CAR_Public/190409.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 71

                            Headlines

180 TENTH HOTEL: Faces Lopez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBVIE INC: Suppressed Market Competition for Humira, Union Claims
ABC PHONES: Chavarin-Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. California
ACE ATTORNEY: Underpays Couriers, Diaz Suit Alleges
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Raziano et al. Seek Unpaid Compensation

ALTICE TECHNICAL: Mingo Sues over Alleged Improper Wage Practices
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in iPhone Touchscreen Defect Suit
AXOGEN INC: Continues to Defend Einhorn Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Dallas Employees Trust Asserts Sherman Act Breach
BANK OF AMERICA: Mortgage Lenders Wins Certification of OT Suit

BDJ TRUCKING: Yata et al. Seek to Certify Equipment Lessee Class
BILATERAL CREDIT: Del Moral Asserts Breach of FDCPA
BONNIER CORPORATION: Friske Seeks to Certify Subscribers Class
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: May 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BRITISH AMERICAN: Jones Suit v. American Tobacco Still Dormant

BURLINGTON COAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thames Suit Alleges
CAMPING WORLD: Geis Securities Class Action in Illinois Underway
CARILLON TOWER: Yao Seeks to Certify Class of Chinese Nationals
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Davis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHICO'S FAS: Court Shelves Altman Settlement

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
CLEAR CHANNEL: Settlement of GAMCO Asset Management Suit Approved
CLOSET CANDY: Mclean Sues for Invasion of Privacy, Harassment
COLGATE ENTERPRISE: Faces Amay Suit over Labor Law Violations
CORIZON HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in B. Morrelli's FLSA Suit

CRAIG MCKENZIE: Gruber Files Class Action in Minnesota
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Underway
CVR REFINING: Bought Common Unitholders on the Cheap, Barai Says
CVR REFINING: Mikulich Contests Public Common Unitholders' Buyout
CVS PHARMACY: Tashjian Sues over Solicitation of Prescriptions

DECKERS OUTDOOR: Rivera Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DEL TACO: Discovery Still Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee Suit
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Still Defends Class Action in Michigan
DOYLE MOVING: Rodriguez Seeks Wages & Overtime for Laborers
ESSEX 123 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Romero et al. Claim

FARMLAND PARTNERS: April 15 Deadline to Answer Amended Complaint
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Maccariella Suit Over Vehicle Emission Issues
FOCAL POINT: Fuentes Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
FREEDOM BOAT: Donde Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Traynor Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

FUBU: Traynor Files Class Action Under ADA
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit
GLOBAL MANAGEMENT: Underpays Cooks, Niwano Suit Alleges
GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: Underpays Drivers, Laguna Suit Alleges
GOULET PEN: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over "Sham Telephone Orders"
HAMILTON BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Action
HD SUPPLY: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia
HILLS PET NUTRITION: Faces Brown Suit in District of Kansas
HLO COLLECTION: Schmidt Alleges Violation under FDCPA

HOAMBRECKER ENTERPRISES: Molloy Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay
HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
HUMANA AT HOME: Court Certifies 4 FLSA Classes
INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Technicians

J & L FIBER SERVICES: Angel Alleges Unlawful Compensation System
JKR PROPERTY: Violates ADA, Lopez Suit Asserts
JOHN TILLEY: Rhodes Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in Kentucky
JOHN'S COFFEE: Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
LA BOOM: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Duran's Suit

LEX HOTEL: Lopez Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 210 Claims at March 18 over 3T Device Defect
LONG BEACH, CA: Demurrer to Evidence in W. Marquez's Suit Reversed
LYFT INC: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Boyd Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Murphy Suit Moved to District of Maryland
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Suit Moved to District of Maryland
MBI ENERGY: Overtime Compensation for Wireline Engineers Sought
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Appeal in Martin Suit Still Pending

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend Miller Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Approves Settlement in Voshall Class Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Non-Certification of Sales Practice Suit Upheld
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Owens Class Action Ongoing
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Roycroft Class Action Dismissed

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Suit
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Court Approves Accord in FCRA-Related Suits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces 3 Class Suits in New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Tillman Files Class Suit under FDCPA in Arkansas
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Salim Says Financial Report Misleading

MONEY MAP: Carfagno Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MONSANTO COMPANY: Butkovich Sues for Injuries Over Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cossentinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Says Antitrust Class Action Baseless
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ryan et al. Sue over Non-Calls by Referees

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stines Suit Claims
NCC BUSINESS: Elhendi Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bail System Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: Inmate's ADA Retaliation Claim Dismissed
O'BRIEN STEEL: Stecker Seeks OT Wages for Sales Representatives

PARK KITCHEN: Court Dismisses N. Allison's Wage & Hour Suit
PASCHEN MANAGEMENT: Faces Morales Labor Suit in Ventura County
PROSPERA HOTELS: Anton Alleges Mishandling of Credit Card Info
PURDUE PHARMA: Cass County Sues Over Deceptive Marketing for Opioid
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Harris Alleges Violation under FLSA

RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Cal.
RIP CURL INC: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Traynor Files Class Action Under ADA
SHERWOOD FORD: Alberta Court Tosses Class Action Over Commissions
SI FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Class Action in Baltimore

SOHO HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN OHIO: Howard Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
STATE FARM: Faces Abraham Suit over PIP Claim
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Womack Seeks OT Pay for Flowback Operators
SYNEOS HEALTH: Continues to Defend Vaitkuviene Class Suit

TEMPOE LLC: Deborah Rule Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
TESLA: No Class Action Yet Over Recent EV Price Cut
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Transfer IGNITE3 Suit Pending
THOMAS DART: Hacker's Class Certification Bid Denied
TRANSGENOMIC INC: Securities Class Action Dismissal Reversed

U.S. XPRESS: Green Files Suit Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Driver Misclassification Suit for $20MM
UNIFIN INC: Harper Asserts FDCPA Class Action in Tennessee
VISIONSTREAM: Line Workers' Lawyers Prepare to File Class Action
WAWA INC: Cunningham et al. Seek to Certify Classes

WEINSTEIN KARP: McLean Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
WELLS FARGO: Court Continues Renewed Class Certification Motion
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Now Sole Plaintiff
[*] Congress Considering New Privacy Law to Govern Data Breaches


                            *********

180 TENTH HOTEL: Faces Lopez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 180 Tenth Hotel, LLC
d/b/a The High Line Hotel. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On
Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. 180 Tenth Hotel, LLC d/b/a The High Line Hotel, ADR
Provider, Case No. 1:19-cv-02716 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

The High Line Hotel is a historic hotel in the West Chelsea
neighborhood in the borough of Manhattan, New York City.[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


ABBVIE INC: Suppressed Market Competition for Humira, Union Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., AMGEN INC., SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD., MYLAN
INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC., FRESENIUS KABI
USA, LLC, PFIZER INC., and MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01873 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2019),
arose from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to
restrain competition in the market for Humira (TM) and its
biosimilar competitors in the United States.

