend its proxy statement,
and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Plaintiff in the Pauli case filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to delay the MBT special stockholder meeting.
The court ruled against the plaintiff, and the special meeting of
shareholders took place on February 14, 2019, at which meeting MBT
shareholders approved the Merger.

Following the special shareholder meeting, the plaintiff in the
Pill case voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice as to
plaintiff Pill and without prejudice as to the purported class,
thereby ending the case. MBT has filed a motion to dismiss the
Pauli case.

MBT will vigorously defend the remaining federal court case and
believes it is wholly without merit.

MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the
Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking,
and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and
middle-income individuals. The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Viky Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking
dismissal of a class action entitled, Gaylord Viky v. Michael J.
Miller, et. al. case.

MBT Financial Corp. has been sued, on the dates indicated, in the
following state court cases, all filed as putative class actions in
the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, naming each
MBT director and MBT as defendants.

     -- December 20, 2018, Gaylord Viky v. Michael J. Miller, et.
al.

     -- January 11, 2019, Paul Parshall v. MBT Financial Corp., et.
al.

     -- January 15, 2019, Gary Nowitzke v. MBT Financial Corp, et
al.

     -- January 15, 2019, Gary Zimmer v. MBT Financial Corp, et
al.

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
claims, that MBT directors have breached their fiduciary duties by
omitting certain material information from First Merchants'
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, which
includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the shares of
First Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT stockholders in
the Merger and the MBT proxy statement for the MBT special
stockholders' meeting that was held on February 14, 2019.

The Gary Zimmer case is also styled as a derivative claim brought
on behalf of MBT and includes allegations of self-dealing relating
to the First Merchants transaction.

The relief sought by the complaints includes preliminary and
permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the proposed merger, rescission and rescissory damages if the
proposed merger is completed, and damages, including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

MBT has filed a motion to dismiss the Gaylord Viky case.

No filings of note have occurred in the other three state court
cases.

MBT will vigorously defend all of the above state court cases and
believes they are wholly without merit.

MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the
Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking,
and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and
middle-income individuals. The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MCCARTHY'S BOAT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy's Boat Yard,
Inc. d/b/a McCarthy's Marine. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop
And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
McCarthy's Boat Yard, Inc. d/b/a McCarthy's Marine, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02629 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019).

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

McCarthy's Marine is New Jersey's dealer for Boston Whaler located
on the Manasquan River.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


MDL 2804: Jefferson County to Retain Legal Counsel in Opioid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watertown Daily Times reports that members of the Jefferson County
Board of Legislators have reversed a previous decision and will
retain legal counsel as a pretext to suing pharmaceutical companies
over the opioid addiction epidemic.

Municipalities across the state have initiated legal action against
opioid manufacturers to recoup the costs associated with the abuse
of these drugs. They include Lewis and St. Lawrence counties, which
both joined a lawsuit filed by the New York City law firm of
Simmons, Hanly, Conroy P.C.

In October, Jefferson County legislators voted 7-4 on a resolution
to move forward with its own lawsuit. The measure failed to get the
minimum eight votes necessary to pass.

But on March 5, they had a change of heart. Legislator John D.
Peck, who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee, believed
bringing forth the resolution again was warranted since not all 15
members of the board attended the fall meeting when the initial
vote occurred.

Legislator Carolyn D. Fitzpatrick switched sides to ensure the
resolution's passage.

"She said she changed her vote after speaking to doctors she knew
and carefully reading the resolution, which commits the county to
retain an attorney 'to evaluate Jefferson County's potential
damages and causes of action subject to review, approval, and
retention by the county attorney' but not to litigation without
further approval," according to a story published on March 6 by the
Watertown Daily Times. "Moving forward, she felt, was the best way
to get the important information."

As with their counterparts in Northern New York, Jefferson County
legislators are taking appropriate action. Lewis and St. Lawrence
counties both signed on to a class-action suit last year. In
August, New York joined more than a dozen other states to proceed
with its own legal action.

"According to the lawsuit, each year St. Lawrence County spends
millions of dollars for the health care, pharmaceutical care and
other necessary services and programs for 'indigents' and otherwise
eligible residents, including payments for prescription opioid
painkillers which are manufactured, marketed, promoted, sold and/or
distributed by the named defendants," according to a Times story
published Jan. 14, 2018.

"The complaint states that opioid prescription rates more than
tripled in Lewis County from 2007 to 2016 and there was a 77.5
percent increase in opioid-related Lewis County emergency
department admissions from 2010 to 2014," an April 17, 2018, Times
story reported.

Opioid manufacturers deserve a good portion of the blame for the
epidemic. They have been accused of employing misleading marketing
tactics to persuade health care authorities to prescribe more
medications.

But pharmaceutical companies are not alone here. Many in the
broader medical community share responsibility for creating this
crisis.

"In the mid-1990s, the American Pain Society aggressively pushed
the concept of pain as the fifth vital sign. Their stated goals
included raising awareness that patients with pain were
undertreated in large part because, in the society's opinion, pain
was not regularly assessed at physician office visits or even in
the hospital after surgery," according to a story in the June 2016
edition of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. "Half a decade
later, the Joint Commission and others hopped on this train,
emphasizing that pain needs to be regularly assessed in all
patients, that pain is a subjective measure, unlike the heart rate
or blood pressure, and that physicians must accept and respect
patient self-reporting of pain. Concurrent with these efforts was
the enhanced promotion of pain medications — new highly touted
and frequently prescribed narcotics as well as nonnarcotic
medications remarketed as analgesics. Opportunistically, or perhaps
wielding inappropriate and sketchy influence, some drug
manufacturers in the early 2000s funded publications and physician
presentations to encourage the expanded use of opioids and other
medications for pain control."

The Joint Commission presented its new Pain Management Standards in
2001, designating pain as the "fifth vital sign." Multiple forces
have since combined to create an environment where opioid abuse has
become rampant.

Local governments must press drug firms to compensate them for the
excessive costs involved in confronting this horror. But we all
should demand that other culpable parties make the effort to help
resolve a situation that has destroyed far too many lives. [GN]


MDL 2875: Duffy Suit v. Aurobindo over Valsartan Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Elizabeth Duffy, Joseph Cacaccio, and Cecil Byrd,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.CVS HEALTH CO., RITE
AID CORPORATION, and Throggs Neck Pharmacy, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00088, (Filed Jan. 3, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 15,
2019. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08591 to the proceeding. The suit demands $9,999,000 and
alleges product liability for personal injury caused by the use of
generic valsartan.

The Duffy case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, Re:
VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019.
This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products
containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of
high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the
FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic
valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of
generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic
losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by
actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected
valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve
common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs
purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications
containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these
impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that
defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early
as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and
voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls
are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed
actions, focused on Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the
source of the alleged impurities, the FDA investigation and the
actions before the Panel now encompass alleged industry-wide issues
concerning the production of the valsartan active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API) which will be common to all actions. The common
questions of fact include: (1) whether the generic valsartan sold
by defendants contained NDMA or NDEA; (2) the cause of the alleged
impurities, including alleged defects in the manufacturing and
sampling process; (3) when defendants knew or should have known of
the impurities; (4) how long the NDMA- and NDEA- containing
valsartan medications were in circulation; and (5) whether the
amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the medications presented a risk of
cancer or other injuries. All of the valsartan actions will raise
these issues, regardless of whether the alleged supplier of the
valsartan API was Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mylan,
Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert
B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and
internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Scott A. Bursor, esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Timmons Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Taryn Timmons, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. the Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 521122/2018, was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
on March 15, 2019.  The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01492 to the proceeding. The suit demands
$501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in
San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES C. CAMPAU and YUMEI MENG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MALCOLM C. CASTLEBERRY and KATHERYN R. CASTLEBERRY, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01359-VC
(E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELONEASE CLARK and JAMES CLARK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01360-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES J. DANGEL and CHERYL DANGEL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01375-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
GERHARD JUNG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01361-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Causes Cancer, Graef Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN GRAEF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY;
and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07149 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate which causes
cancer.

According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their
Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found
to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and
in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous
to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce,
particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Christopher T. Aumais
          Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: tigirardi@girardikeese.com
                  caumais@girardikeese.com
                  amohamadi@girardikeese.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomlinson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BOYD TOMLINSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01357-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MOPHIE INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mophie Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Mophie Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01665 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

Mophie, Inc. designs and manufactures mobile battery cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Ruling Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the court's order granting the company's motion for judgment
on the pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the
company's initial public offering remains pending.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its
directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their
affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").

The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects.  Among
other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court.  The
Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or
held, pending the appeal.  The Company also filed a demurrer, or a
request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior
Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017.

The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without
leave to re-file.  The San Mateo Superior Court granted the
demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file.

Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017.  The
Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the
amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs
opposed.  Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018.
On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018.

Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter
vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate
outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and results of
operations.  The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."

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

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services.  Natera, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California.



NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Florida, Texas, Philadelphia, Ohio, North Carolina and Nevada are
among 14 states affected by an alleged price-fixing conspiracy,
according to a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Northern
District of Illinois on
March 6.

The lawsuit accuses the National Association of Realtors and four
of the country's leading real estate brokerage companies of
violating the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law aimed at
blocking monopolies.

The National Association of Realtors is the country's largest trade
association, with 1.3 million members, according to its website.

The complaint takes issue with a rule in association's handbook —
the Buyer Broker Commission Rule — which instructs brokers to
make a blanket, non-negotiable offer for compensation when listing
properties on its Multiple Listing Service, known as MLS.

The four brokerage companies -- Realogy Holdings Corp.,
HomeServices of America Inc. RE/MAX Holdings Inc. and Keller
Williams Realty Inc. -- allegedly used their collective market
power to inflate commission rates, snuffing out competition and
cheating home sellers out of thousands of dollars per sale,
according to the suit.

The complaint claims the problem stretches across the country, and
points to 20 different real estate listing applications, including
My Florida Regional MLS and the Bright MLS, which covers multiple
states including Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

NAR's vice president of communications, Mantill Williams, denied
the claims.

"The complaint is baseless and contains an abundance of false
claims," Williams said. "The U.S. courts have routinely found that
Multiple Listing Services are pro-competitive, and benefit
consumers by creating great efficiencies in the home-buying and
selling process. NAR looks forward to obtaining a similar precedent
regarding this filing."

Trey Sarten, a spokesman for defendant Realogy, also denied the
allegations.

"We believe this case has no merit and will not be commenting
further," Sarten said.

Keller Williams spokesperson Darryl Frost and RE/MAX spokesperson
Jennifer Armbruster declined to comment.

Plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman
in Seattle, was unavailable before deadline but told the Associated
Press on March 11 he's compared commission rates in affected
housing markets to rates in countries that have a competitive
market and found, "the numbers tell a very clear story."

"We believe the NAR and the Big Four have devised a series of
checks on broker commission rates to all but guarantee their goal
of price-fixing, costing home sellers thousands in excessive
commissions paid on each sale," Berman said.

The complaint said if a class member sold a house for $500,000, for
example, they'd have paid an extra $12,500 to $15,000 extra in
commission.

But the suit points out that sellers in countries without the Buyer
Broker Commission Rule -- like Germany, Australia and the United
Kingdom -- don't have to use brokers, and if they do they'll pay
them less than half the amount sellers pay in the U.S.

The lawsuit asks for damages, interest, attorney fees and a
permanent injunction barring the defendants from requiring sellers
to pay a set commission fee. [GN]


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Insurance Row Removed to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Brendan Smith, individually and on
behalf of a class similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 190201323
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
March 22, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01217-MMB.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies is a
group of large U.S. insurance and financial services companies
based in Columbus, OH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron B. Gorodetzer, Esq.
     SBARBARO LAW OFFICES, LLC
     1221 WEST CHESTER PIKE
     WEST CHESTER, PA 19382
     Phone: (610) 344-7300
     Fax: (610) 441-7523
     Email: AARON@SBARBAROLAW.COM

          - and -

     James C. Haggerty, Esq.
     HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC
     1835 MARKET ST STE 2700
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 350-6609
     Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

          - and -

     Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
     SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
     209 STATE STREET
     HARRISBURG, PA 17101
     Phone: (717) 232-6300
     Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Pamela A. Carlos, Esq.
     BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP
     1601 MARKET ST., 16TH FL
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 665-3315
     Fax: (215) 561-6661
     Email: carlos@bbs-law.com



NCAA: Johnson Claims Damages Over Injuries Sustained
----------------------------------------------------
James Johnson, 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.

Johnson played football at the State University of New York from
2006 to 2008. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as
countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. He now suffers from anxiety, depression, sleeping
difficulties, loss of impulse control, loss of inhibition,
irritability and suicidal thoughts.

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. Johnson 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: Porcelli Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Porcelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00732 (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.

Porcelli played football at the Long Island University from 1988 to
1989. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless
sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. He
now suffers from anxiety, depression, emotional instability, loss
of impulse control, loss of inhibition, memory loss, loss of
concentration, motor impairment and speech and language
impairment.

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. Porcelli 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


NEW YORK: Faces Dorce Suit over Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A civil action has been filed against the City of New York,
Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Co. Inc., BSDC Kings
Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. and Maria
Torres-Springer, the Commissioner of the New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development. The case is captioned
Dorce et al v. City of New York et al Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-DAB
(S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2019). It is assigned to Judge Deborah A.
Batts.  McConnell Dorce, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleges defendants' violation of the Civil
Rights Act.

The New York City government employs more than 300,000 civil
servants who work to ensure the city promotes public safety, public
health and opportunity. Neighborhood Restore Housing Development
Fund Corporation and its affiliate nonprofit entities (Restored
Homes HDFC, Restoring Communities HDFC, Preserving City
Neighborhoods HDFC, and Project Rebuild, Inc.) collaborate with the
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development on
programs that seek to foster neighborhood stabilization by
efficiently transitioning properties from physical and financial
abandonment to responsible third party ownership. Neighborhood
Restore also utilizes citywide partnerships to create affordable
homeownership opportunities for households of low- and moderate-
income. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew L. Berman
     Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP
     600 Old Country Rd., Ste. 519
     City, NY 11530
     Telephone: (516) 203-7180
     Fax: (516) 706-0248
     E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com


NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Kohmetscher Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NextEra Energy, Inc.
The case is captioned as KEVIN KOHMETSCHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTERA
ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80281-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
March 1, 2019), and is assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks and
referred to Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon.

NextEra Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, generates,
transmits, distributes, and sells electric power to retail and
wholesale customers in North America. The company was formerly
known as FPL Group, Inc. and changed its name to NextEra Energy,
Inc. in 2010. NextEra Energy, Inc. was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Juno Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David Patrick Healy, Esq.
         2846 B Remington Green Circle
         Tallahassee, Fl 32308
         Telephone: (850) 222-5400
         Facsimile: 222-7339
         E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


NISOURCE INC: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors
------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into NiSource
Inc. (NYSE: NI).

On September 13, 2018, numerous gas explosions destroyed dozens of
homes and businesses in Massachusetts, causing one death, dozens of
injuries, and the forced relocation of approximately 8,600
households, which investigators determined was caused by
over-pressurization of a gas main belonging to Columbia Gas of
Massachusetts, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NiSource. On November
1, 2018, the Company disclosed that it was "subject to a criminal
investigation" by the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's Office and had
been served with grand jury subpoenas.

Recently, the Company disclosed that it is under investigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its financial
disclosures prior to the explosions.

The Company's actions, directed by its executives, have exposed it
to significant litigation including a class action lawsuit brought
by the victims of the explosions for failing to properly and safely
maintain its gas distribution system, as well as the cost of
defending the Company against government investigations and the
penalties, fines and other liabilities and expenses associated with
those investigations.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether NiSource's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to NiSource's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of NiSource shares and would like
to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ni/ to learn more.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSYKA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07093 (Cal. Super., March
1, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.

The Plaintiff Walker was employed by the Defendants as post
commander.

Norred & Associates, Inc. provides corporate security and
investigative services. Norred & Associates, Inc. was founded in
1981 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with additional
offices in Macon and Savannah, Georgia; Birmingham and Gulf Shores,
Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston, Texas;
Hilton Head, South Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Los Angeles,
California; Memphis, Tennessee; Miami and Orlando, Florida; Newark,
New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; Manchester, New Hampshire; Buffalo,
New York; and Charleston, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
         Diego Aviles, Esq.
         BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
         1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 438-5555
         Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
         E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 diego@tomorrowlaw.com


NORTHERN BIRCH: Samarasinghe Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSHAN NISHENDRA SEPALA SAMARASINGHE, individually and in behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTHERN
BIRCH INC. d/b/a A DOLLAR and MOHAMMED N. MOHAMED ISHAAK, jointly
and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01596 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 20, 2019), seeks unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and such other relief purduant to the the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
the Plaintiff and party plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage. The
plaintiff worked a spread of hours more than ten each day, yet the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the plaintiff spread-of-hours
compensation. The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with a
notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring. The Defendants
also failed to provide the plaintiff with a statement with each
payment of wages.

Northern Birch Ltd. owns and operates a retail store that
distributes household furniture and home furnishing products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

NORTHERN OIL: Jeffrey Fries Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has
dismissed the class action filed by Jeffrey Fries.

On December 10, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, a class action that
was originally brought on August 18, 2016 by plaintiff Jeffrey
Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, Michael Reger (the company's former chief
executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (the company's former chief
financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as
defendants.  

The original complaint was amended by plaintiff in July 2017. The
court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the opportunity to further
amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018.
The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, with prejudice, in December 2018. The complaints
purported to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class of persons who acquired the company's securities between
March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and sought to recover damages
caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Northern Oil said, "Plaintiff did not appeal the court's dismissal
of the second amended complaint, and this matter is now fully
dismissed."

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., an independent energy company, engages
in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United
States. The company primarily holds interests in the Bakken and
Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and
Montana. The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


NOSTRAND CRICKET: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Duran, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nostrand Cricket Inc., Cricket
Pitkin Inc., Mohammad Butt, John Does #1-10 and other affiliated
companies controlled by Mohammad Butt, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01654 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
wages from Defendants for overtime work for which Plaintiff did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendants failed to pay Ms. Duran any overtime "bonus" for
hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations, asserts the complaint. The
Defendants' failure to pay Ms. Duran the overtime bonus for
overtime hours worked was willful, and lacked a good faith basis,
adds the complaint.

Ms. Duran was employed at one or more of the Cricket Stores from
approximately February 2016 through June 2018.

Defendants owned and operated a chain of approximately a dozen
Cricket Wireless stores in New York City, including at least
Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


NOTTINGHAM'S LLC: James Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Emily James, Plaintiff, v. Nottingham's LLC
d/b/a Nottingham's Tavern, Defendants, Case No. C-13-cv-19-000140
was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Howard County to
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
March 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00849.

Plaintiff Emily James a/k/a Emily Reese ("James") filed this Class
and Collective Action Complaint on February 4, 2019. James alleges
that Defendant "perpetrated an unlawful practice or scheme of
taking, assigning, and keeping cash tips that belonged" to
Plaintiffs, and kept the cash tips in its cash registers.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage
Payment Collection Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     Roy Lyford-Pike, Esq.
     Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910

The Defendants are represented by:

     Stephen G. Grygiel, Esq.
     Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin, White, LLC
     201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 385-2225
     Email: sgrygiel@mdattorney.com


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Menaldi Case Settlement Has Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a January 16, 2019 hearing, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has entered final approval of the
settlement in the case styled Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et
al., and entered an order and judgment approving the settlement in
all respects and dismissing the action with prejudice, according to
Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On May 5, 2014, a purported class of shareholders filed a lawsuit
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et al.).
The amended complaint asserted claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers of Company securities from
February 9, 2012 to August 22, 2014.  Daniel Och, Joel Frank and
Michael Cohen were also named as defendants.  On March 16, 2015,
all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On February
17, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part the motion to
dismiss filed by the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank and
dismissing Mr. Cohen from the action.

On March 23, 2016, the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank filed
their answer to the amended complaint.  On November 18, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers of
Company securities from November 18, 2011 to April 11, 2016.  The
second amended complaint alleged, among other things, breaches of
certain disclosure obligations with respect to matters that were
under investigation by the SEC and the DOJ, and named the Company
and Messrs. Och, Frank and Cohen as defendants.

On November 23, 2016, Mr. Cohen objected to being named as a
defendant in the second amended complaint on procedural grounds.
On December 21, 2016, the court directed the plaintiffs to file a
motion for permission to renew their claims against Mr.  Cohen.
Plaintiffs filed their motion on January 7, 2017.

On January 11, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss those
portions of the second amended complaint that sought to revive
dismissed claims or assert new claims against it, and Messrs.  Och
and Frank filed motions to dismiss as well.  On September 29, 2017,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety
and dismissed plaintiffs' revived claims and new claims against the
Company and Messrs. Och and Frank.  The court also dismissed Mr.
Cohen from the matter entirely and denied plaintiffs' request to
file a further amended complaint.

On September 14, 2017, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On September 17, 2018,
the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement
in principle to settle the matter.  On October 2, 2018, the
parties' stipulation of settlement was filed with the court.  Under
the parties' stipulation of settlement, the Company agreed to pay
US$28.8 million in exchange for a full release from plaintiffs and
the class members they represent.

On October 3, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  On December 17, 2018, plaintiffs filed a
motion for final approval of the settlement.  On January 16, 2019
the court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement and
entered an order and judgment approving the settlement in all
respects and dismissing the action with prejudice.


OLIN CORPORATION: Amrex Files Anti-trust Suit in New York Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amrex Chemical Co., Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel
Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental
Chemical Corporation (d/b/a OxyChem), Westlake Chemical
Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386 (W.D. N.Y., March 22,
2019) seeks damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants
under the antitrust laws of the United States.

From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic
Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins
were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These
conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to
restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and
to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
asserts the complaint.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Defendants announced
Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated fashion and began
increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish demand, stable or
declining costs, and excess capacity, notes the complaint. They
also at times refused to supply customers, put them on allocation,
or refused to bid on contracts while falsely claiming supply was
tight or scarce, says the Plaintiff.

Average quarterly North American undiscounted Caustic Soda prices
declined approximately 6% between the fourth quarter of 2012
through the third quarter of 2015. Since the fourth quarter of
2015, however, numerous across-the-board price increases were
implemented by the Defendants that impacted all purchasers of
Caustic Soda, and prices have increased more than 50%.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and their transition
from passive members of an oligopoly to active coordinators of
supply and pricing, Caustic Soda prices in the United States paid
by Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been artificially
increased by a substantial amount, and maintained during the Class
Period above levels that would be expected due to supply and demand
conditions, alleges the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Caustic Soda directly from one or more
Defendants during the Class Period.

Olin manufactures, sells, and distributes Caustic Soda either
directly or through its subsidiaries, agents, or affiliates,
including defendant K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., to customers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marco Cercone, Esq.
     R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq.
     Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
     RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
     1600 Liberty Building
     424 Main Street
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 854-3400
     Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
     Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com
            rupp@ruppbaase.com
            bailey@ruppbaase.com

          - and -

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 687-1980
     Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
            jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
            mmccahill@kaplanfox.com


ORACLE CORP: Kahn Swick Officers and Directors
----------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into Oracle
Corporation (NYSE: ORCL).

In January 2017 the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") filed suit
against the Company's subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc., alleging
systemic pay discrimination practices against female, African
American, and Asian employees and other discriminatory employment
practices. Recently, the presiding judge denied Oracle's request to
dismiss the case and the DOL amended its complaint to add
additional evidence that, among other things, Oracle underpaid
female and nonwhite workers by more than $400 million over four
years and steered such employees to low-level positions with low
starting salaries resulting in "female, black and Asian employees
with years of experience [being] paid as much as 25 percent less
than their peers." Oracle has also been sued in a class action
gender bias lawsuit filed in August 2017 on behalf of female
employees alleging systematic underpayment, which is ongoing.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Oracle Corporation's
officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Oracle Corporation shares and
would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. --
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-orcl/ to learn more.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


ORACLE CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plansponsor, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado has issued summary
judgement largely in favor of the defense in a long-running
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit targeting
fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan offered to employees of the Oracle
Corporation.

The law firm of Schlichter, Bogard and Denton filed the proposed
class action suit back in January 2016, claiming the Oracle
Corporation breached ERISA in various ways through mismanagement of
the 401(k) plan. As an example, the lawsuit claimed Oracle
Corporation breached its fiduciary duties by causing participants
to pay recordkeeping and administrative fees to Fidelity that were
"multiples of the market rate available for the same services."

The text of the complaint further suggested defendants "breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and engaged in
transactions expressly prohibited by ERISA … by failing to act
solely in the interest of plan participants and failing to
adequately monitor the investment options in, and service providers
to, the plan." The defendants were also accused of "preventing
participants in the plan from discovering their breaches through a
series of false and misleading communications to plan
participants."

In February 2018, the district court granted class certification.
However, the federal judge on the case changed the class definition
for certain imprudent investment claims because class
representatives were not all invested in the funds challenged.
Despite this setback for Oracle at the class certification stage,
the new ruling pushes strongly against many of the plaintiffs'
claims.

Evidentiary Objections and Statute of Limitation Issues

Before addressing the substance of plaintiffs' claims, the decision
first addresses their objections to certain evidence submitted in
support of the defense's summary judgment motion. The court also
considers defendants' statute of limitations arguments. In both
cases the defense gets the better of the ruling, though on the
limitations issue plaintiffs are given a little breathing room.

In their evidentiary challenge, the plaintiffs object to seven
documents produced by defendants after discovery in this case
closed on December 1, 2017. After some brief consideration, the
judge rules there is no basis to exclude this evidence under Rule
37(c)(1), essentially because the defense produced the documents as
soon as they were either created and feasibly available. The
decision also points favorably to the defendants' quick supply of
additional requested documents and information.  

"Plaintiffs objections based on hearsay and lack of foundation are
wholly conclusory and completely undeveloped," the text of the
ruling states. "I am neither required nor inclined to guess at the
substance of such arguments. … Accordingly, I overrule
plaintiffs' objections and will consider the documents if and where
appropriate."

The defense similarly succeeds with its statute of limitations
arguments, with the judge ruling to limit claims across a variety
of areas.

"In certifying this matter as a class action, I defined all three
subclasses to commence on January 1, 2009, noting it was premature
to determine at that juncture whether plaintiffs could establish
facts sufficient to toll limitations," the decision says. "I now
find and conclude plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient
evidence in that regard. Accordingly, any claim based on conduct
occurring before January 22, 2010, is time-barred."

Most ERISA Claims Fall Flat

Turning to the substance of this case, the decision first considers
the plaintiffs' claim that the Oracle fiduciary defendants failed
to monitor the recordkeeping fees paid to Fidelity, resulting in
the payment of excessive fees.

"Plaintiffs maintain that allowing Fidelity to recoup recordkeeping
fees based on a percentage of the plan's assets, rather than on a
fixed per-participant amount, resulted in unwarranted and excessive
increases to Fidelity's compensation as the plan grew in size,
without a corresponding increase in the services rendered," the
decision states. "I find these allegations untenable. The
committee, together with representatives of Mercer and Fidelity and
outside counsel, met at least quarterly. Mercer produces quarterly
reports for the plan which, among other things, report the expense
ratios for each fund in the plan and show the administrative fees
paid, both in total and on a per-participant basis."

Plaintiffs argue these actions were insufficient because there is,
they claim, little evidence that the committee ever specifically
considered the fees paid to Fidelity on a per-participant basis or
requested Mercer perform an analysis of the reasonableness of
Fidelity's recordkeeping fees on a per-participant basis.

"Plaintiffs apparently divine this fact from the absence of a
specific mention of these issues or documents in the minutes of the
committee's meetings," the decision states. "However, they ignore
testimony to the effect that such information, in fact, was
reviewed at every quarterly meeting, with no expectation that such
review necessarily would be reflected in the minutes. … Indeed,
it appears abundantly clear the committee regularly did consider
information regarding the plan's recordkeeping costs as a
percentage of total costs, a figure which declined during every
year of the class period."

For similar reasons, plaintiffs' related assertion that the
committee was imprudent in failing to negotiate Fidelity's fees did
not survive summary judgment.

"Plaintiffs' arguments regarding this aspect of their claim appear
to be based on an amorphous, but artificially narrow conception of
what 'negotiation' must look like," the decision states. "Whatever
plaintiffs feel may have been lacking in the manner by which the
plan secured price concessions from Fidelity related to the cost of
its administrative services, the evidence nevertheless demonstrates
the plan did receive significant concessions during the class
period."

The text of the opinion shows plaintiffs' evidence as to the
purported unreasonableness of Fidelity's recordkeeping fees is
premised on the expert opinion of Michael Geist, who generated a
table of what he claimed to be reasonable per-participant
recordkeeping fees for each year of the class period, to which he
compared the fees paid by the plan. However, because Geist failed
to disclose the methodology by which he derived these allegedly
more reasonable recordkeeping fees, the court struck his opinion.

"Plaintiffs thus have no evidence to suggest that defendants'
alleged lack of prudence caused losses to the plan," the decision
states. "Absent such proof, these aspects of plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claim would fail even if the evidence substantiated
an actual lack of prudence on defendants' part, which it does
not."

The plaintiffs' duty of prudence claims are similarly rejected.

"Yet here again, assuming [for the sake of argument] Geist's
opinion on this matter is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of
material fact as to liability, without his further opinion that
less costly alternatives were available, plaintiffs have no
evidence that the plan could have paid less for recordkeeping
services than it did, and therefore that it suffered compensable
losses," the decision states. "Without such evidence of damages,
this claim also must fail."

The decision then moves on to consider duty of loyalty claims to
the effect defendants breached this duty by allowing the plan to
pay allegedly excessive recordkeeping fees in order to maintain a
favorable business relationship with Fidelity, which was also a
customer of Oracle. There are at least two problems with this
argument, the decision says.

First, "a conflict of interest is not a per se breach: nowhere in
the statute does ERISA explicitly prohibit a trustee from holding
positions of dual loyalties. Instead, in order to prove a violation
of the duty of loyalty, the plaintiff must go further and show
actual disloyal conduct."

Here, the disloyal conduct plaintiffs claim is the committee's
alleged failure to secure a lower recordkeeping fee for the plan.
As noted, plaintiffs have failed to prove that such was the case.

Second, "the evidence plaintiffs have adduced shows merely that
members of Oracle's sales team and various of its senior
management—none of whom were fiduciaries with respect to the plan
or are named defendants in this lawsuit—discussing among
themselves how to leverage Oracle's business relationship with
Fidelity. The actions of such non-fiduciaries are irrelevant. The
threshold question under ERISA is not whether the actions of some
person employed to provide services under a plan adversely affected
a plan beneficiary's interest, but whether that person was acting
as a fiduciary (that is, performing a fiduciary function) when
taking the action subject to complaint."