Humira (adalimumab) is a biologic injectable therapy indicated to
treat a variety of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid
arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque
psoriasis, Crohn's disease (adult and pediatric), and ulcerative
colitis. Humira is sold primarily in the United States and Europe.
For over 15 years, Humira has been a blockbuster drug. Indeed,
Humira is presently the best-selling prescription drug in the world
with over $130 billion in total sales since its launch.

Humira is the single largest revenue source for AbbVie, with sales
of nearly $20 billion in 2018 alone, which account for
approximately 61% of the company's global revenues.

Humira's price to patients has skyrocketed over the past decade.
Per patient costs doubled from $19,000 per year in 2012 to more
than $38,000 in 2018 (after rebates). Humira's list price, absent
rebates, can now reach $50,000 per year per patient.

Many other pharmaceutical manufacturers have sought to launch
lower-priced adalimumab "biosimilars" -- generic versions of Humira
that treat the same underlying conditions -- to garner their own
share of the enormous U.S. market for this biologic. However,
despite eight other manufacturers developing adalimumab biosimilars
-- three of which have received Food and Drug Administration
approval -- AbbVie has successfully prevented all biosimilars from
launching in the U.S. market through widespread anticompetitive
conduct that has allowed it to maintain its monopoly and
supracompetitive prices.

AbbVie has erected significant barriers to entry to block
biosimilar competition. Specifically, AbbVie has created and
employed an exclusionary "patent thicket" -- an unlawful scheme
whereby it secured over 100 patents designed solely to insulate
Humira from any biosimilar competition in the U.S. for years to
come. Then, AbbVie entered into illegal market division agreements
with the remaining Defendants in a concerted effort to delay
biosimilar entry in the U.S. until at least 2023. Meanwhile,
patients in Europe do not have to wait, as AbbVie agreed to earlier
entry dates, thereby permitting biosimilar competitors to launch
there.

This trade-off meant that the lower price for Humira in Europe was
subsidized by the much higher price in the United States where
AbbVie unlawfully maintained its monopoly.

The primary patent for Humira expired in December 2016. However, in
order to create its patent thicket, AbbVie has applied for nearly
250 patents since its biologic was first developed, 89% of which
were filed after the FDA's approval of its initial new drug
application. Humira is now blanketed by over 100 issued patents.
Many of the Humira patents expire in 2034, over three decades since
the drug's launch.

The sheer number of patents makes it "nearly impossible for any
biosimilar to feasibly litigate all of these patents." The long
duration and extensive scope of AbbVie's patent thicket blocks
biosimilar entry regardless of whether parts of the thicket die
from time to time as AbbVie patents may be adjudged invalid or
non-infringed.

AbbVie has abused the patent system -- collecting dozens and dozens
of patents, many of which are overlapping and non-inventive -- as a
means to block competition in the U.S. market. It simply is not
feasible for biosimilar manufacturers to engage in time-consuming
and expensive patent litigation against this mass of dubious
patents.

Condemnation of this practice has been intense. Industry
commentators, the former Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), and a very recent U.S. Congressional
investigation have criticized the use of patent thickets to deter
biosimilar competition. For example, FDA Commissioner Scott
Gottlieb remarked in April 2018 that manufacturers are employing
"schemes to hamstring biosimilar competition" with "patent

Top AbbVie executives directly benefit from thwarting biosimilar
entry and raising Humira prices to exorbitant levels. The company's
policy directly links financial compensation to Humira revenue
goals.  Last year, for example, CEO Richard Gonzalez took home
$21.27 million, with $3.9 million as a performance-based cash
incentive award.

AbbVie's scheme to keep out biosimilar competition has cost the
U.S. healthcare system billions of dollars. For example, Wells
Fargo analyst David Maris calculated that AbbVie's 9.7% price hike
on Humira in 2018 cost the country's healthcare system
approximately $1.2 billion.

Absent Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and
members of the Classes would have been able to purchase adalimumab
biosimilars as early as January 1, 2017 (the expiration of Humira's
primary patent), at significantly lower prices than AbbVie has
charged. The injury to the Plaintiff and the Classes is ongoing, as
there still is no biosimilar alternative to AbbVie's Humira
available to purchase in this country.  A market division agreement
by rivals is "anticompetitive regardless of whether the parties
split a market within which both do business or whether they merely
reserve one market for one and another for the other."[BN]

Counsel for UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and the Proposed Classes:

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

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
          Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
          Brian Morrison, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com
                  cmdconald@labaton.com
                  rvandermeulen@labaton.com
                  bmorrison@labaton.com
                  dminerva@labaton.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Paul Costa, Esq.
          Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  pcosta@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

ABC PHONES: Chavarin-Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Wendy Chavarin-Aguilar, an individual, on behalf
of herself and a class of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., a Corporation; and DOES 1 to
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04996 was removed from
the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 26, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02244.