The text of the ruling concludes by noting the several areas where
plaintiffs' claims can proceed.

"For the reasons set forth herein, I grant defendants' motion for
summary judgment in part and deny it in part," the decision
concludes. "Based on those rulings, I perceive the claims remaining
for determination at trial are (1) the allegedly imprudent
investment in the Artisan Fund (Count II); (2) the allegedly
imprudent retention of the TCM Fund (Count II); (3) the alleged
failure to monitor the breach of fiduciary duty in the retention of
these two allegedly imprudent investments. All other claims in this
suit will be dismissed with prejudice." [GN]


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit over Hamilton Merger Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is facing a derivative and
putative class action complaint filed by Paul Parshall in Maryland
related to the Company's pending merger acquisition of Hamilton
Bancorp, Inc., and its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Hamilton
Bank, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In connection with the pending merger acquisition of Hamilton, on
February 15, 2019, Orrstown filed with the SEC a proxy
statement/prospectus dated February 8, 2019 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").  The Proxy Statement/Prospectus is the
proxy statement for Hamilton's special meeting of stockholders (the
"Special Meeting") to be held on March 20, 2019 to vote on the
approval of the merger, and is also Orrstown's prospectus with
respect to the shares of Orrstown's common stock to be issued to
Hamilton stockholders in the merger.

On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder
of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton's
stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates
(the "Purported Class"), a derivative and putative class action
complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
captioned Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et al., naming each
Hamilton director, Orrstown and Hamilton as defendants (the
"Action").

The Action alleges, among other things, that Hamilton's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in
connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
omitted certain material information regarding the merger.
Orrstown is alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The Action
seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or, in the event
the merger is completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

Orrstown believes that the lawsuit is without merit as there are
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  The Company said that it
is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible
losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in
connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown Bank
and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive
offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg,
Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative
offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The
Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose
of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related
activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company
provides banking and bank-related services through branches located
in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland,
Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington
County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and
provides services as a registered investment advisor through its
office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Faces SEPTA Putative Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it believes the
allegations of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA)'s second amended complaint are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously against those claims.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified
money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive
relief.  Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012.  SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court
appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.  On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses.  On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time.  On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the
underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock.  In addition, among other things, the amended complaint
extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012.  Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013
Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013, all defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22,
2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the
defendants' motions to dismiss.  On August 23, 2013, all defendants
filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss.
On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be
heard on February 7, 2014.  Oral argument on the pending motions to
dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.  The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA
either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by
the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand
on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion.  Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint.  The proposed
second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants
did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal
controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial
reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  On February 8, 2016, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second
amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.  Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule.  The February 25, 2016 Order stays
all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing
of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of
the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the
existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry
regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.  As disclosed in
the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date
the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC
resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at
the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31,
2011.  As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative
proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without
admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former
Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.
The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of US$1,000,000.
The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount
which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016.  In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court
a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with
the SEC.  The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist
order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most
salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.  On
September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which
SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint.  The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R.  Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly.  The Court also denied the motions to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively.  On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports.  SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants'
opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23,
2018.

On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule.  On February 12, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court
with a summary of document discovery in the case to date.  On
February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a
continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status
conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule.  On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order
continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the
Court.

On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines.  On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status
report.  On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic
status conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties.  On August 23, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel.  On
August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in
the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel,
and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to
SEPTA's motion.  On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief
in support of its motion to compel.  On February 12, 2019, the
Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on the
ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies.

Party and non-party document discovery in the case continues.  To
date, SEPTA has taken two non-party depositions.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against those claims.  It is not possible at this time to estimate
reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.  The Company incurred
indemnification costs totaling US$645,000 for the year ended
December 31, 2017, with several professional service providers in
connection with the SEPTA litigation.  Indemnification costs
incurred in 2018 were not material.  These costs are included in
legal fees in the consolidated statements of income.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown
Bank
and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive
offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg,
Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative
offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The
Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose
of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related
activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company
provides banking and bank-related services through branches
located
in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland,
Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington
County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and
provides services as a registered investment advisor through its
office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Nallagonda Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
At a February 4, 2019 hearing, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland found the settlement of the "Nallagonda" suit
to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and therefore dismissed the
case with prejudice in its order of that date, Osiris Therapeutics,
Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a
single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, against the Company and three current or former
executive officers of the Company.  An amended complaint clarifying
plaintiff's claims was filed on April 6, 2018.

The action, captioned Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case 1:15-cv-03562 (the "Nallagonda
Action"), alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false or misleading statements and material omissions in
the Company's filings with the SEC in violation of the federal
securities laws.  The complaint sought certification as a class
action, unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Dr. Raffy
Mirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP as lead counsel.  On March 11, 2018, the Company
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Nallagonda
Action.  Subsequently, on June 5, 2018, the parties executed a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in which the Company agreed in
principle to pay US$18.5 million in cash to create a settlement
fund for the benefit of class members.  On June 12, 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
parties' settlement.

On September 4, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for February 4,
2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be
dismissed with prejudice.

On October 3, 2018, the Company deposited the US$18.5 million
settlement payment into an escrow account, pending final Court
approval of the settlement.  On November 11, 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed a request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses from the settlement fund.

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. researches, develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes regenerative medicine products in the
United States. Its products include Grafix and Stravix for treating
chronic wounds of diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure
ulcers, arterial ulcers, and severe burns, as well as surgical and
trauma wounds; BIO4 for bone repair and regeneration in spine,
trauma, extremity, cranial, and foot and ankle surgeries; and
Cartiform for treating articular cartilage lesions in the knee and
other joints. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.


OWENS CORNING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gerald Boehm, Jaime Gonzalez, Diane Maag, Edward Maag,
Kevin West and Patricia Wright filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in their lawsuit titled Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens Corning, et
al., Case No. 2-13-cv-01378, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 12, 2019, Judge
Joy Flowers Conti denied the Plaintiffs' motion for counsel fees.

The sole issue remaining in these closed cases is the Plaintiffs'
motion to be compensated for lifting the federal bankruptcy bar and
voiding the bankruptcy injunction thereby creating a common benefit
for millions of shingle owners.  They filed a response in
opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief and the motion is
ripe for disposition.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys ask the Court to exercise its discretion
to award counsel fees in the case, even though a class was not
certified.  The Plaintiffs articulate three theories: (1) the
common fund doctrine; (2) the common benefit doctrine; and (3) the
catalyst theory and Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL"), fee shifting provision.

The appellate case is captioned as Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens
Corning, et al., Case No. 19-1538, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAIME GONZALEZ, KEVIN WEST, GERALD BOEHM,
EDWARD MAAG and DIANE MAAG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA
WRIGHT are represented by:

          Brian F. Fox, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: bfox@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Dana M. Isaac, Esq.
          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: disaac@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Sam H. Lock, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAM LOCK
          1017 South Alamo Street
          San Antonio, TX 78210
          Telephone: (210) 226-0965
          E-mail: sam@locklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING SALES LLC are
represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq.
          Colleen M. Kenney, Esq.
          Kara L. McCall, Esq.
          Theodore R. Scarborough, Esq.
          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-0640
          E-mail: echiarello@sidley.com
                  ckenney@sidley.com
                  kmccall@sidley.com
                  tscarborough@sidley.com
                  dspira@sidley.com

               - and -

          Tracy N. LeRoy, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 495-4510
          E-mail: tleroy@sidley.com

               - and -

          Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          Three PPG Place, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2172
          E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com


OWENS REALTY: Defending Against Suit over Ready Capital Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Richard Scarantino, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2018.

On November 7, 2018, ORM, Ready Capital Corporation, a Maryland
corporation ("Ready Capital"), and ReadyCap Merger Sub, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ready Capital ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the
terms and conditions therein, ORM will be merged with and into
Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company
(the "Merger").

A purported class action lawsuit has been filed by an individual
who claims to be a stockholder of ORM.  The lawsuit, Richard
Scarantino v. Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on February 8, 2019.  It
names ORM, its directors and Ready Capital as defendants.  The
plaintiff alleges that the ORM directors breached their fiduciary
duties because, according to the plaintiff, the consideration to be
received by ORM's stockholders in the Merger "appears inadequate,"
some financial and other disclosures to ORM's stockholders
regarding the Merger are deficient, and the terms of the Merger
Agreement have precluded other bidders from making competing offers
for ORM.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things: injunctive relief
preventing the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the Merger; rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages
if the Merger is consummated prior to entry of final judgment by
the court; an accounting of any damages suffered as a result of the
wrongdoing alleged; and litigation costs (including attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses).

The Company said, "We believe the claims asserted in the Scarantino
Lawsuit are without merit."

On March 12, 2019, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injuction
seeking to prevent the March 21, 2019 meeting of the Company's
stockholders to approve the merger from proceeding until further
public disclosures about the transaction are filed by the Company.

On March 29, 2019, ORM completed the Merger pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
March 29, 2019. On the Closing Date, ORM merged with and into
Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company.
The Articles of Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement were
filed with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of
Maryland, with an effective time and date of 8:30 a.m., Eastern
Time, on the Closing Date (the "Effective Time").

Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc. is a specialty finance company that
focuses on the origination, investment and management of commercial
real estate loans, primarily in the Western U.S.  The Company is
headquartered in Walnut Creek, California.


PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is awaiting the Court's ruling on
the Company's motion to dismiss the purported securities class
action styled, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong
Zhuo and Roy Yu.

According to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, the class action complaint was filed on
June 23, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York alleging violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleged that the Company and the executive officers
made materially false and misleading statements in filings with the
SEC regarding the Company's business operations.  The Complaint was
brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Pingtan securities between August 8, 2016 and
May 10, 2017 and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.  An amended complaint, which expands the putative class
period to March 9, 2016 through May 10, 2017, was filed on May 29,
2018 (the "Amended Complaint").  The Company has moved to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, and is currently waiting for the court to
issue a decision on the motion.  As of December 31, 2018, the
management evaluates there is no impact on its consolidated
financial statements.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is a marine enterprise group
primarily engaging in ocean fishing through ITS operating
subsidiary, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group
Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing, which is organized in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC").


POLARITYTE INC: Utah Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
transition period from November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, that
the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class
action pending before the U.S. District Court, District of Utah.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno
Complaint).

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint").

Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the
defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information
to the public through reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material
misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 adopted
thereunder.

Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants
misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent
applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's
technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages
suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who
acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between
March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018.

Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the
Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc.
Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"),
and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead
plaintiff.

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court
granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel
and liaison counsel.

The Court ordered that the lead plaintiff file and serve a
consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after February 1,
2019, the defendants shall have 60 days after filing and service of
the consolidated complaint to answer or otherwise respond, and the
lead plaintiff must file a motion for class certification that
within 90 days of service of the consolidated complaint.

The Company believes the allegations in the Moreno Complaint and
Lawi Complaint are without merit, and intends to defend the
litigation, vigorously.

PolarityTE said, "The Company expects its first response will be to
file a motion to dismiss after the lead plaintiff files and serves
the consolidated complaint. At this early stage of the proceedings
the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome
of the litigation."

PolarityTE, Inc., a translational regenerative medicine company,
develops functionally polarized human tissues to improve clinical
medicine and biomedical research. PolarityTE, Inc. was incorporated
in 2015 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. As of April 5, 2017,
PolarityTE, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of PolarityTE, Inc.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN DAMON COMBS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC; HUNT & HENRIQUES; MICHAEL SCOTT HUNT; and JANALIE ANN
HENRIQUES, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01118-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb.
28, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M.
Cousins.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Matthew C Salmonsen, Esq.
          Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Telephone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          E-mail: fred.shwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
                  matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com
                  raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com


PRECISION DRILLING: Dyck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Dyck, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Precision Drilling Company, LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01090 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2019) is a collective action
seeking to recover unpaid overtime and other damages owed to him
and other workers like him.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Instead, Precision paid Dyck, and other Rig Managers like him, a
set amount for each day (or half-day) worked, with no overtime pay
if he worked more than 40 in a workweek, adds the complaint.

Dyck is a Rig Manager employed by Precision and has worked for
Precision since 2008.

Precision is a subsidiary of Precision Drilling Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone 713-352-1100
     Facsimile 713-352-3300
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com


PROTHENA CORP: Still Defends Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
Prothena Corporation plc continues to face securities litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2018.

On July 16, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Granite
Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action No.
18-cv-06425, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
costs and expenses in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's ordinary shares
between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the putative class period, regarding the clinical
trial results and prospects for approval of the Company's NEOD001
drug development program.

On October 31, 2018, the Court issued an order naming Granite Point
Capital and Simon James, an individual, as the lead plaintiffs in
the purported class action, which is now entitled In re Prothena
Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology
company, focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of
diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories. Prothena
Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in
Dun Laoghaire, Ireland.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jury Rules Firm's Actions Hurt Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
James Comtois, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a
jury in federal court in California ruled in the favor of the
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Puma Biotechnology and
its former CEO, Alan H. Auerbach, alleging that the company made
false or misleading statements leading to the artificial inflation
of its stock price, according to documents filed in federal court.

The complaint filed by plaintiffs, which include the £3 billion
($3.9 billion) Norfolk Pension Fund, Norwich, England, alleged that
Puma, a Los Angeles-based biopharmaceutical firm, "made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the company's business, operations, prospects
and performance" while promoting the development of a drug designed
to treat breast cancer.

Plaintiffs bought shares in Puma Biotechnology at allegedly
artificially inflated prices. But when the company abruptly changed
its timeline and other actions regarding the drug, its stock price
dropped dramatically.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the complaint alleged.

Paul Davies, Esq. -- paul.davies@lw.com -- a partner in law firm
Latham & Watkins, which represented the defendants, couldn't
immediately be reached for comment.[GN]


PURE DEBT SOLUTIONS: Faces Boehm Suit over Unauthorized Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has filed against Pure Debt Solutions
Corporation for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case is captioned ANDREW BOEHM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURE
DEBT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION., a Wyoming corporation, GUSTAV RENNY,
an individual, and WILLIAM THOMAS FINNERAN, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00117 (D. Neb., March 20, 2019).

Plaintiff Andrew Boehm brings this class action complaint and
demands jury trial against Defendant Pure Debt Solutions
Corporation, Defendant Gustav Renny and Defendant William Thomas
Finneran to stop their illegal practice of making unauthorized
calls that play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

Defendant Pure Debt Solutions Corporation is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Wyoming with its principal place of business at 1665 Palm Beach
Lakes Boulevard, Suite 200, in West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Pure
Debt Solutions Corporation is a full-service debt settlement
company that strives to help its clients overcome their debt at a
fast rate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     210 S Ellsworth Ave #486
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Telephone: 402-301-5544
     Facsimile: 402-396-7131
     E-mail: javitchm@gmail.com


REC BOAT HOLDINGS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rec Boat Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Four Winns. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Rec
Boat Holdings, LLC d/b/a Four Winns, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02628 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019).

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

REC Boat Holdings LLC builds and sells boats. The Company is
located in Cadillac, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces CIS Communications Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services,
Inc. The case is captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; and ALLIED SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-JAR (E.D. Mo., March 1, 2019).
The case is assigned to District Judge John A. Ross.

Republic Services, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling,
disposal, and energy services for small-container, large-container,
municipal and residential, and energy services customers in the
United States and Puerto Rico. The company’s collection services
include curbside collection of waste for transport to transfer
stations, landfills, or recycling processing centers; supply of
waste containers; and renting of compactors. The company was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaniel Richard Carroll, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 391-4700
          E-mail: nathaniel@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC
          1401 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 825
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 960-0272
          Facsimile: (314) 260-9645
          E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com


RICO'S CHICKEN: Buitrago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Leidy Buitrago, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. RICO'S CHICKEN CORP., d/b/a RICO'S
CHICKEN, RICO'S CHICKEN POLLOS A LA BRASA CORP., d/b/a RICO'S
CHICKEN, and MILTON RICO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01659 (E.D.
N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid
overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and to the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

The complaint says the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated
their business with a policy of not paying the New York State
minimum wage, and the proper overtime rate for hours worked over 40
in a workweek, to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class
members. The Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credits
under the NYLL, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server until
February 2019.

Defendants operate two restaurants in Queens, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL SEAS: Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Bell Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60752 (S.D. Fla., March
22, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent.

The Defendant conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale
telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making of
unsolicited pre-recorded voice message phone calls to consumers'
phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

The Defendant also made repeated calls to numbers listed on the
National Do No Call Registry and to the persons who have asked the
Defendants to stop calling, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Brenda Bell is a natural person and resident of
Springfield, Clark Country, Ohio.

Royal Seas is a travel company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
that offers cruise vacations to The Bahamas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan S. Shipp, Esq.
     Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC
     814 W. Lantana Rd., Suite 1
     Lantana, FL 33462
     Phone: (561) 699-0399
     Email: Ryan@shipplawoffice.com

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
     3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: 720-213-0675
     Fax: 303-927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


SAM'S WEST: Sued by Lockwood Over False Ad for Gift Cards
---------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LOCKWOOD, individually and on behalf of all other members of
the general public similarly situated v. SAM'S WEST, INC., and DOES
1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00464 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019),
seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of falsely
advertising and selling gift cards ("the Class Products") for which
the Company charges consumers money but fails to properly load them
and then fails to refund the money taken.

The Company prominently advertised to consumers in stores that it
sold gift cards, which could be purchased and loaded up at its
stores, the Plaintiff says.  He alleges that he attempted to
purchase the Class Products again and was charged again, but the
Class Products were not properly credited.  He asserts that he left
the store with no Class Products in his possession after having
paid in excess of $700.

Sam's West, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation that does business in
California, including in Los Angeles County, that is incorporated
in Delaware and has its headquarters in Arkansas.

Sam's West, Inc., doing business as Sam's Club, operates as a
retailer and a membership warehouse club that provides products to
members in the United States and Puerto Rico.  The Company offers
electronics, furniture, auto products and tires, jewelry, flowers
and gifts, toys and video games, apparel and shoes, appliances,
books, cigarettes and tobacco products, among other goods.[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


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., the court has previously granted preliminary approval of a
US$9.5 million settlement in September 2018, according to Santander
Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in two purported
securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.  The
lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that SC violated federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to
disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and certain other public disclosures, in connection
with, among other things, SC's change in its methodology for
estimating its ACL and the correction of such ACL for prior
periods.

In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit as to defendant Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants.  In July
2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of US$9.5 million.

In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the merits discovery
in the lawsuit styled Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al. remains stayed until the court
rules on the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the IPO, including SIS, on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied.  In December 2016, the plaintiffs
moved to certify the proposed classes.  In July 2017, the court
entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of
the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l
Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit but ordered that merits discovery be stayed until the court
ruled on the issue of class certification.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. remains a defendant a putative class
action in Puerto Rico alleging federal securities and common law
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Other defendants include:

   * SSLLC: Santander Securities LLC,
   * Santander BanCorp: Santander BanCorp and its subsidiaries,
   * BSPR: Banco Santander Puerto Rico, and
   * Santander: Banco Santander, S.A.

The claims relate to the solicitation and purchase of more than
US$180 million of Puerto Rico bonds and US$101 million of CEFs
during the period from December 2012 to October 2013.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al.
v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Suit over Mexican Government Bonds Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation,
the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
remains pending, according to Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

A consolidated purported antitrust class action is pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit").

The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, SIS, Santander, Banco
Santander (Mexico), S.A. Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo
Financiero Santander and Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de
Valores, S.A. on behalf of a class of persons who entered into
Mexican government bond ("MGB") transactions between January 1,
2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either domiciled
in the United States or, if domiciled outside the United States,
transacted in the United States.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Santander defendants and the other
defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to rig
auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.  On September 17, 2018, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SARIANA LLC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sariana LLC. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Sariana LLC doing business as:
Satechi, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01709 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25,
2019).

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

Satechi offers audio devices, remotes, smartphone accessories,
office accessories, computer accessories, and camera
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Does Not Pay Min. & OT Wages, Cano Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justo Cano, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LAZZARA'S
PIZZA CAFE & RESTAURANT, SEBASTIAN LAZZARA, and ANTHONY LAZZARA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02595 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019)
seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, including
those resulting from Defendants' unlawful deduction of a tip
credit, compensation for unpaid off-the-clock work, including
unpaid overtime premium, due to time shaving, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Plaintiff worked a total of more than 40 hours each workweek.
However, Defendants never paid him overtime premium for those hours
he worked in excess of 40 each workweek, due to a policy of time
shaving. Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members
were not paid their overtime premium for hours that they worked in
excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery worker for
Defendant's Pizzeria in or around January 2008.

SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LAZZARA'S PIZZA CAFE & RESTAURANT,
is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SEVEN SPORTS: Hopkins Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE HOPKINS and JANEE SELLERS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Those Similarly Situated v. SEVEN SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE, LLC and
EARNEST EARVIN, III, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:19-cv-01177-LMM (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and supporting regulations.

Seven Sports Bar is an active Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business located in in Stockbridge, Georgia.
The Individual Defendant is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Seven Sports Bar.

The Defendants operate a restaurant called Seven Sports Bar &
Lounge based out of Stockbridge, Georgia.  The Defendants have been
in the restaurant industry, specializing in bar/lounge food, and
also selling alcoholic beverages, such as beer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com


SITESOL: Palmerin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX PALMERIN v. SITESOL, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00458 (C.D. Cal., March 13,
2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid compensation under Fair
Labor Standards Act and to represent the interests of other current
and former similarly situated aggrieved employees.

Sitesol is a business entity incorporated in the state of
California, with its principal place of business in the City of
Riverside, California.

Sitesol is a general contractor for various construction projects
all throughout Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Babak Semnar, Esq.
          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          Laurel N. Holmes, Esq.
          SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
          41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: (951) 293-4187
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: bob@semnarlawfirm.com
                  jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
                  laurel@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com


SPIGEN INC: Dennis Suit Asserts ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spigen, Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Spigen, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01711 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

Spigen Inc, commonly known as Spigen, is a popular mobile phone
accessory maker based in the United States that makes cases, screen
protectors and other accessories for popular smartphone
models.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


SPLIT ROCK: Accused by Indiviglio Class Suit of Violating FACTA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEENA INDIVIGLIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SPLIT ROCK RESORT, LLC; STABILIS SPLIT ROCK JV, LLC;
VACATION CHARTERS, LTD.; HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00448-RDM (M.D. Pa., March 13,
2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act and failing to protect Plaintiff and others
against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud by printing
more than the last five digits of the card number on receipts
provided to credit card and/or debit card cardholders transacting
business with the Defendants.

Split Rock Resort, LLC, is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania.  Stabilis
Split Rock JV, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.

Vacation Charters, Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania.  Highgate Hotels,
L.P., is a limited partnership organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware.  The Plaintiff does not know the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants, which operate resorts, used all or part of the
phrase "Split Rock Resort" as a fictitious name, and each of them
were the agents, employees, joint venturer, and or partners of each
other and were acting within the course and scope of such agency,
employment, joint venturer and or partnership relationship and or
each of the Defendants ratified and or authorized the conduct of
each of the other Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Wendaur, IV, Esq.
          WENDAUR LAW LLC
          104 Walnut St.
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 461-3349
          Facsimile: (717) 828-1607
          E-mail: mwendaur@wendaur.com

               - and -

          Jesse Klaproth, Esq.
          KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 644-7463
          Facsimile: (202) 618-4636
          E-mail: jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


SPROUT FARMERS: May 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY
OF MARICOPA

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs

                v.

SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., et al., Defendants.


Case No.:  CV2016-050480

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement,
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

(Complex case)
(Assigned to the Hon. Roger Brodman)

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC. ("SPROUTS" OR THE
"COMPANY") IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S SECONDARY PUBLIC
OFFERING OF 15,847,800 SHARES THAT OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 5,
2015, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY ("SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court
of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, that Lead Plaintiff
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of
itself and the Settlement Class, and Sprouts, J. Douglas Sanders,
Amin N. Maredia, Donna Berlinski, Andrew S. Jhawar, Shon Boney,
Joseph Fortunato, Lawrence P. Molloy, and Steven H. Townshend, AP
Sprouts Holdings, LLC, and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P.,
Barclays Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (collectively,
"Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $9,500,000
that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Roger Brodman of the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, East Court
Building, Fourth Floor, 101 W. Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona,
85003, Courtroom 413, at 9:00 a.m. on May 31, 2019 (the "Settlement
Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 27,
2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.SproutsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting
the Claims Administrator at:

         Sprouts Farmers Market Securities Litigation
         Claims Administrator
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 170600
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
        (866) 963-9981

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

         James W. Johnson, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
        (888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or received no later than June 25, 2019. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than May 10, 2019. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than May 10, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 11, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF ARIZONA, MARICOPA COUNTY [GN]


STEADFAST INCOME: Records $305,000 as Reimbursement at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the Company had recorded US$305,000 as
reimbursement for funds it spent in excess of its proportionate
share in connection with the settlement agreement in two Texas
class actions.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager were
named as defendants in two Texas class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the Texas Water Code (collectively, the "Actions").
The Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager disputed
plaintiffs' claims in the Actions; however, to avoid the time and
expense associated with defending the Actions, the Company's
subsidiaries and other affiliated Steadfast entities (collectively,
the "Steadfast Parties") entered into Settlement Agreements with
the plaintiffs that provided for a settlement payment to the class
members and a release of claims by plaintiffs and class members
against the Steadfast Parties.

In connection with the settlement agreements, on April 17, 2017,
the Steadfast Parties entered into a contribution, settlement and
release agreement whereby all agreed to an allocation of all costs
related to the actions and their settlements and a release of all
claims a Steadfast Party may have against any other Steadfast
Party.  The Company's proportionate share of the settlements was
US$378,405, which consisted of funds used to pay a portion of (1)
the settlement payments to the plaintiffs and class members in the
actions and (2) legal costs, less insurance proceeds.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company had recorded
US$305,000 as reimbursement for funds spent by the Company in
excess of its proportionate share, all of which was collected from
other Steadfast Parties as of December 31, 2018.

Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. was formed on May 4, 2009, as a
Maryland corporation that has elected to be treated as, and
currently qualifies as, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.
The company had invested in and manages a diverse portfolio of real
estate investments, primarily in the multifamily sector, located
throughout the United States.


STEWART BUILDERS: Sheffield Seeks OT Wages for Pump Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SHEFFIELD, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STEWART BUILDERS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01030 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2019), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and
other Pump Operators lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The case is a collective action brought by Louis Sheffield, both
individually and on behalf of all other Pump Operators employed by
Defendant at any time within the three-year period preceding filing
of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Pump Operator from
July of 2017 until January of 2019, when he was promoted to Pump
Supervisor. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in
March of 2019. The Plaintiff was classified by Defendant as exempt
from overtime wages and paid a salary and bonuses, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant is a commercial concrete construction company
operating in Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

SUNNY DELIGHT: Wins SunnyD Mislabeling Lawsuit  
------------------------------------------------
Brad Avery, writing for BevNET.com, reports that Sunny Delight
Beverages Co. was awarded $88,383 for legal fees after winning a
class action lawsuit that claimed that labelling for the brand's
fruit-flavored drinks did not clearly indicate the products were
artificially flavored.

The lawsuit, Michelle Hunt et al. v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co. et
al., filed last April in the United States District Court Central
District of California, specifically cited the company's SunnyD
Orange Strawberry and Orange Pineapple flavors for using images of
fresh fruit on its labels but failing to disclose that the drinks
were made with artificial flavors and other ingredients.

In her ruling, judge Josephine Staton enumerated multiple
inaccuracies in Hunt's accusations against Sunny Delight. The
original complaint featured mockup images made by the company of
its multi-serve products without disclaimer text on the labels,
which according to the company were intended only for online
marketing purposes and did not represent the actual product on
shelf.

Sunny Delight was represented by law firm Braunhagey & Borden,
which specializes in class action defense for corporations.
Speaking with BevNET today, partner and co-founder Matthew Borden
said that due to the mistakes in the complaint the case was fairly
easy to argue.

"What I did was I brought an actual bottle of it into court and I
showed the judge," Borden told BevNET. "I said 'I just bought this
last night after I got off the airplane. Here's the actual label,
there's no way these people were deceived.'"

According to Borden, the plaintiffs refiled their complaint after
the initial complaint was struck, but it once again included
misleading photos of the bottles.

"I'm a person who takes what I eat and drink seriously, and I think
we should have accurate labels, but none of these cases are really
about the labelling," Borden said of the suit and similar class
action cases. "It's just about some kind of 'gotcha' to make a
company pay money."[GN]


SUNTRUST BANK: Class Action Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the Georgia
Court of Appeals has upheld the certification of a class action
lawsuit against SunTrust Bank alleging as many as 400,000 customers
have been charged exorbitant overdraft fees.

Named plaintiff Jeff Bickerstaff Jr. filed the lawsuit in July 2010
challenging the bank's overdraft fees as excessive. Bickerstaff
said SunTrust charged $36 when customers overdrew their accounts,
even by small amounts, with debit card payments. The complaint
claims the fees amount to interest rates as high as 1,000 percent
and violate the state's banking and finance laws.

Bickerstaff alleged that approximately 400,000 Georgians had been
overcharged in the same way and were "well suited for class
treatment."

"SunTrust argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding the
class-action waiver unconscionable, and (2) granting class
certification," Judge Elizabeth Gobeil wrote in an opinion released
on March 6. "We affirm." Gobeil was joined by Judges Brian Rickman
and Chris Coomer.

The decision upholds Fulton County State Court Judge Susan Edlein
in the certification of the class.

It's the third round of appeals for the case, which could
potentially cost SunTrust tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
The bank lost an attempt to have the case dismissed after
Bickerstaff died in 2015. But his mother and executor, Ellen
Bickerstaff, took his place as named plaintiff. The bank also lost
an appeal at the Georgia Supreme Court seeking to block the lawsuit
by enforcing an arbitration agreement.

The case has drawn attention from legal scholars, who argue in
support of the class, as well as banking and business interests on
the other side. In briefs and during oral arguments in the previous
round at the high court, attorneys told the justices their ruling
could either kill class action or contract law in the state.

Michael Terry -- terry@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
argued the case for Bickerstaff.

"We are pleased that the court was so careful and attentive to this
important case for Georgia consumers," Terry said on March 7. "It
has been nine years since we filed this case. It's long past time
for a trial."