Plaintiff commenced this class action and Private Attorney General
Act case against the Defendants on February 15, 2019. In her
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for: (1) Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to
Pay Overtime; (4) Failure to Pay Wages When Due; (5) Failure to Pay
Wages on Termination; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; (7) Failure to pay Meal and Rest Period Premiums; (8)
Unfair Competition; and (9) Violations of PAGA. Although not
alleged as a separate count, Plaintiff also alleges that she can
recover (on a representative basis) penalties pursuant to the
PAGA.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Robert L. Shipley, Esq.
     Brandon S. Gray, Esq.
     ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC
     2784 Gateway Road, Suite 104
     Carlsbad, CA 92009
     Phone: +1 760 438 5199
     Facsimile: +1 760 438 3706
     Email: rshipley@shipleylaw.com
            bgray@shipleylaw.com


ACE ATTORNEY: Underpays Couriers, Diaz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACE ATTORNEY SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06695 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as courier, court
runner, and process server.

Ace Attorney Services, Inc. provides legal support services in
California. The company's services include service of process,
court services, court filing, court research, messenger services,
and special delivery services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Road, Suite 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919

               - and -

          Brandon Littlefield, Esq.
          LITTLEFIELD LAW
          11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (213) 785-8802


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Raziano et al. Seek Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RAZIANO, BRIAN TRAISTER, and CHRIS VALDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ALBERTSON'S, LLC, a Delaware Limited  Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09574 (Cal.
Sup., March 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
including reporting time pay; reimbursement of reasonably incurred
business expenses; sick pay claims (including denial of the right
to use sick pay and violation of local ordinances); payment of
wages due during and upon termination of employment; invasion of
privacy; and statutory and civil penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of failing to
pay the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees all wages due,
including reporting time pay. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to provide accurate wage statements to non-exempt
employees, including Plaintiffs, which did not include accrued sick
time, the accurate total hours and pay for reporting time, and all
rates of pay, or deductions made.

Albertsons LLC operates a chain of grocery stores. The Company
offers pharmacy and deli products, seafood, fruit, vegetables,
flowers, baked goods, beer, and wine. Albertsons serves consumers
throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Marta Manus, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  mmanus@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Roger Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 254-7500
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: roger@carterlawfmn.net

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-2533
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: Marc@phelpslawgroup.com

ALTICE TECHNICAL: Mingo Sues over Alleged Improper Wage Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINTON MINGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTICE TECHNICAL SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 601560/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 18, 2019),
alleges that Defendant has engaged and continue to engage in
illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include
requiring Engineers to perform work without compensation during
meal breaks; failing to pay Engineers overtime of time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week;
failing to pay Engineers overtime pay at the correct overtime rate
because it failed to include shift differentials that were given to
Plaintiff and other Engineers when calculating the overtime rate of
pay; and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated non­ exempt hourly paid outside plant engineer
employed by Altice Technical Services in Nassau County in the State
of New York at any time during the period commencing six years
prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such
further date as the practices complained of are discontinued.

During the Class Period, the Defendant employed in excess of 40
engineers. The Defendant systematically failed and refused to pay
them for all compensable hours worked. The Class Members arc so
numerous that joinder of all members in one proceeding is
impracticable.

Altice Technical Services deploys and implements cutting edge
video, internet and voice products and networks to consumer.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative New York Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105

APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in iPhone Touchscreen Defect Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned HOMAS DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant
Apple, Inc. (Apple) based on Apple's alleged failure to disclose an
alleged defect with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. According to
the Plaintiffs, the iPhones suffer from an alleged material
manufacturing defect that causes the touchscreen to become
unresponsive to users' touch inputs (touchscreen defect).

Apple's Pre-Release Knowledge of the Touchscreen Defect

The Plaintiffs claim that Apple knew about the touchscreen defect
before releasing the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus.  The Plaintiffs
argue that Apple has long known that strain on the logic board from
bending of the phone causes precisely the type of harm Plaintiffs
allege.

Apple's Post-Release Knowledge of the Touchscreen Defect

The Plaintiffs also claim that Apple knew of the touchscreen defect
after the iPhones' release. Internal Apple emails revealed that
Apple employees were aware of news stories and customer complaints
about the iPhone 6 Plus bending. Within the first two weeks of the
iPhones' launch, Apple began to hear of issues from customers
complaining about touch responsiveness.

At issue in the instant motion for summary judgment are: (1) a
Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) claim (2) a Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim (3) a
Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) claim (4) an Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ICFDTPA) claim
and (5) a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA) claim.

Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) Claim

To state a claim under the CCPA, a plaintiff must show: (1) that
the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice (2)
that the challenged practice occurred in the course of defendant's
business, vocation, or occupation (3) that it significantly impacts
the public as actual or potential consumers of the defendant's
goods, services, or property; (4) that the plaintiff suffered
injury in fact to a legally protected interest and (5) that the
challenged practice caused the Plaintiff's injury.

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged
touchscreen defect does not exist and that if it did exist, Apple
did not know of its existence; that Colorado Plaintiff Justin Bauer
did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus
purchase; and that Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping the
iPhone would potentially damage the phone.

In its motion, Apple presents evidence challenging the existence of
the alleged touchscreen defect in the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6
Plus. For example, prior to launch, Apple subjected the iPhone 6
and 6 Plus to sit testing, which showed that extensive repetitive
bending of the enclosure is insufficient to cause the alleged
touchscreen defect. According to Apple's expert Dr. Reinhold
Dauskardt, who reviewed Apple's internal testing protocols, Apple's
rigorous testing employed very considerable loads that replicate
real-world conditions.  

Nonetheless, the Court finds that summary judgment is not
appropriate because, at a minimum, the Plaintiffs have shown that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged
touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its
existence, and whether Apple engaged in an unfair or deceptive
trade practice by failing to disclose it. For instance, Apple's
senior manager of iPhone quality Jason Fu admitted in an internal
email: enclosure bending likely contributed to the stress causing
trace-crack near the Meson chip.  

The CCPA requires a showing that the defendant engaged in an unfair
or deceptive trade practice. In light of the internal Apple
communications and slide decks describing the alleged touchscreen
defect and associating it with enclosure bending despite Apple's
internal testing of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which indicate that
enclosure bending is not a cause of the alleged touchscreen defect,
the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Apple engaged in an
unfair or deceptive trade practice by withholding information about
the alleged touchscreen defect. Apple disputes the timing of its
knowledge of the alleged touchscreen defect. However, that dispute
underscores that there are material factual disputes that preclude
summary judgment.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary judgment is denied as
to the CCPA claim.