William Withrow Jr. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- of Troutman
Sanders represented SunTrust. Through a spokesman, SunTrust
declined to comment.

"Like many banking institutions, SunTrust provides an automated
overdraft program that allows an account holder's ATM or debit card
transaction to be approved even if the approved amount exceeds the
account holder's available balance. In other words, the customer
has insufficient funds to cover the transaction and SunTrust
advances the customer the necessary funds to cover the transaction,
but, in return, charges the customer a flat fee per overdraft
transaction. During the relevant time period, SunTrust charged a
flat overdraft fee of $32 or $36 per overdraft transaction," Gobeil
said.

"In the complaint, Bickerstaff alleged that, on multiple occasions,
SunTrust 'advance[d] money to Plaintiff in amounts less than $3,000
and collected Overdraft Fees from Plaintiff in connection with each
such advance.' He maintained that SunTrust's overdraft fees in fact
constitute interest charged by SunTrust for the use of the money
SunTrust advanced/loaned account holders to cover overdrafts on
their accounts, and that the rate of interest grossly exceeded the
rate allowed under Georgia's usury laws," Gobeil said.

The case is SunTrust v. Bickerstaff, No. A18A1519. [GN]


SURE CHECK: Kind Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned JACKSON KIND, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sure Check Brokerage,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1916-CV01187 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 21, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00217-SRB.

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
     Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq.
     1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 474-8100
     Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
     Email: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
            kholzhueter@spencerfane.com


SURGERY PARTNERS: Derivative Claims Remain in Klein v. HIG Capital
------------------------------------------------------------------
Surgery Partners, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that all of the plaintiff's
remaining claims in the Delaware action styled Klein v. H.I.G.
Capital, L.L.C., et al. are asserted derivatively on the Company's
behalf.  In a December 2018 order, the Court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's claims that were asserted on behalf of a putative class
of Company stockholders.

On December 4, 2017, a purported Company stockholder filed an
action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action").
That action is captioned Klein v. H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., et al.,
C.A. No. 2017-0862.  The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted
claims against (i) certain current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors (together, the "Directors"); (ii)
H.I.G.  Capital, LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively,
"H.I.G."); and (iii) Bain Capital Private Equity, L.P.  and certain
of its affiliates (collectively, "Bain Capital" and, together with
the Directors and H.I.G., the "Defendants").  The plaintiff
asserted derivative claims on behalf of the Company, which is a
nominal defendant in the Delaware Action, as well as putatively
direct claims on behalf of a purported class of Company
stockholders.  The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted that
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Transactions, and that, in the alternative, Bain Capital aided
and abetted those purported breaches.  The plaintiff also asserted
an unjust enrichment claim against Bain Capital.

On January 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint.  On December 19, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued a
decision on that motion.  Following that decision, all of the
Directors have been dismissed from the Delaware Action.  The Court
did not dismiss the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim
against H.I.G. or the aiding and abetting claim asserted against
Bain Capital.  However, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against Bain
Capital.  In addition, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's
claims that were asserted on behalf of a putative class of Company
stockholders.  Accordingly, all of the plaintiff's remaining claims
in the Delaware Action are asserted derivatively on the Company's
behalf.

Surgery Partners, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates surgical
facilities in the United States. The company operates through three
segments: Surgical Facility Services, Ancillary Services, and
Optical Services. Surgery Partners, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is
headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss Amended NJ Complaint Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion to
dismiss a second consolidated amended complaint in class action
before the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey remains pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Securities Law Action").

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common stock between October 28,
2014 and June 13, 2017.

The second consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements of material information
concerning the Company's financial results, business operations,
and prospects.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint is pending before the Court.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


Synchronoss said, "The Company believes that the asserted claims
lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against all of the
claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position or results of
operations of the Company."

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of things platforms, products, and solutions
worldwide. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


TAPESTRY INC: Amaro Seeks Redress for Unauthorized Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Tapestry, Inc. for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
case is captioned MARIA ISABEL AMARO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TAPESTRY, INC., a New
York Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21070-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Maria Isabel Amaro seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff
also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of
the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

Tapestry, Inc. is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company. To promote its services, Tapestry engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Its
principal office is located at 10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001.
Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities
throughout the State of Florida. [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
     Telephone: 305-479-2299
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@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


TGHI INC: Faces Dennis Suit Alleging ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TGHI, Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. TGHI, Inc. doing business as:
Targus, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01707 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25,
2019).

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

TGHI, Inc. provides carrying cases and accessories for tablets,
smartphones, laptops, notebooks, and other mobile devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


THULE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Dennis Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thule, Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Thule, Inc. doing business as:
Case Logic, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01708 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25,
2019).

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

Thule, Inc. designs and manufactures automotive and sporting goods
accessories in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


TOP TIER SAFETY: Edwards Suit Asserts FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Derlesher Edwards and Jennifer Leavell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOP TIER SAFETY
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02008 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2019)
is a Complaint challenging the systemic illegal employment
practices of the Defendant which resulted in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO").

The Defendant acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference
and conscious disregard of the rights of its employees in, among
other things, failing to pay all regular and overtime wages due,
failing to pay wages in a timely fashion, and failing to keep
accurate payroll records, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs became employed by, and began working for, Defendant as
Security Officers during or about August of 2017.

Defendant is a corporation of the State of Illinois, which operates
a private investigation, security guard, and security consulting
service throughout the Greater Chicago area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


TREASURE BAY: Shortchanges Casino Dealers' Wages, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Collins, Judy Fleming, Julian Glen Cook, Darlene Ransom,
Saundra McKeown, Kim Walston and Kim O'Brien, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Treasure Bay LLC and
Does 1 through 25, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00051 (S.D. Miss.,
February 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, disgorgement of funds unjustly obtained,
litigation costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and such other and
further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant utilizes a computerized time-keeping system that rounds
employees' time to 30-minute intervals that often results in
shorting the employee of an average of 14 minutes of pay, notes the
complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Treasure Bay as casino dealers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Mestayer, Esq.
      James R. Reeves, Esq.
      REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
      160 Main Street
      Biloxi, MS 39530
      Telephone: (228) 374-5151
      Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
      Email: mgm@rmlawcall.com
             jrr@rmlawcall.com


TRINITY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ANTHONY PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and
DOES 1 thru 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00765 (Cal. Super,
Fresno Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Parra was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Trinity Services Group, Inc. provides contracted food service to
the corrections industry in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. It engages in the management and delivery of
customized food service programs for inmates and staff of secure
facilities. The company also provides commissary services, inmate
training programs, and laundry services. Trinity Services Group,
Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Oldsmar, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Liane Katzenstein Ly., Esq.
          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Lyubov Lerner, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  luba@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


TRIUMPH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lopez ADA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triumph Hospitality,
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Triumph
Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02670 (S.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 25, 2019).

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

InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. owns, manages,
franchises, and leases hotels.

Triumph group of management is operates in the hospitality industry
as a hotel ownership, development, and management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


U.S. SOCCER: Moves to Transfer Unequal Pay Case to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a gender
discrimination class action against the U.S. Soccer Federation
kicks to the courts a long-simmering conflict over pay disparities
in the professional sport, just as a venue fight flares in a
related case.

The class action, filed three months before the FIFA Women's World
Cup, alleges that the U.S. Soccer Federation pays members of the
U.S. Women's National Team less than their male counterparts. The
lawsuit was filed March 8 by 28 team members under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, which requires class
members to opt into the case, brought on behalf of current and
former team members starting in 2015.

The case caps a lengthy feud between the U.S. Soccer Federation and
the women's soccer team, winner of the Women's World Cup in 2015
and ranked No. 1 in the world. On Aug. 24, former goalkeeper Hope
Solo filed her own suit against the U.S. Soccer Federation for the
same claims.

"The women, starting in 2004, have always asked for equal pay,"
said Solo's attorney, Richard Nichols, who was executive director
and general counsel of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team
Players Association, which negotiates for the team's collective
bargaining agreement, in 2015 and 2016. "U.S. Soccer has said no."

Solo and four other players filed a discrimination charge in 2016
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The class
action includes the other four women, who received notices of right
to sue from the EEOC in February.

The suit, filed by Jeffrey Kessler, the same attorney who
represented the women in the EEOC charge, comes as the U.S. Soccer
Federation has moved to transfer Solo's case from California to
Illinois, where its headquarters are in Chicago. A federal judge in
San Francisco heard arguments on that motion in February.

Nichols, a solo practitioner in Novato, California, said he did not
want his case in Illinois, where the U.S. Soccer Federation won a
declaratory judgment against the women's players union in 2016 when
the team threatened to go on strike just before the Olympics.

"Given that experience," he said, "I would feel a lot better if
this case was not adjudicated in Chicago."

He conceded that the U.S. Soccer Federation's connections in
California are mostly in Los Angeles, home to its national training
camp. Los Angeles also is where attorney Kessler filed the class
action. On March 8, Kessler, co-executive chairman of Winston &
Strawn in New York, brought a motion to coordinate his case with
Solo's lawsuit into a multidistrict litigation proceeding in Los
Angeles, citing a "strong nexus" to the case.

Solo's case provides a glimpse into the U.S. Soccer Federation's
possible legal defenses in the class action. In a Dec. 31 motion to
dismiss Solo's case, the federation argued that compensation to
players of the two teams were different: women receive a salary,
while men's payments are per game. And each operated under separate
collective bargaining agreements.

The Equal Pay Act applies to discrimination against women who work
at the same "establishment" as men in jobs involving "substantially
equal skill, effort and responsibility."

"This is not a case where employees are working side-by-side, doing
the exact same job, but getting paid differently for the same
work," wrote Ellen McLaughlin, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in
Chicago, who heads an all-women's legal team for the federation in
the case. "Rather, this case takes two entirely different
categories of professional athletes—athletes who play for
different teams, have different obligations, are compensated in
fundamentally different ways, and enjoy different benefits—and
asks the court to conclude that they are suitable comparators for
each other under the EPA."

McLaughlin did not respond to a request for comment.

Nichols called that a "ridiculous argument."

"U.S. Soccer is the single employer of the men's and women's
teams," he said. "The men and women do the same job under similar
circumstances in similar venues under the same rules and
regulations depicted by their employer, U.S. Soccer. There are no
two separate establishments."

As to the salary difference, he said, women had argued before for a
pay-to-play system like that of male players, who get between
$5,000 to $17,625 per game, but the federation wouldn't guarantee a
number of games each year.

"Women needed to make sure they needed to make some money playing
for the United States, and the only way to do that, for a
guaranteed income, was to have a salary," he said. [GN]


U.S. SOOCER: Team Coach Supports Women Players' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pardeep Cattry, writing for Pro Soccer USA, reports that United
States women's national team coach Jill Ellis voiced her support of
the players' recently-filed federal class-action lawsuit against
the U.S. Soccer Federation

"Obviously, I work for the federation. I think they've done amazing
things in terms of promoting, developing and evolving the women's
game, so there's a lot of positives. I'm also a woman and I also
recognize moments where we have to continue to push the envelope,"
Ellis said on March 9 at the SheBelieves summit at Nike's New York
headquarters, a day-long event featuring sessions with notable
women, who share personal and professional insights. "I think it's
not hard to navigate because I'm in that world, and my players,
they know I support them."

In addition to inviting women who are leaders in various industries
to speak to college students, the event hosted past and present
members of the U.S. women's national team, including Ellis,
defender Crystal Dunn and former players and current Fox analysts
Aly Wagner and Leslie Osborne. Topics of discussion varied from the
lawsuit to being women in a male-dominated sports world and the
upcoming Women's World Cup.

Osborne and Wagner joined Ellis in support of the players' lawsuit
seeking equal pay from the federation and an end to years of
alleged gender-based discrimination.

Osborne told Pro Soccer USA she believes the federation is in a
tough position because of the timing and the publicity of the
lawsuit.

"A lot of teams, a lot of women in the workplace, everyone's
watching and they're using this leverage and platform that they
have to change something," Osborne said. "What I think is just the
best part about is that they're staying together. They're unified
as a team and I think that unity is going to carry them."

The U.S. women's national team's influence and relevance in
American sports, particularly in a World Cup year, is hardly up for
debate. Even before the lawsuit, the members of the team had been
labeled as role models for young women across the globe. Wagner
thinks that tag suits the players currently on the team.

"I like the idea that women that have worked hard toward something,
that have put in sacrifice to get to where they are, are role
models," Wagner said. "Everyone's going to have a unique role model
that they're going to gravitate toward, and that's why it's really
cool with a team . . . there's a bunch of different personalities
that people can look up to. At the end of the day, those players
have to embrace that status, and I think they do, and I think
that's one of the reasons that our nation falls in love with these
players."

Dunn did not grant interviews during the event, but spoke during
the "Breaking Barriers: Leaders in Sport" panel moderated by
Wagner. Dunn, who is on the most recent U.S. roster and plays for
the North Carolina Courage in the National Women's Soccer League,
talked about having few players of color to look up to on the
national team growing up and about the growing diversity of the
team in recent years.

"The thing about sports is that it almost puts you in a position to
come across so many different people of different walks of life,"
Dunn said. "I come across a ton of women around the world [in]
training, and it's becoming a way more diverse group. . . .  It is
difficult when you only see the same types of people and things
like that, but when everyone comes together and from so many
different walks of life -- so many different shades, colors,
everything -- in the conversation, that's what the norm becomes."

Dunn is likely to make her first World Cup roster after being one
of the final players cut from the 2015 roster. Wagner asked her
about the snub, winning the 2015 NWSL golden boot award and the
trip to the Olympics that followed. Dunn called the experience "a
reality check."

"As women, we all just come into the world feeling like we just
have to do so much extra that men don't have to think about or
anything like that," Dunn said. "It's also built in us to be so
hard on ourselves, and I think four years ago I was so hard on
myself.

"I actually went on to have my most successful career years, and I
think that's a prime example of turning a not-so-great situation
into something that's incredibly amazing."

While Dunn and Ellis are focused on preparing to defend the team's
World Cup title in a few months, Wagner and Osborne are preparing
to broadcast the tournament to the American audience. Brushing up
on the tournament's other 23 teams is part of that process, as is
keeping eyes on who might eventually lift the trophy in less than
four months in France.

"I just think that this is going to be a very exciting, but I think
this one's open," Osborne said. "I think there could be six teams
that could possibly win it, which I don't know if I ever went into
a World Cup and thought that before."

In addition to the reigning champion USWNT, both mentioned host
France as a possible winner, though Osborne is not convinced of the
team's ability to handle the pressure. Wagner also pointed to
England's recent victory at the SheBelieves Cup -- the U.S. placed
second in the four-team international tournament held in the weeks
leading to the summit -- as a sign the Lionesses could win the
World Cup. Wagner then called Osborne's choice "safe," and the two
eventually agreeing the U.S. will be the world champion once
again.

"I just don't put anything past the U.S.," Osborne said. "We've got
the talent. We have the depth. You've got the attacking player. We
just have players that can step up. I just don't know if all those
pieces are going to fall in at the right time like it did last
World Cup." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stellenbosch Lecturer Comments on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness News reports that Theo Broodryk, senior lecturer and
manager of the law clinic at Stellenbosch University, says most
don't progress far.

Theo Broodryk, senior lecturer and manager of the law clinic at
Stellenbosch University, says most don't progress far.

Mr. Boodryk's commenting on a class action brought against Uber by
eleven people. They're to approach a court to pursue damages
against the ride-hailing company. This follows several incidents.