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

To state a claim under the FDUTPA, there are three elements: (1) a
deceptive act or unfair practice (2) causation and (3) actual
damages. A deceptive act occurs if there is a representation,
omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting
reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment.

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged
touchscreen defect does not exist and that if it did exist, Apple
did not know of its existence; that Florida Plaintiff John
Borzymowski did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone
6 Plus purchase and that Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping
the iPhone would potentially damage the phone.  

Apple has cited evidence of its internal testing, both pre-release
and post-release of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which do not show
enclosure bending as a root cause of the alleged touchscreen
defect. However, the Court finds that summary judgment is not
appropriate because, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have shown that there
is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged
touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its
existence, and whether Apple engaged in a deceptive act or unfair
practice by failing to disclose it.  

Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary judgment is denied as
to the FDUTPA claim.

Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) Claim

To state a claim under the WCPA, a plaintiff must prove (1) an
unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) occurring in trade or
commerce (3) affecting the public interest (4) injury to a person's
business or property and (5) causation.

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged
touchscreen defect does not exist and that if it did exist, Apple
did not know of its existence; that Washington Plaintiffs William
Bon and Matt Muilenberg did not review the iPhone boxes before
their iPhone purchases and that Apple disclosed to consumers that
dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the phone.

Apple has cited evidence of its internal testing, both pre-release
and post-release of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which do not show
enclosure bending as a root cause of the alleged touchscreen
defect. However, the Court finds that summary judgment is not
appropriate because, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have shown that there
is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged
touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its
existence, and whether Apple engaged in an unfair or deceptive act
or practice by failing to disclose it.

The Plaintiffs have cited documents showing that Apple may have
known about the alleged touchscreen defect and concealed it from
product advertising. Specifically, Plaintiffs have cited Apple
employee emails and Apple slide decks confirming Apple's knowledge
of a quality issue related to solder cracking near the Meson chip,
and that the iPhone enclosure bending likely contributed to the
issue.  

Thus, for the reasons stated, summary judgment is DENIED as to the
WCPA claim.

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ICFDTPA)
Claim

To state a claim under the ICFDTPA, a plaintiff must establish: (1)
the defendant's deception (2) the defendant intended that the
plaintiff rely on that deception (3) the deception occurred in
commerce (4) the plaintiff suffered actual damage and (5) the
deception proximately caused the damage.

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged
touchscreen defect does not exist and that if it did exist, Apple
did not know of its existence; that Illinois Plaintiff Eric Siegal
did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus
purchase; and that Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping the
iPhone would potentially damage the phone. Apple also alleges that
Apple did not engage in deception, that Plaintiff Siegal suffered
no injury, and that the alleged deception did not cause Plaintiff
Siegal's injury.

The Court agrees with Apple that Plaintiff Siegal has not suffered
actual damage, which is an element of an ICFDTPA claim. In the
FACC, Plaintiff Siegal alleges that he paid $150 to replace his
defective iPhone 6 Plus with another iPhone 6 Plus on September 26,
2016.  Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiff Siegal suffered actual
damage by having to pay $150 to replace his defective iPhone 6
Plus. Similarly, in his deposition, Plaintiff Siegal testified that
after his phone manifested the alleged touchscreen defect, he paid
$150 for a replacement phone.  

However, the FACC's allegation and Plaintiff Siegel's deposition
testimony that he paid $150 for a replacement iPhone 6 Plus is
contradicted by third-party Verizon's records, which indicate that
Plaintiff Siegal was not charged anything for his replacement
iPhone 6 Plus. Specifically, Plaintiffs' FACC alleged that on
September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Siegal paid $150 to a Verizon store
to obtain a replacement for his defective iPhone 6 Plus. However,
Verizon's records from September 26, 2016 show a $0.00 charge for
the replacement iPhone 6 Plus that Plaintiff Siegal received.
  
As aforementioned, one of the required elements of an ICFDTPA claim
is actual damage to the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs have failed to raise
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff Siegal
suffered actual damage resulting from Apple's alleged omission of
the touchscreen defect because Plaintiff Siegal concedes that he
paid nothing for his iPhone 6 Plus and Verizon's records show that
Plaintiff Siegal paid nothing for his replacement iPhone 6 Plus.
Thus, Apple's motion for summary judgment as to the ICFDTPA claim
is GRANTED.

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA) Claim

To state a nondisclosure claim under the TDTPA, a plaintiff must
prove: (1) the defendant knew information regarding the goods or
services, (2) the information was not disclosed, (3) there was an
intent to induce the consumer to enter into the transaction through
the failure to disclose, and (4) the consumer would not have
entered into the transaction had the information been disclosed.

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged
touchscreen defect does not exist and that if it did exist, Apple
did not know of its existence; that Texas Plaintiff Taylor Brown
did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus
purchase; and that Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping the
iPhone would potentially damage the phone. Also, Apple alleges that
Apple did not have any information to disclose regarding the
alleged touchscreen defect, that Plaintiff Brown suffered no
injury, and that Plaintiff Brown's decision to purchase the iPhone
6 Plus was independent of any omission of information about the
alleged touchscreen defect by Apple.

The Court agrees with Apple that the Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy prong (4) of a TDTPA claim because Plaintiffs have failed
to show that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6
Plus had the alleged touchscreen defect been disclosed. Plaintiff
Brown's deposition testimony fails to mention what Plaintiff Brown
would have done had the omitted information been disclosed. The
Plaintiffs fail to cite any other document, including a declaration
or affidavit from Plaintiff Brown. Thus, the Plaintiffs fail to
show that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6
Plus if the alleged touchscreen defect had been disclosed.

Here, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 31 merely describes the Apple's
statements that Plaintiff Brown reviewed prior to purchasing his
iPhone 6 Plus. Neither Exhibit 31 nor any evidence or affidavit
shows that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6
Plus had Apple disclosed the alleged touchscreen defect. Thus,
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy prong (4) of a TDTPA claim.
Therefore, Apple's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the
TDTPA claim.

Apple's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, and Plaintiff Bauer's claim
for injunctive relief. Because the Court has granted summary
judgment on the Illinois and Texas claims, Apple's motion for
summary judgment is denied as moot as to the claims for injunctive
relief of Illinois Plaintiff Eric Siegal and Texas Plaintiff Taylor
Brown.

Apple's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act claim, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act claim, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yyw7lowsfrom Leagle.com.

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

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez --
agonzalez@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Ramraj Singh
-- david.singh@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Alexandria
Armida Amezcua -- aamezcua@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Ashley K. Nakamura , Morrison Foerster, LLP, Christopher Leonard
Robinson , Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Michael Walsh, Esq. --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Diane P. Sullivan –
diane@sullivan@weil.com -Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Penelope Athene Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Sabrina Larson -- slarson@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster, LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP.


AXOGEN INC: Continues to Defend Einhorn Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen,
Inc., et al.

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers
("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters
and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).  

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.   

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  

Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint,
which will not occur until 30 days after the court appoints a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of
expenses and costs, including counsel and expert fees and such
other relief as the court deems just and proper.    

The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the Complaint.  

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in
Alachua, Florida.


BANK OF AMERICA: Dallas Employees Trust Asserts Sherman Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Employees Defined Benefit Retirement Plan
and Trust and Sheet Metal Workers' Local 19 Pension Fund, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., HSBC BANK PLC, J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02715 (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2019) seeks treble
damages, attorneys' fees, reasonable expenses, and cost of suit for
violations of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants violated that charter by conspiring to fix prices
and restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued
by Government-Sponsored Enterprises ("GSEs") from at least as early
as January 1, 2012 through June 1, 2018. GSEs issue debt in order
to fund their activities. Investors can also buy or sell at resale
previously issued GSE bonds from dealers on the secondary market.
In addition to dominating underwriting in the primary market for
GSE bonds, Defendants are among the largest such dealers in the
secondary market.

As competitors in the secondary market for GSE bonds, absent
collusion, the Defendants have an incentive to compete vigorously
for the business of their investor clients. But because Defendants
were not satisfied with the bid-offer spreads that would result
from genuine competition in the market for GSE bonds, they colluded
to rig the market. Without any ethical walls between syndicate and
secondary trading activities, the Defendants' GSE bond traders
could exchange--on a large scale--inside information pertaining to
primary issuances by the GSEs, which they could use to their
advantage.

The Defendants' conspiracy severely harmed Plaintiffs and the Class
and restrained competition in the market for GSE bonds. Plaintiffs
and the Class entered into billions of dollars' worth of GSE bond
transactions with the Defendants during the Class Period. As a
result of their conspiracy, Defendants padded their own profits,
and their personnel received huge annual bonuses, by cheating
Plaintiffs and the Class out of potentially billions of dollars.
The Defendants also directly injured each Class member resulting in
potentially billions of dollars in damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dallas Area Rapid Transit Employees' Defined Benefit
Retirement Plan and Trust is a pension fund headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.

Bank of America, N.A. is a federally chartered national banking
association with its principal place of business in Charlotte,
North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
     Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 838-7797
     Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
            srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 357-0370
     Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Christina D. Saler, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     3 Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 479-5700
     Email: csaler@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
     Robert A. Braun, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
            rbraun@cohenmilstein.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Mortgage Lenders Wins Certification of OT Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a group of Bank of America mortgage lenders who
alleged they were wrongly denied overtime won conditional
certification to pursue a class action against the financial giant.
[GN]


BDJ TRUCKING: Yata et al. Seek to Certify Equipment Lessee Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit HAMIMI YATA and JASMIN ZUKANCIC,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BDJ TRUCKING CO. and SENAD MUJKIC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03503 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals or entities that signed equipment leases
      with BDJ between April 1, 2013 and April 1, 2017";

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives,
      appointing Christopher J. Wilmes and Matthew J. Piers of
      Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym as class counsel; and

   3. directing notice of class action be mailed to the class.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 580-0100

BILATERAL CREDIT: Del Moral Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bilateral Credit
Corp, LLC. The case is styled as Marivel Del Moral on behalf of
herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Bilateral Credit Corp, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01632
(E.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bilateral Credit Corp LLC is a debt collection agency with offices
in New York and East Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
   Fagenson & Puglisi
   450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
   New York, NY 10123
   Tel: (212) 268-2128
   Fax: (212) 268-2127
   Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com




BONNIER CORPORATION: Friske Seeks to Certify Subscribers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit REBECCA FRISKE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BONNIER
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-12799-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a class action, for
      settlement purposes only, on behalf of:

      "all Michigan residents who subscribed to or received one or

      more subscriptions to a Bonnier publication between July 28,

      2010 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
      Agreement, and who did not purchase such subscription(s)
      through a Third-Party Subscription Agent"; and

   2. appointing herself as class representative and appointing her

      counsel, Carlson Lynch, LLP and the Law Offices of Daniel O.

      Myers, as class counsel.

In connection with its role as a publisher, Defendant obtained
Plaintiff's personal information, including her name, address and
subscription history. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant then
made this information available to third parties without her
consent. The Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant's conduct
violates the Video Rental Privacy Act. The VRPA forbids individuals
"engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending
books or other written materials" from "disclosing to any person,
other than the customer, a record or information concerning the
purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of those materials by a
customer that indicates the identity of the customer."

Bonnier publishes magazines that are sold to consumers throughout
the United States, including to Michigan residents. The Plaintiff,
a Michigan resident, subscribes to Boating magazine, which is
published by Defendant.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15232
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Daniel Myers, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS
          818 Red Drive, Suite 210
          Traverse City, MI 49684
          E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: May 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on March 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Bridgepoint Education,
Inc. (NYSE: BPI) securities between March 8, 2016 and March 7, 2019
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 10, 2019 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Bridgepoint's processes for recording revenue for its
Corporate Full Tuition Grant program were inaccurate; (2)
Bridgepoint maintained deficient internal controls; (3) due to the
foregoing deficiencies, Bridgepoint was prone to and did commit
material accounting errors related to revenue, provision for bad
debts, accounts receivable and deferred revenue, which resulted in
the overstatement of revenue and expenses; and (4) as a result,
Bridgepoint's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. For additional information concerning the Bridgepoint
lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/bpi/. [GN]


BRITISH AMERICAN: Jones Suit v. American Tobacco Still Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there is "currently
no activity" in the case styled Jones v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc.