"We're talking about class actions by 11 members. You have to
wonder whether class action is the appropriate action under the
circumstances, unless other members join the class action suit."
[GN]


UNION PACIFIC: Flood Victims Reach Settlement
---------------------------------------------
William Patrick, writing for Palestine Herald Press, reports that
a federal lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad filed last April
by local victims of the 2016 flood was settled last month for an
undisclosed, confidential amount.

The lawsuit, one of several representing litigants from nearly 50
Texas counties, could have cost the railroad tens of millions of
dollars. The suit alleged Union Pacific had aggravated flood damage
by failing to properly maintain drainage system and culverts.

Since the plaintiffs accepted Union Pacific's offer, the matter
will not be heard in federal court. No admission of guilt was made
by the railroad, and the amount of the settlement was ordered to
remain confidential.

Local attorney Charles Nichols, Esq. who represented several of the
litigants in the class-action suit, could not comment on how much
Union Pacific Railroad will have to pay flood victims. He said,
however, the decision was a win for his clients.

"We always focus on what is best for our clients," Nichols told the
Herald-Press Feb. 22. "In the end, we reached a settlement our
clients were happy with."

Plaintiffs alleged Union Pacific failed, for years, to maintain
drainage systems and culverts. Heavy rains, the suit alleged,
caused enormous property damage and loss.

Photographic evidence of closed-off culverts, blocked drainage
pipes, and water on residents' land were included in the
class-action suit.

In response, Union Pacific documented that the railroad had
invested roughly $34 billion in its network, operations, and
infrastructure between 2008-2017.

Last June, Union Pacific attempted to name the City of Palestine a
"responsible third-party" to the flood damage, in a failed attempt
to lessen its own financial liability.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Youth Immigration Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Krell, writing for TNT, reports that several young
immigrants in Western Washington have sued the federal government,
saying they've been or expect to be wrongfully denied a type of
immigration status for youths who have suffered abuse, neglect or
abandonment.

They argue that someone under 21 is eligible for the so-called
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status if a state court decides that
person can't be reunited with a parent and should not return to his
or her country of origin.

Last year, the lawsuit says, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services started denying the special status to youths who have
turned 18.

"It's the ones who were 18, 19 and 20 at the time the state
juvenile court issues the order," said Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project attorney Matt Adams -- one of the attorneys who filed the
case. "That is where under the Trump administration, USCIS has
said: 'We don't believe that the state court actually has the
authority to issue this order.'"

The federal agency said it does not comment on pending litigation
but did send The News Tribune a general statement about the Special
Immigrant Juvenile status.

"USCIS continues to ensure that children who have required the
protection of a juvenile court from parental abuse, abandonment or
neglect receive the humanitarian benefits they are eligible for,"
spokeswoman Jessica Collins wrote. "The agency's highly trained and
experienced officers evaluate each petition on a case-by-case
basis, to determine if the petitioner qualifies for SIJ
classification according to our nation's laws and policies."

The class-action, filed on March 5 in U.S. District Court in
Seattle, involves two Pierce County cases and one from Skagit
County.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has asked the court to
certify a class of up to 100 youths. Similar lawsuits have been
filed in California and New York, Adams said.

"It's hard to know the exact numbers," he said when asked how many
youths apply for the status, which congress created.

He estimates there are between several dozen and 100 people in
Washington who qualify and submit the applications each year.

Of those, he said maybe 10 percent are 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds.

"This is a very small group, and that's true nationwide," he said.

He estimated there are a few thousand youths across the country who
qualify for the status and that a small portion of them have
already turned 18.

The order of a state court judge doesn't guarantee the status,
Adams said. He or she still needs to file an application with USCIS
and can become ineligible if they commit adult crimes, for
example.

But, "generally, once you have that order, you are on the path to
lawful permanent residence," Adams said.

The three youths named in the lawsuit all suffered abuse at the
hands of their parents and then came to the United States as young
children or teenagers, according to the complaint.

It gives this account of their interactions with the state courts
and the federal government:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement took 20-year-old Jose Luis
Vicente Ramos to the immigration detention center in Tacoma after
he was visiting a cousin last year and police arrived and searched
the home for drugs.

"Jose had no knowledge of any drug-related activity and was not
charged with any criminal offense," the lawsuit says, but he was
taken to the immigration detention center in Tacoma, where he
remains.

Pierce County Superior Court appointed one of the Guatemalan
citizen's relatives as his guardian in June and at the same time
entered an immigration order.

USCIS denied him the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in
February.

The Pierce County court also entered an order for 19-year-old Angel
de Jesus Munoz Olivera, a 19-year-old citizen of Mexico, when the
court appointed a relative as his guardian.

That was in November 2017. He has not yet gotten an answer but
expects USCIS to deny his petition.

He's in high school and does youth group activities at his church.

It was Skagit County Superior Court that entered an immigration
order for 20-year-old Leobardo Moreno Galvez in 2016.

The court oversaw his custody after he was arrested for possessing
alcohol as a 17-year-old and found that "reunification with both of
his parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect or abandonment;
and that it was not in his best interest to return to Mexico," the
lawsuit says.

USCIS denied his petition in December.

"The government's blanket denial of SIJS for youth who obtain
predicate SIJS orders after turning 18 but before the age of 21
violates the controlling statute and regulations," the lawsuit
says. "These statutory violations by USCIS punish a vulnerable
class of young people, in direct contradiction to the statutory
terms implemented by Congress, unlawfully denying them the
opportunity to obtain lawful permanent residence and rendering them
likely to be removed." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Expand ICE Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Chan, writing for Jurist, reports that a federal judge
granted a motion on March 8 to expand the class definition in a
class action lawsuit against the Immigration and Custom Enforcement
agency.

In the original complaint, the plaintiff, Ms. L, sought to reunite
with her seven-year-old daughter after they both fled violence from
the Democratic Republic of Congo. Upon seeking asylum in the US,
the two were separated.

After the Department of Justice and Attorney General announced
their zero-tolerance policy against undocumented immigrants
crossing the border, mass amounts of parents and children were
separated from one another. The plaintiffs in the class action were
granted an injunction to prevent the Department of Homeland
Security from separating families while making efforts to reunite
those impacted by the Attorney General's orders.

The petitioners sought to expand the definition in the class
categorization to include families released by the Office of
Refugee Resettlement before the injunction was granted. Following
the Office Of Inspector General report on the impact of the
zero-tolerance policy, thousands of families were impacted, but
would not have been included in the original class certification of
the lawsuit and injunction. [GN]


US BANK: Still Defends Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts
---------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") disclosed in its Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from February 1, 2019 to February 28, 2019,
that U.S. Bank National Association is a defendant in multiple
actions alleging individual or class action claims against the
trustee with respect to certain residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts.

The Company said, "Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of
plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S.
Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee
or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain RMBS
trusts.  The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed
substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees,
including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon
and Wells Fargo.  The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the
trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures
by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS
trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's
purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties
concerning loan quality.  The complaints also assert that the
trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of
default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by
mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to
abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of
default.

"Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect
to multiple trusts.  Previously, U.S. Bank disclosed that the most
substantial case was: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v.
U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.)(class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 770
trusts) and a companion class action case involving additional
trusts (collectively, the "BlackRock cases").  Some of the trusts
implicated in the aforementioned BlackRock cases, as well as other
trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of
plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

"U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the
litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the
trustee or the RMBS trusts.  However, U.S. Bank denies liability
and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses
to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends
to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously."

Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclay card US,
provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for
travel,
entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the
United States.


VISA USA: $4.1-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
A district court has granted preliminary approval to a US$4.1
billion amended class settlement agreement entered into by Visa
U.S.A. with the putative class action plaintiffs of the U.S.
interchange multidistrict litigation, according to Bank of Marin
Bancorp's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2018.

In 2012, Visa had reached a US$4.0 billion interchange
multidistrict litigation class settlement agreement with plaintiffs
representing a class of U.S. retailers.  On September 17, 2018,
Visa signed an amended settlement agreement with the putative class
action plaintiffs of the U.S. interchange multidistrict litigation
that superseded the 2012 settlement agreement.  Visa's share of the
settlement amount under the amended class settlement agreement
increased to US$4.1 billion.  Visa deposited US$600 million into
the litigation escrow account in June 2018, increasing the escrow
account balance to US$1.5 billion.  The escrow balance, combined
with funds previously deposited with the court, is expected to
cover the settlement payment obligations.  On January 24, 2019, the
district court granted preliminary approval of the amended class
settlement agreement.

Bank of Marin Bancorp ("The Bank") is responsible for a
proportionate share of certain litigation indemnifications provided
to Visa U.S.A. by its member banks in connection with Visa's
lawsuits related to anti-trust charges and interchange fees
("Covered Litigation").  The Bank's proportionate share of the
litigation indemnification liability does not change or transfer
upon the sale of the Bank's Class B Visa shares to member banks.
Visa established an escrow account to pay for settlements or
judgments in the Covered Litigation.  Under the terms of the U.S.
retrospective responsibility plan, when Visa funds the litigation
escrow account, it triggers a conversion rate reduction of the
Class B common stock to shares of Class A common stock, effectively
reducing the aggregate value of the Class B common stock held by
Visa's member banks like us.

The outcome of the Covered Litigation affects the conversion rate
of Visa Class B common stock held by the Bank to Visa Class A
common stock.  The final conversion rate might change depending on
the final settlement payments, and the full effect on member banks
is still uncertain.  Litigation is ongoing and until the court
approval process is complete, there is no assurance that Visa will
resolve the claims as contemplated by the amended class settlement
agreement, and additional lawsuits may arise from individual
merchants who opted out of the class settlement.  However, until
the escrow account is fully depleted and the conversion rate of
Class B to Class A common stock is reduced to zero, no future cash
settlement payments are required by the member banks, such as us,
on the Covered Litigation.

The Bank said, "Therefore, we are not required to record any
indemnification liabilities related to the Covered Litigation."

Bank of Marin Bancorp is the smart option for Bay Area businesses.
The company's financing solutions are backed by personal attention
and expert advice. The company is based in Novato, California.


W.L. GORE: Dennis Brings ADA Class Action in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.L. Gore &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.L.
Gore & Associates, Inc. doing business as: Gore Wear, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01706 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company specializing in products derived from
fluoropolymers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


WAVERLY EASTERN: Faces Chen Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Yi Chen, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff, v. WAVERLY EASTERN BROOKLYN INC., LIAB O CHENG, and
MICHAEL CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01644 (E.D. N.Y., March
22, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying the FLSA overtime rate (of time and
one-half) to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant unlawfully failed to
pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the statutorily
mandated overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and/or their predecessors
sometime in April 2016 to work as a laundry delivery person at
Defendants' Laundromat and worked until November 19, 2017.

WAVERLY EASTERN BROOKLYN INC. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Reyes Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Webcollex, LLC dba CKS Financial, Oliphant Financial
LLC And John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:19-cv-00153-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.,
March 13, 2019), accuses the Defendants of engaging in deceptive,
misleading and unfair debt collection practices pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

CKS is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address in Chesapeake, Virginia.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

CKS and Oliphant are companies, which use the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engage in business the principal purpose of
which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due
another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Jubelt Files Securities Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Jubelt, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., Mindy
Grossman, Nicholas P. Hotchkin and Artal Group S.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02528 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019) is a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Weight Watchers between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019,
inclusive, seeking to pursue claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

On February 27, 2018, Weight Watchers announced its fiscal year
2017 financial results for year ended December 31, 2017 ("FY17"),
provided its fiscal year 2018 ("FY18") guidance and provided its
three-year fiscal 2020 ("end-of-2020") guidance. For FY18, the
Company stated it was on track to report revenues "approaching
$1.55 billion and earnings guidance of between $2.40 and $2.70 per
fully diluted share," emphasizing that the "guidance reflected the
operating strength of the Company's business and expected continued
global momentum through the year." Weight Watchers also stated that
it was confident in its ability to reach five million subscribers,
driving revenues in excess of $2 billion, by the end-of-2020.

However, the complaint asserts that the Defendants are liable for:
(i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about Weight Watchers. Defendants' fraudulent
scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Weight Watchers securities was a success, as it: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding Weight Watchers' business
metrics and financial prospects; (ii) artificially inflated the
prices of Weight Watchers securities; (iii) allowed Artal and
certain Weight Watchers executives and insiders to sell more than a
billion dollars of their personally-held Weight Watchers shares at
fraud-inflated prices; and (iv) caused plaintiff and other members
of the Class to purchase Weight Watchers securities at artificially
inflated prices, says the complaint.

Plaintiff John Jubelt acquired Weight Watchers securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Weight Watchers offers a subscription-based weight loss program and
is headquartered at 675 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor, New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


WEIRTON, WV: Plant Demolition May Spur Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kurt Weinschenker, writing for WTRF, reports that the City of
Weirton looks to move forward after demolition of the former
Weirton Steel Basic Oxygen Plant, but some Weir Avenue residents
believe the city and demolition contractor said one thing, and did
another.

About 50 residents in that area met at the Dunbar Recreation Center
in Weirton to hear what local Attorneys Michael and Max Nogay had
to say about a possible class action lawsuit on their behalf.

Many residents expressed anger with both the city and the
demolition contractor. One described what happened to his house.

Ted Troia's family has owned a house in the affected area since the
1920's.

"I was in the structure, and the whole thing did like a, an
expansion and contraction.  It was a 'WHOOF!'," Troia said.  "And
when it was all over, when all the smoke and air cleared, I was
able to see what happened.  And the whole back wall of my property
-- has separated from the structure."

Attorney Michael Nogay can barely contain his anger when he reviews
the situation.

"I don't think it would have happened in a wealthier area," he
said. "They wouldn't have allowed it to happen in an area like
Angeline Estates in Weirton."

"I got the National Weather Service report for the winds," Nogay
continued. "The winds were out of the southeast from anywhere
between nine and 25 miles per hour.  And you could see that smoke
cloud -- that cloud of debris -- 60 years of material, went up in
the air, instead of keeping in place.  There had been no rain at
that point.  It had not been watered down.  That wind just blew it
all over these homes, and it's just -- it's sickening."

Representatives from the City of Weirton and Frontier Industrial
were not immediately available for comment. [GN]


WILCO LIFE: Breaches Settlement in Insurance MDL, LSCC Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LSCC LLC, an Arkansas limited liability corporation, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01854 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), alleges that
Wilco's systematic reduction of the payment of death proceeds
during the "extension period" through its unilateral imposition of
the "retroactive premium charge" constitutes a breach of a
court-approved settlement agreement requiring that life insurance
coverage during the Extension Period be provided at no cost to the
Plaintiff and other members of the Extension Class.

By order and judgment dated July 3, 2007, entered in In re Conseco
Life Insurance Company Cost of Insurance Litigation, Docket No. MDL
04-1610-AHM (Mcx) ("the MDL Action"), the Court approved a class
action Stipulation of Settlement on behalf of a certified
settlement class of policyholders, and expressly retained
jurisdiction over any subsequent action to enforce its terms.  The
Final Judgment not only approved but incorporated the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, under which Wilco (then known as Conseco)
agreed to provide to certain members of the Settlement Class (those
holding a policy in-force as of March 2, 2006, that was projected
to terminate before the insured turned 100 years old) with one of
two forms of settlement relief: either (a) an in-force death
benefit extension of coverage for each policy for a specified
period of time after the policy would otherwise terminate ("the
Extension Benefit") or (b) a specified cash contribution.