The case is a putative class action filed in December 1998 in the
Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.  It was brought by a
plaintiff on behalf of a putative class of Missouri tobacco product
users and purchasers against various defendants, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRTC), Lorillard Tobacco Company
(Lorillard Tobacco) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W),
alleging that the plaintiffs' use of the defendants' tobacco
products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine, and
seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.


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


BURLINGTON COAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thames Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON THAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY; BURLINGTON COAT
FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXAS, INC.;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251435
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 27, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Thames was employed by the Defendants as hourly,
non-exempt employee.

Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation operates as a subsidiary
of Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc.  The company
engages in the retailing of branded apparel products. The company
provide ladies sportswear, menswear, coats, family footwear, baby
furniture, accessories, home decor, and gifts; designer and fashion
shoes; and baby clothing and other merchandise products. The
company's Web site features merchandise items, shopping cart
functionality, item search capability, and a secure online payment
processing system. It offers refunds for merchandise purchased
through its online shopping website if the merchandise is returned
within a prescribed period of time. The company was incorporated in
1997 and is based in Burlington, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


CAMPING WORLD: Geis Securities Class Action in Illinois Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a
putative class action complaint by Daniel Geis, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").  The Geis Complaint names as
defendants Camping World, certain of the Company's officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), 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.

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.


CARILLON TOWER: Yao Seeks to Certify Class of Chinese Nationals
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Ying Yao, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Carillon Tower/Chicago LP;
Forefront EB-5 Fund (ICT) LLC; Tizi LLC d/b/a Local Government
Regional Center of Illinois; TD Bank N.A.; Symmetry Property
Development II LLC; and Fordham Real Estate LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07865 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an Order certifying a class consisting of:

   "The 89 Chinese nationals who are limited partners in the
   Carillon Tower/Chicago LP and who have each paid $550,000.00
   into that partnership."

The investment was as admitted by Jason Ding, the agent and
representative for Defendants Symmetry Property Development II LLC,
Forefront EB-5 Fund (ICT) LLC, and Carillon Tower/Chicago LP.

The Defendants comprise the Developer, Project Owner, General
Partner and Escrow Agent of a commercial development project that
contemplated the construction of a high-rise building at the corner
of Wabash and Superior in Chicago.  The Plaintiffs are Chinese
nationals seeking permanent immigration status in the United States
by way of I-526 petitions registered through the UCSIS with
associated individual investment in an EB-5 Fund that would create
jobs in the local economy pursuant to the construction and
development of the project.

The investment was made in 2015 but no shovel been put into the
ground, and the Plaintiffs and members of the Class want their
money back with interest and fees. Excluded from the Class are
Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make
a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental
entities; and the judge to whom this case is assigned and any
immediate family members thereof.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Douglas Litowitz, Esq.
          413 Locust Place
          Deerfield, IL 60015
          Telephone: (312) 622-2848
          E-mail: Litowitz@gmail.com

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          121 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 880-1010
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Davis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
La Sonji Davis, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (formerly known as TIME WARNER CABLE); and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00752-B (S.D.
N.Y., March 25, 2019) seek relief and damages for the Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labors Standards Act.

Plaintiff alleges both she and the members of the putative class
were denied meal breaks and their time records in Kronos were
altered to show they took breaks when in fact they did not.
Plaintiff was unable to take her meal breaks approximately 3 out of
every 5 shifts due to employer related work deadlines, notes the
complaint.

In addition, Plaintiff alleges both she and the members of the
putative class were unable to take rest breaks due to work deadline
issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other putative class members
were not compensated for their hours worked for meal and rest
breaks, which would have equated to overtime since they were
already working full-time, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' call center in Irving, Texas from
May 2014 to January 2017 and was out on disability from September
to December 2016.

Defendant CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is a Delaware
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul N. Schlemmer, Esq.
     THE SCHLEMMER FIRM, LLC
     830 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 390-8030
     Facsimile: (212) 390-8010
     Email: paul@schlemmerfirm.com


CHICO'S FAS: Court Shelves Altman Settlement
--------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to stay the
District Court's consideration of the settlement in the case,
Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., pending the Eleventh
Circuit's final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier,
Inc., has been granted.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia ("District Court").

The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. The
plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for
each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys'
fees, costs and punitive damages.

WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes
the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court
issued an order certifying the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's
ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On
April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh
Circuit.

In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings
in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh
Circuit.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit.

On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for
purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement. On October
22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with the
District Court, along with a motion to stay the District Court's
consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh Circuit's
final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., in which
the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued October 3, 2018,
that the display of the first five and last four digits of a credit
or debit card number on a customer's receipt given at the point of
sale establishes a "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article
III standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit.

The motion to stay was granted on November 15, 2018. A petition for
rehearing was filed in the Muransky case on October 24, 2018 and is
currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing,
would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely
establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit
against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted and the
proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court. If the
Eleventh Circuit does not find standing in the Muransky case, the
parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the
Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed
settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

Chico's FAS said, "However, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM
were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the
ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. Chico's FAS, Inc.
was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the class action
entitled, Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., remains stayed.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.  

In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff
alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations
of other state consumer protection laws.  

In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent
a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items,
injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.

The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses.

The court has stayed the matter, pending an appellate court ruling
in another lawsuit to which the Company is not a party.

The company said, "The settlement, if ultimately approved by the
court, will result in the dismissal of all claims through the date
of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement. However, if
the settlement is rejected by the court, the parties will likely
return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given
as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the
proposed settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0
million in its consolidated financial statements in the first
quarter of Fiscal 2017."

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The company operates through two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children's Place International. The
company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June
2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Settlement of GAMCO Asset Management Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
settlement agreement in GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et
al., has been approved by the court.

On August 27, 2018, the stockholder of CCOH that had filed the
derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v. iHeartMedia Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 12312-VCS (GAMCO Asset Management Inc.) filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS.