Members of the Settlement Class eligible for such relief, who did
not affirmatively elect the Cash Contribution received the
Extension Benefit by default.  The Settlement Agreement makes it
abundantly clear that the Extension Benefit provides additional
life insurance coverage for a specified period of time ("the
Extension Period") at no cost to the policyholder.

However, LSCC argues, in breach of the Court-approved Settlement
Agreement, Wilco has been systematically reducing the death
benefits paid on claims made under the Extension Period by
unilaterally applying a retroactive premium charge ("the
Retroactive Premium Charge") relating to an unused and expired
61-day grace period inapplicable to deaths occurring more than 60
days after the policy's termination date.  Accordingly, Wilco does
not charge or otherwise collect a premium for a grace period once
it expires with no claim for benefits thereunder.  Yet contrary to
the explicit "no cost" terms of the Court-approved Settlement
Agreement, Wilco is deducting the Retroactive Premium Charge for
the expired grace period from the proceeds paid pursuant to the
Extension Benefit, LSCC contends.

Wilco is a corporation organized under Indiana law, with its
principal place of business located in Connecticut.  Wilco was
formerly known as Conseco Life Insurance Company, which maintained
its home offices in Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, #900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4292
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Frank E. McLain, Esq.
          FRANK E. MCLAIN LAW FIRM
          8340 Meadow Road, Suite 232
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 378-8585
          Facsimile: (214) 378-5561
          E-mail: frank@fmclainlaw.com


WILLIAM SINGER: Sued by Olsen Over College Admissions Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA OLSEN, an individual, and KALEA WOODS, an individual v.
WILLIAM "RICK" SINGER, THE KEY WORLDWIDE FOUNDATION, THE EDGE
COLLEGE & CAREER NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a "THE KEY," THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, and GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
relating to two fraudulent college-admission schemes, the Test
Cheating scam and the Student-Athlete Recruitment scam, coordinated
between three distinct groups:

   (1) parents whose college-age children had insufficient test
       scores and other credentials to gain admission to highly
       selective universities, but who nevertheless believed that
       they could bribe their child's way through the college
       admissions door;

   (2) a California con-man, William "Rick" Singer, who, through
       the use of a fraudulent college-admissions-mentoring
       company and a bogus California charitable foundation, saw
       an opportunity to enrich himself to the tune of millions
       of dollars through fraud and bribery; and

   (3) individuals involved in the college admission pipeline who
       were supposed to keep the college admission process honest
       (including standardized test administrators and
       representatives of at least seven highly selective
       Universities) who were willing to accept bribes and
       thereby taint the college admission process.

William "Rick" Singer is a resident of Newport Beach, California,
in Orange County California, but also does business in Sacramento,
California.  Rick Singer owned The Key and served as Chief
Executive Officer of KWF.

The Edge College & Career Network, LLC d/b/a "The Key," is a
limited liability corporation with its principal place of business
located in Sacramento, California.  The Key also does business in
Newport Beach, California, in Orange County, California.  The Key
was a for-profit college counseling and preparation business that
Singer founded in or about 2007 and incorporated in the State of
California in or about 2012.  The Key Worldwide Foundation ("KWF")
is a purported charitable organization with its principal place of
business located in Sacramento, California.

University of Southern California is a private, highly selective
university located in or near Los Angeles County, California.
Stanford University is a private, highly selective university
located in or near Palo Alto, California, in Santa Clara County.
University of San Diego is a private, highly selective university
located in or near San Diego County, California.

The University of Texas at Austin is a public, highly selective
university located in or near Travis County, Texas.  Wake Forest
University is a private, highly selective university located in or
near Forsyth County, North Carolina.

Yale University is a private, highly selective university located
in or near New Haven County, Connecticut.  Georgetown University is
a private, highly selective university located in or near the
District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, APC
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4940
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4944
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com


WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND: Faces Albers' Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wilmington Savings
Fund Society, FSB, Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC, and OPTICSML
for their failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class
members' personal and financial information. The case is captioned,
MELISSA ALBERS Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, F.S.B., a
Delaware Corporation; ASCENSION DATA & ANALYTICS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and PAIRPREP, INC. d/b/a OPTICSML, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00211-WOB (S.D.
Ohio, March 20, 2019).

Wilmington and other financial institutions provided the financial
and banking documents to Ascension for data analysis and portfolio
valuations. Acsension then hired OpticsML to scan the documents.
Ascension and Stanwich confirmed the breach occurred and
represented that two cloud-servers belonging to OpticsML were
subject to unauthorized access by foreign IP addresses.

Defendant WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB is a Delaware
corporation with a principal place of business at 500 Delaware
Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19801. Defendant ASCENSION DATA & ANALYTICS,
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place
of business at 2501 Parkview Drive, Suite 221, Fort Worth, Texas
76102. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     Brian D. Flick, Esq.
     Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
     DANNLAW
     P.O. Box. 6031040
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Telephone: (216) 373-0539
     Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
     E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 440-0020
     Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
     Website: www.attorneyzim.com
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim.com


WORLDPANTRY.COM: Dennis Files ADA Suit v. Chocolate Co.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldpantry.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Worldpantry.com, LLC doing
business as: Hersheys Store, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01704
(E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

Hersheys Store or The Hershey Company, commonly called Hershey's,
is an American company and one of the largest chocolate
manufacturers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


ZAGG INC: Dennis Asserts ADA Class Action in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zagg, Inc. The case
is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zagg, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01702 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019).

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

ZAGG Inc is a publicly traded company based in Midvale, Utah. It is
best known for its line of protective coverings for consumer
electronics and hand-held devices under the brand name
InvisibleShield.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Alexia Herrera, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us
in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division
under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.

Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against the
company alleges, among other things, various violations of
California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of
failure to pay reporting time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied
the motion.

However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to
appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which petition was then granted in January 2018.  

The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.
The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate
brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments are
scheduled to be held on February 4, 2019.  

Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

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

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.


[*] Securities Class Action Settlements Totaled $5-Bil. in 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that corporations
paid $5 billion to settle shareholder class actions last year, a
sum more than triple that of 2017, and more of them are resolving
for larger amounts, according to a report by Cornerstone Research.

The annual report found that there were 78 securities class action
settlements in 2018, three fewer than in 2017, but five surpassed
$100 million, including the $3 billion deal with Brazilian energy
giant Petrobras. More significantly, the average settlement tripled
to $64.9 million, when compared to 2017, exceeding the average over
the past nine years and reflecting a trend toward larger
settlements overall. In fact, the report found that 32 cases
settled between $10 million and $49 million in 2018.

"These higher dollars aren't just driven by a small number of very
large cases," said Laura Simmons, senior adviser of Cornerstone
Research, which teamed up with Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse on the report. "In this case, we actually had
an upward shift in the size of the typical case."

Not only was the average higher, the median settlement value more
than doubled from 2017 to $11.3 million, according to the report.
Also, the number of settlements valued at less than $5 million
declined by nearly 40 percent from 2017.

"It was the first year since 2010 in which more than half of the
settlements exceeded $10 million," Simmons said. "We really had a
shift towards larger cases."

The report also looked at the settlement values as a percentage of
alleged shareholder damages, referred to as "simplified tiered
damages." In 2018, the median settlement as a percentage of
"simplified tiered damages" increased to 6 percent, compared to a
5.1 percent median for the past nine years.

That had less to do with the strength of the cases and depended
more on the size of the defendants, Simmons said. The corporate
defendants settling the cases were 50 percent larger than in 2017,
according to the report.

"Probably plaintiffs are targeting larger firms," Simmons said.
"Plaintiffs' lawyer firms choose who they target, and it's a
business for them, so they're focusing on larger cases with larger
settlement amounts. They generally receive a larger payout."

The top five plaintiffs firms leading the number of last year's
settlements were The Rosen Law Firm in New York; San Diego's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann; Glancy Prongay & Murray in Los Angeles; and Pomerantz
in New York.

As part of a new collaboration with Stanford Securities Litigation
Analytics, Cornerstone Research added data on what stage the case
was at when it settled. From 2014 to 2018, the highest median
settlement value—$36.5 million—came after a motion for summary
judgment had been filed but not ruled on.

In 2018, 21 percent of the cases settled within two years,
according to the report. Those cases also had the highest attorney
fees as a percentage of the settlement.

The report mirrors the findings of NERA Economic Consulting's
research on securities class action settlements in 2018 and comes
as filings of securities class actions hit record highs. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.8MM Award vs. Caterpillar Reversed on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the
First Department has unanimously reversed and vacated the Oct. 12,
2017 Judgment of the Supreme Court for New York County entered in
the appealed case Joanne Corazza, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
Amchem Products, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Caterpillar, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, 8149, 190028/14, (N.Y. App. Div.), which
awarded plaintiff the aggregate amount of $1,791,773 as against
defendant Caterpillar, Inc.

The Court dismisses the complaint after finding that Plaintiff
failed to establish "some scientific basis for a finding of
causation attributable to the particular defendant's product" The
Court said that "Although decedent testified that he was exposed to
asbestos as a result of his work changing brakes, clutches, and
gaskets on defendant's forklifts, as well as on forklifts of other
manufacturers, he testified as to defendant only that he worked on
its forklifts "a lot." Decedent provided no context for deciphering
the meaning of "a lot." Nor did he offer any other basis for
determining the frequency of his exposure to asbestos through his
work on defendant's forklifts. The Court concludes that plaintiff's
experts had insufficient foundation for their medical opinions that
plaintiff's work with defendant's forklifts was a substantial cause
of his lung cancer.

A copy of the Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y2qllyph
from Leagle.com.

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York ( Daniel M. Sullivan --
dsullivan@hsgllp.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Pierre A. Ratzki of counsel),
for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,684 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,684 claims as of December
31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.  Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights.  As of December 31, 2018 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,746 claims.  The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million.  Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. remains a named direct defendant in some
asbestos cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018

Albany International states, "In some of these asbestos cases, the
Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor
in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon").  We acquired
certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.  Certain plaintiffs
allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to
have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this
acquisition.  Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify
the Company against any liability arising out of such products.  We
deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the
acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.  Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims.  On this basis, we have successfully
moved for dismissal in a number of actions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arconic, Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries and former
subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational or other exposure to
asbestos.  Arconic, its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries have
numerous insurance policies over many years that provide coverage
for asbestos related claims.  Arconic has significant insurance
coverage and believes that Arconic's reserves are adequate for its
known asbestos exposure related liabilities.  The costs of defense
and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to
the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of
the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2u8Ltrq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 People in UK Every Year
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Press Association reports that people are still being exposed,
warns the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health.

Firms are being urged to do more to tackle the impact of asbestos
after a study found that 5,000 deaths a year are linked to past
exposure to the cancer-causing material.

The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) said
people were still being exposed to asbestos, 20 years after it was
banned in Britain.

More than 130 companies or individuals have been ordered to stop
work activities over the past year because of non-compliance with
asbestos regulations, said an IOSH report. Asbestos is present in
at least 500,000 buildings built before 1999, said the report.

Mesothelioma

Bev Messinger, the chief executive of IOSH, who will address an
International Asbestos Awareness Conference in Washington DC on
April 6, said: "It is unacceptable that 20 years on from asbestos
being banned in Britain, organisations are still potentially
putting at risk the lives of employees, their families and other
members of the public.

"Courts fine some of the worst offenders, which causes significant
commercial and reputational damage, but the human costs far
outweigh the financial cost.

"Thousands die in Britain every year from cancers like
mesothelioma, while many more are diagnosed with it. All this is
preventable through good occupational safety and health. It is time
for organisations to wake up and realise how dangerous asbestos is.
There are no excuses."

Vigilant

Dr Nick Hopkinson, medical director at the British Lung Foundation,
said: "Breathing in asbestos dust can cause mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma takes a long time to develop and people often get
symptoms 30 to 40 years after exposure to asbestos.

"Currently the only treatments available are aimed at slowing the
progression of the disease and improving quality of life.

"This devastating disease is preventable, and the dangers of
asbestos are well known. This means it's vital companies are
vigilant and take the proper precautions to protect people from the
life-threatening dangers of asbestos, and take urgent action if
asbestos has been found."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. continues to face personal injury lawsuits
related to asbestos-contaminated talc products, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of codefendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit.  We are
defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do
so.  To date, there have been no findings of liability against the
Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of each case and an adverse outcome, individually
or in the aggregate, could be material.

"Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's
talc products are reasonably anticipated.  At this time, we are
unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses, if any.  Also,
in light of the inherent litigation uncertainties, potential costs
to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant,
though some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2JczqU4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BEI Amicus Brief Accepted in Terwilliger's Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion of Builders
Exchange, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on
the appealed case In The Matter of the Eighth Judicial District
Asbestos Litigation. Donald J. Terwilliger, Etc., Appellant, v.
Beazer East, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Honeywell
International, Inc., etc., Respondent, Motion No. 2019-276, (N.Y.
App. Div.) and accepted the proposed brief as filed.

A copy of the Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxe3w7dc
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $308MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$308
million at December 31, 2018, for asbestos-related personal injury
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

In the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company has also made
payments of US$75 million for personal injury matters.

BNSF states, "The Company is also party to asbestos claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period
through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed
population.

"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter.  BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number
of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely
require payment and the estimated cost per claim.  Estimated filing
and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined
utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"During the third quarters of 2018, 2017, and 2016, the Company
analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions
used by BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable.  In 2018, management determined that the liability
remained appropriate, and no change was recorded.  In 2017,
management recorded a decrease to the liability of US$29 million.
No adjustment was recorded in 2016.  The Company plans to update
its study again in the third quarter of 2019.

"Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.

"At December 31, 2018 and 2017, US$80 million and US$85 million was
included in current liabilities, respectively.  Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, were
not included in the recorded liability.  The Company is primarily
self-insured for personal injury claims.

"Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to settle personal injury claims may range from approximately
US$270 million to US$370 million.  However, BNSF believes that the
US$308 million recorded at December 31, 2018 is the best estimate
of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal
injury claims.

"The amounts recorded by BNSF for personal injury liabilities were
based upon currently known facts.  Future events, such as the
number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of
disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties
surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could
cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected.

"Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, considering among other things the
meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have been
recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of these items, when
finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or liquidity.  However, the occurrence
of a number of these items in the same period could have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter
or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2CsARIj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,708 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., is defending against 7,708 claims as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in
many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant,
despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos.
While Brandon was defending against 7,708 claims as of December 31,
2018, only ten claims have been filed against Brandon since January
1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since 2001.
Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.  Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time
to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors in interest contain or have contained asbestos
insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.  The
Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous
others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals
who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants
anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or
in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2WaFwWT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $89MM A&E Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation has US$89 million reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims at year-end 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We carried US$89 million of net loss and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and US$44
million of reserves for mold claims at year-end 2018, compared with
US$84 million and US$45 million, respectively, for such claims at
year-end 2017.  The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for
each respective year constituted 1.6 percent and 1.7 percent of
total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates.

"We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was US$500,000
or below prior to 1987.  We also were predominantly a personal
lines company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution
exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims grew accordingly.  Over that period, we
endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and
environmental exclusion."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FckKR5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Cosmetics Recalled for Possible Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Deachman, writing for Postmedia News, reported that Health
Canada issued a recall for cosmetics that may be contaminated with
asbestos.

The affected products are Claire’s eyeshadows, compact powder and
contour palette. According to Health Canada, almost 5,000 of the
Chinese-manufactured products were sold in Canada between October
2016 and March 2019. Testing indicated possible asbestos fibres in
samples from one lot of each product. As of March 26, however, the
company had received no reports of incidents in Canada.

These are the details of the three products being recalled:
Claire's Eyeshadows (UPC 888711847165, SKU 84716, Lot Number
08/17); Claire's Compact Powder (UPC 888711839153, SKU 83915, Lot
Number 07/15); and Claire's Contour Palette (UPC 888711401947, SKU
40194, Lot Number 04/17).

Consumers are adviser to immediately stop using the products and
return them to a Claire's store for a refund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $56.0MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$56,045,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$288,962,000 as
of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 12
months, overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting
future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the
average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers
of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the
various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on
coverage of various policy terms and limits and their
interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as
the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could
cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher
or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially
affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2W1UoH8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,089 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,089 pending asbestos-related claims as of December
31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended:
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Of the 29,089 pending claims as of December
31, 2018, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 400
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Flvlcs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid DeLisle Judgment in December 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it has paid the judgment in the Richard
DeLisle claim on December 28, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found us
responsible for 16% of an US$8 million verdict.  The trial court
denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment
against us in the amount of US$1.3 million.  We appealed and oral
argument on the appeal took place on February 16, 2016.  On
September 14, 2016, a panel of the Florida Court of Appeals
reversed and entered judgment in favor of us.  Plaintiff filed with
the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing and/or certification of
an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on
November 9, 2016.  Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the
Supreme Court of Florida.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July
11, 2017.  Oral argument took place on March 6, 2018.  On October
15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed and remanded with
instructions to reinstate the trial court's judgment.  We paid the
judgment on December 28, 2018.  That payment is reflected in the
fourth quarter 2018 indemnity amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Flvlcs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $295MM Accrual at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had an accrual
of US$295 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs as of December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims
which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.  However, Crown
Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of
December 31, 2018.

"As of December 31, 2018, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$295
million, including US$251 million for unasserted claims.  The
Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specified
time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant, the Company
and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of
settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities,
the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in
additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt
defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the
seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first
exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's
ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the
volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies
available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of
receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and
the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity
and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to
non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of
the Company's asbestos cases are filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Fr5aB6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Limited (NASDAQ: GBLI) had US$15.8 million of net
loss reserves for asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Global Indemnity states, "The Company's environmental exposure
arises from the sale of general liability and commercial
multi-peril insurance.  Currently, the Company's policies continue
to exclude classic environmental contamination claims.  However, in
some states, the Company is required, depending on the
circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury
claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals.
The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide
limited pollution and environmental coverage.  These policies were
specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company.
The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims,
the majority of which are declined based on well-established
exclusions.  In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management
considers facts currently known and the current state of the law
and coverage litigations.  Estimates of these liabilities are
reviewed and updated continually.

"Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the
resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for
individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by
plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of
asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to
coverage under general liability policies that do not contain
aggregate limits of liability.

"The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses,
inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates
for future amounts needed to pay losses and related loss adjustment
expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the
financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP.  As of
December 31, 2018, the Company had US$15.8 million of net loss
reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$13.7 million for
environmental claims.  The Company attempts to estimate the full
impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves
on all known losses.

"In addition, establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort
claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of
claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an
increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related
liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand
theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Yv8MJN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,134 PI Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation still defends itself against approximately
17,134 pending asbestos personal injury actions at December 31,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At December 31, 2018, there were approximately 17,134 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of
those actions, approximately 16,592 were filed in the New York
Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 116 were filed in
other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 426
were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At December 31, 2018, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in
New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the
Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for
all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot
demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible
physical impairment.  The remaining approximately 42 cases in New
York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created
for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or
physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's
insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  At December 31, 2018, the
Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,173 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are
reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection
with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2O3kk28


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Posts $849.3MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. has recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over
the next 10 years of US$849.3 million as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, have been joined as defendants with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims allege that certain of their
products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.
Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  In
addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company's
subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets because the
plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss.  Our
experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims
have been dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries.

"We have recorded a liability for pending asbestos claims and
asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.
While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future
claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential
future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable
due to the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries.  As of December 31, 2018, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$849.3 million, which includes expected legal fees and we have
recorded an associated asset of US$376.7 million, which represents
estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure of
US$472.6 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2F2v0tI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains
obliged to indemnify the Company from liabilities associated with
asbestos matters.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure.  We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves
vigorously.  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now
ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem
harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including
settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all
pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's
legacy products.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements.  The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of
asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior
to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited
exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the
structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities.  The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire.  Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be
indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications.

"On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis.  As the parent of
Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2W5Pby1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Shampoo Fails India Watchdog's Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teena Thacker, writing for Live Mint, reported that US healthcare
giant Johnson and Johnson (J&J) has come under the scanner of
regulators in India once again after the company's popular baby
shampoo failed quality tests conducted by the Drugs Control
Organization of Rajasthan.

According to people aware of the matter, the shampoo samples
revealed presence of Formaldehyde, which is a known cancer causing
chemical. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen. According to a
report published in Forbes magazine in 2011, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services added formaldehyde to its list of known
human carcinogens in June 2011. In 2014, in response to consumer
pressure, J&J had claimed to have removed this potentially harmful
chemical-formaldehyde.

The state's drug regulatory body has labelled some samples of J&J's
baby shampoo as "not of standard quality" and said the product
contains "harmful ingredients".

In a 5 March letter, the Drugs Control Organization asked state
drug controllers across India to withdraw available stocks of J&J's
baby shampoo from the market to ensure that it is not used anymore.
“The samples of cosmetics contains harmful ingredients,"
according to the report of samples tested between 16 and 28
February. Mint has reviewed a copy of the report.

The baby shampoo is manufactured at Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd's
plant at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh.

"The samples failed the quality tests. The company will have to
reply after which action will be taken as per the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act," a senior official in the Drugs Control Organization
in Rajasthan, said on condition on anonymity.

J&J offers a range of toiletries for toddlers that includes
shampoo, baby lotion, baby soap and baby oil.

A spokesperson for the company said J&J's products are "safe" and
its assurance process is the most "rigorous in the world".

"We have contested the interim test results of the government
analysis that were based on unknown and unspecified methods. The
government did not disclose the test methods, details or any
quantitative findings. This is concerning especially when there is
no prescribed test method or requirement for testing formaldehyde
in shampoo under the applicable standards," the spokesperson said.

The samples have been sent for re-testing, the spokesperson added.

On 21 December, India's drug regulator initiated a wider probe into
the entire range of baby care products of J&J after ordering it to
halt production of its baby talcum powder amid allegations that it
contains asbestos.

While the test report affirmed that the baby talc is of standard
quality, its baby shampoo has now come under the regulatory lens
after it failed quality standards. "These samples could have been
picked during the same time," added the official.

In August, J&J said it removed an array of chemicals and
re-engineered its baby care products to make them safer for
children. "The portfolio of ingredients was reduced by more than
50%, and all baby products have been designed for gentle care with
no parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and
sulfates. Even Johnson’s shampoo is no longer its signature
golden hue, but instead a clear formula packaged in a translucent
yellow bottle for a transparent look and feel," the company said in
a statement then.

Ubiquitous in many Indian homes, Johnson's baby products specially
the powder has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. In 2018,
the company's US parent was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to 22
women, who claimed that asbestos in its talc caused them ovarian
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's subsidiary remains a defendant in 1,481
cumulative trauma lawsuits at December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,481
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,355 claims at December
31, 2018.  Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve
exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal
dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma, or coal worker's pneumoconiosis.  The products at
issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently
offered by MSA LLC.  A reserve has been established with respect to
cumulative trauma product liability claims currently asserted and
estimated incurred but not reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma
product liability claims.  Because our cumulative trauma product
liability risk is subject to inherent uncertainties, including
unfavorable trial rulings or developments, an increase in newly
filed claims, or more aggressive settlement demands, and since MSA
LLC is largely self-insured, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC
may not ultimately incur losses in excess of presently recorded
liabilities.  These losses could have a material adverse effect on
our business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity.
We will adjust the reserve relating to cumulative trauma product
liability claims from time to time based on whether the actual
numbers, types, and settlement values of claims asserted differ
from current projections and estimates or there are significant
changes in the facts underlying the assumptions used in
establishing the reserve.  These adjustments may be material and
could materially impact future periods in which the reserve is
adjusted."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2EZxDwq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Jury Clears J&J in Talc Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Insurance Journal, reported that a New
Jersey jury cleared Johnson & Johnson of liability in a lawsuit
brought by a man who said that asbestos in the company's talcum
powder products caused his mesothelioma.

The jury delivered its unanimous verdict in Middlesex County
Superior Court in New Brunswick, just miles from J&J's
headquarters, in the case of plaintiff Ricardo Rimondi.

J&J, which faces some 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide,
denies that its talc causes cancer, saying numerous studies and
tests by regulators worldwide have shown its talc to be safe and
asbestos-free.

Johnson & Johnson also settled three other mesothelioma talc cases
pending in state courts in California, Oklahoma and New York, Chris
Panatier, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters.

Panatier declined to provide further details, citing
confidentiality agreements.

Addressing the settlements, J&J in a statement said, "there are
one-off situations where settlement is reasonable."

J&J said it stood by the safety of its talc and would continue to
vigorously defend the safety of baby powder.

"We do not have any organized program to settle Johnson's Baby
Powder cases, nor are we planning a settlement program," the
company said.

Referring to the Rimondi verdict, J&J said the company's track
record in the talc litigation underscored "the decades of clinical
evidence and scientific studies by medical experts around the
world" supporting the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder.

J&J shares, which had been down slightly, turned positive after the
jury verdict was announced and closed up 13 cents at $138.70.

Lawyers for the 58-year old Rimondi could not be reached for
comment.

Rimondi in 2016 was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a type of cancer
that has been linked to asbestos exposure.

He and his wife sued J&J in 2017. They alleged that Rimondi's
lifetime exposure to Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower,
another powder product containing talc sold by J&J in the past,
caused his disease.

The jury returned its verdict in favor of the company after just
half an hour of deliberations, according to a livestream of the
proceedings by Courtroom View Network.

Other Trials

The healthcare conglomerate to date has faced 12 trials by
plaintiffs claiming asbestos in talc caused their mesothelioma.

J&J has now been cleared of liability in four trials, with another
five resulting in hung juries and mistrials. Three juries have
found J&J liable, awarding a total of $172 million in damages. J&J
is appealing those verdicts.

The majority of the 13,000 talc lawsuits against the company
involve ovarian cancer claims. Juries in those cases have hit the
company with verdicts as high as $4.69 billion. Some of the ovarian
cancer verdicts have been overturned on appeal on technical legal
grounds, while the company’s other appeals are still pending.

"It remains true that of all the talc-related verdicts against
Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appeals process, every
one has been overturned," the company said in its statement.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have more recently focused on arguing that
asbestos contamination in talc caused ovarian cancer and
mesothelioma.

Reuters in December published a report detailing that the company
knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested
positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s into the
early 2000s -- test results the company did not disclose to
regulators or consumers.

J&J denies the findings of the Reuters report, which it describes
as inaccurate and misleading. In emphasizing the safety of its baby
powder, the company says that repeated tests of the powder never
found asbestos and that it has cooperated fully and openly with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other global regulators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it is aware of approximately 460 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.

PPG Industries states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims
filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential
future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a US$162
million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment
to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its liability for
these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current claim
information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.  PPG will monitor
the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and
evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law.  All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2O8tt9O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rehearing of Deere Appeal Denied, Opinion Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the First District has
issued an order denying petition for rehearing in the appealed case
Deere & Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AllState Insurance
Company, et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A145170, (Cal. Ct.
App. 1d).

In addition, the Court has modified the opinion entered on Feb. 25,
2019, as follows:

     (1) On page 507, the third sentence of the first paragraph of
section II.B., "$1.5 million" is changed to "$2.5 million", so the
sentence reads: "Rather, coverage for products liability was
provided by a series of first-layer umbrella policies that provided
coverage to Deere in excess of a specific dollar amount (ranging
over time from $50,000 to $2.5 million) paid by Deere."

     (2) On page 517, in the first full paragraph starting with"
Here, unlike the insured in Padilla," the second, third, and fourth
sentences of the paragraph are modified to read: "Rather, once
Deere has paid its self-insured retentions under its first-layer
umbrella policies and once the first-layer umbrella policies are
exhausted, Deere may seek coverage from the higher-layer excess
policies. It will be Deere's exhaustion of its SIRs that will
trigger coverage under its first-layer policies. And, the
exhaustion of the first-layer policies is what will trigger
coverage under the higher-layer policies." The remainder of the
first full paragraph will continue without change.

     (3) On page 520, in the second full paragraph that starts
"Here, the products liability,", the second sentence of the
paragraph is modified to read: "Nothing in the plain language of
the excess policies requires a determination that Deere must pay
damages (as opposed to obtaining a dismissal without payment)
before the insurers are obligated to pay the litigation expenses
associated with Deere's defense of the underlying asbestos
actions." The remainder of the second full paragraph will continue
without change.

There is no change in the judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 745 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation still defends itself against 745
asbestos-related product liability claims at end of year 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos.  We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"For the year ended December 31, 2018, 192 claims were dismissed
and 25 claims were settled.  For the year ended December 31, 2017,
258 claims were dismissed and 22 claims were settled.  Settlements
totaled approximately US$7.1 million for the year ended December
31, 2018, compared to US$5.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2XWHP1r


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Science Lab Technician Dies of Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------
BBC reports that an appeal has been made to former school
colleagues of a grandmother who died from a cancer usually linked
to asbestos exposure.

Elizabeth Ann Griggs, 79, worked as a science lab technician at
Wells Cathedral School in Somerset between 1969 and 2001, a law
firm said.

It is asking former staff and pupils to provide information
"regarding the use of asbestos-based equipment".

Mrs Griggs died in November 2017 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

Her family has instructed Irwin Mitchell to investigate whether lab
equipment she used at the school in the 1970s caused her disease.

Before she died, Mrs Griggs, who was known as Ann Cutis when she
worked at the school, said her work involved providing pupils with
asbestos mats designed to prevent heat damage to work surfaces.

'Achieve justice'
She also remembered setting up and packing away bunsen burners
containing solid asbestos.

Her husband, Gerald, from Shepton Mallet, said: "Ann died before
she was able to achieve justice.

"We now want to honour her memory by doing this for her and would
be grateful to anyone who might be able to provide more
information."

The school said in a statement that it "immediately" withdrew the
mats in 1976 following national guidance from the government that
they "should be replaced wherever possible".

It also said following its "own investigations" it was understood
that "bunsen burners do not contain asbestos, but are made of
metal".

It added that it was "fully compliant with all regulatory
requirements in respect of the management of asbestos, and does
everything that it reasonably can do to make sure that staff,
pupils and other visitors are safe."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining that
covers the outer surface of some of the body's organs.

An NHS website says it is "usually linked to asbestos exposure".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained
asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any
brakes.  WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its
and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation
and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant
out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2YrLMLM



                            *********

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 ***