The complaint names as defendants the Sponsor Entities and the
members of CCOH's board of directors. The complaint alleges that
minority shareholders in CCOH during the period November 8, 2017 to
March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the CCOH Board and the
intercompany note committee of the Board relating to the Due from
iHeartCommunications Note.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the members of the
intercompany note committee breached their fiduciary duties by not
demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a
simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company's
liquidity had been reached; (ii) the CCOH board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Third Amendment
rather than allowing the Intercompany Note to expire; (iii) the
CCOH board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by not
demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a
simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to the Company's
liquidity had been reached; (iv) the Sponsor Entities breached
their fiduciary duties by not directing the CCOH board of directors
to permit the Intercompany Note to expire and to declare a
dividend.

The complaint further alleges that the Sponsor Entities aided and
abetted the Board's alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
plaintiff sought, among other things, a ruling that the CCOH board
of directors, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor
Entities breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor
Entities aided and abetted the Board’s breach of fiduciary duty;
and an award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment
interests, to the putative class of minority shareholders.

On December 16, 2018, the Debtors, the Company, GAMCO Asset
Management, Inc., Norfolk County Retirement System entered, the
Sponsor Entities, and the Delaware Settlement Parties, through
their respective counsel, entered into the Settlement Agreement
that embodies the terms of (i) a global settlement of all direct or
derivative claims by or on behalf of GAMCO and Norfolk, both
individually and on behalf of the putative class of public
shareholders of the Company, against certain members of the
Company's board of directors, the Sponsor Entities,
iHeartCommunications, iHeartMedia, the company and the Debtors,
including the derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and (ii) the Separation in accordance with the
iHeart Plan of Reorganization.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates that upon the Separation, (i)
the cash sweep arrangement under the Corporate Services Agreement
will terminate, (ii) any agreements or licenses requiring royalty
payments to the Debtors for trademarks or other intellectual
property will terminate and (iii) a new transition services
agreement will supersede and replace the existing Corporate
Services Agreement. The Debtors agreed to waive (i) the set-off for
the value of the intellectual property transferred, including
royalties and (ii) the repayment of the post-petition intercompany
balance outstanding in favor of the Debtors as of December 31,
2018.

In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides that after the
Separation, (i) iHeartCommunications will provide the iHeart Line
of Credit in an aggregate amount not to exceed $200 million for a
period of no more than three years following the effective date of
the iHeart Plan of Reorganization, (ii) iHeartMedia will indemnify
CCOH for 50 percent of certain tax liabilities imposed on the
company's in connection with the Separation on or prior to the
third anniversary of the Separation in excess of $5.0 million, with
iHeartMedia's aggregate liability limited to $15.0 million, and
(iii) iHeartMedia will reimburse the company for one-third of
potential costs relating to certain agreements between the company
and third parties in excess of $10.0 million of such costs up to
the first $35.0 million of such costs such that iHeartMedia will
not bear more than $8.33 million of such costs. The parties agreed
that the Company will recover 14.44 percent in cash on its allowed
claim of $1,031.7 million under the Due From iHeartCommunications
Note, and to mutual releases, including a release of all claims
that have been asserted, could have been asserted or ever could be
asserted with respect to the iHeart Chapter 11 Cases and the
actions.

The Settlement Agreement was approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas and the Bankruptcy Court
in connection with the confirmation of the iHeart Chapter 11 Cases
on January 22, 2019.

Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., an outdoor advertising
company, owns and operates advertising display faces in the United
States and internationally. It operates through two segments,
Americas Outdoor Advertising and International Outdoor Advertising.
The company was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. is a
subsidiary of iHeartCommunications, Inc.
   

CLOSET CANDY: Mclean Sues for Invasion of Privacy, Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLOSET CANDY BOUTIQUE, LLC, an Arizona Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 9:19-cv-80362 (S.D. Fla., March 15,
2019), seeks injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals.

Closet Candy Boutique, LLC, is an Arizona limited liability company
whose principal office is located in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Company is an online women's boutique.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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


COLGATE ENTERPRISE: Faces Amay Suit over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Colgate Enterprise Corp., CS Bridge Corp., Old Time Scaffolding,
Inc., Michael O'Farrell and Peter O'Farrell for violations of Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The case is captioned
HENRY OSWALDO AMAY and ARMANDO AMAY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- COLGATE
ENTERPRISE CORP., CS BRIDGE CORP., OLD TIME SCAFFOLDING, INC., and
MICHAEL O'FARRELL and PETER O'FARRELL, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02651 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019). The Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount
exceeding $100,000.

Colgate Enterprise Corp., CS Bridge Corp. and Old Time Scaffolding,
Inc., owned and operated by Peter and Michael O'Farrell, are
corporations organized and authorized under the laws of New York
with a principal executive office at 1470 Bruckner Boulevard,
Bronx, New York 10473. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Telephone: (718) 263-9591
     Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


CORIZON HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in B. Morrelli's FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned BRUCE MORRELLI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORIZON HEALTH,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive
Defendants. No. 1:18-cv-1395-LJO-SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Licensed
Vocational Nurses (LVNs) and Registered Nurses (RNs) to provide
health care services at correctional facilities in Tulare County.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, allege the Defendant established and carried out a policy
which violated California's wage-and-hour laws in that the
Plaintiffs and putative class members were not paid wages according
to California law for hours they were required to work such as
during statutory lunch and break periods and for overtime hours.
  
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant stating
seven causes of action pursuant to California Law: (1) failure to
pay overtime (2) failure to provide compliant meal breaks (3)
failure to provide compliant rest breaks (4) failure to pay minimum
wages (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements (6) failure
to pay all wages due and owing at the time of employment
termination (7) and for violation of California's Unfair Business
Practices Act. The original complaint was dismissed, the Plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), and presently before the
Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the FAC.

Plaintiffs' Overtime Claims

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant violated California Labor Code
Section 510 by failing to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages for the
shifts they worked in excess of 8 hours per day and double-time
compensation for shifts exceeding 12 hours.  

In relevant part, Section 510(a) provides, eight hours of labor
constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one
workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and
the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one
workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in
excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of
no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee.

Overtime Compensation for Shifts Exceeding 8 Hours Per Day

The Defendant again argues the Plaintiffs' overtime claims are
insufficiently plead because (1) the Plaintiffs fail to allege a
specific workweek when any one of them worked overtime hours for
which they were not compensated; (2) the Plaintiffs' allegations
lack personal knowledge because they are made on information and
belief which cannot be credited as true; and (3) the Defendant was
approved to offer an alternative workweek schedule of three 12-hour
shifts per week, thus the Plaintiffs cannot state overtime claims
based on those 12-hour shifts.

The Plaintiffs argue they are not required to allege a particular
instance of unpaid overtime because the Plaintiffs have pled they
worked three 12-hour shifts each workweek, and they are owed 4.5
hours of half-time wages -- i.e., their allegations are
sufficiently specific under Landers v. Quality Communications,
Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014).  The Plaintiffs also contend
Defendant's alternative workweek schedule argument is subject to
factual and legal disputes about whether any election for an
alternative work schedule is effective as to Plaintiffs and the
putative class, and this cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.


The Defendant responds that the only exception to the
specific-instance pleading requirement of Landers occurs when a
plaintiff has alleged other factual matter sufficient to allow the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs
have pled nothing more than a conclusory assertion they regularly
worked more than 8 hours per day, occasionally more than 12 hours
per day, and were not properly compensated with overtime pay.   

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' overtime claims for shifts
worked in excess of eight hours is sufficiently pled.

In Landers, the Ninth Circuit considered the pleading standard
post-Twombly and Iqbal for wage and hour claims under the FLSA
(Fair Labor Standards Act). The plaintiff in Landers alleged the
defendants failed to pay him the wages he was due, but provided no
detail regarding a given workweek when he was not paid his wages.


While the plaintiff had alleged he worked more than 40 hours per
week for the defendants, he never alleged what conditions forced
him to work longer than 40 hours per week or how frequently his
workweek exceeded 40 hours. He offered only generalized theories
about how the defendants implemented various policies that resulted
in the failure to pay proper overtime. Notably absent from these
allegations was any detail regarding how any of these policies
applied to the plaintiff, or gave an example of a particular
workweek where he was subject to policies that resulted in the
failure to properly compensate him with overtime pay.

In affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, the court noted a
plaintiff could establish a plausible [FLSA overtime claim by
estimating the length of her average workweek during the applicable
period and the average rate at which she was paid, the amount of
overtime wages she believes she is owed, or any other facts that
will permit the court to find plausibility.

The Court notes that the Plaintiffs here have done more than allege
they worked more than 8 hours per day for which they were not
properly compensated. Plaintiff allege their normal and assigned
work schedule was three 12-hour shifts per week for which they were
not paid any overtime. This is distinct from the factual
allegations considered in Landers or of those considered by other
federal appellate courts whose opinions Landers cited with
approval.  

The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient
to the extent they are made on information and belief and not their
personal knowledge. Setting aside a longer discussion of whether
information and belief pleading is acceptable post-Iqbal and
Twombly, even if the allegations based on information and belief
render that particular allegation insufficient, the use of that
phrase as it pertains to the overtime claims for shifts longer than
8 hours does not invalidate any essential allegation. Plaintiffs
allege they are informed and believe that the Defendant, and each
of them, paid the Plaintiffs and class members straight time wages
for each twelve[-]hour shift worked. Disregarding this allegation,
the Plaintiffs nonetheless allege they were not paid overtime wages
for hours they worked in excess of 8 hours per day.

Double-Time Compensation for Work Performed Beyond 12 Hours in a
Shift

Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 510(a), work in excess of
12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less
than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee.

The FAC alleges the Plaintiffs occasionally worked more than 12
hours per shift. The FAC alleges an example of when a shift longer
than 12 hours was required: when the RN or LVN who was scheduled to
relieve the Plaintiffs or class members after their regularly
scheduled twelve (12) hour shift called in sick or did not show up
to work, the Plaintiffs or class members were required to remain at
work, continuing their patient care, until a replacement could be
found.

This threadbare allegation lacks plausibility: it does not indicate
what occasionally meant for any one of the named Plaintiffs, or in
lieu of that, provide a specific example of when an
over-twelve-hour shift was required of one of the named Plaintiffs
and the amount of time they ended up working past 12 hours in that
particular instance. Exact dates are not required, but there must
be facts that provide an inference this happened on at least one
occasion. This claim to double-time recovery is not well pled.

Overtime for Workweeks Longer than 40 Hours

The Plaintiffs are unable to allege a plausible claim for overtime
based on a workweek that is longer than 40 hours. The Plaintiffs
allege only that they worked three 12-hour shifts per week. Even in
the proposed SAC, the Plaintiffs only allege three 12.5 hour shifts
per week  which is still not more than 40 hours per week. There is
only a single allegation the Plaintiffs occasionally worked more
than 40-hours per week. The Plaintiffs do not describe how often
this happened or facts from which it can be inferred they actually
worked more than 40 hours in any given week of their employment.
This claim of violation of Section 510 merely tracks the statutory
language and is insufficient to state a plausible claim for
overtime based on a workweek longer than 40-hours. This bare
allegation of an overtime violation under Section 510 is dismissed,
and it is clear from the proposed SAC that Plaintiffs are unable to
marshal additional facts to state a cognizable claim on this
ground.

Meal and Rest Break Claims

The California Labor Code requires employers to provide off-duty
meal periods of at least 30 minutes for each day worked of five
hours or more, and to provide a second meal period of at least 30
minutes for each day worked of 10 hours or more.  

The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' meal- and rest-break claims
are not pled with enough factual specificity to render it plausible
that meal and rest-break violations occurred. The Defendant
maintains the Plaintiffs fail to cite a single example of such an
occasion where they had to forego breaks, and not a single
Plaintiff alleges that he or she was ever the only nursing
professional staffed on a shift or was, on at least one specific
occasion, prohibited from leaving the premises as a result of the
Defendant's policies or practices.

The Plaintiffs note they never alleged they all worked at the same
county facility or that they worked solely at one county facility
the allegation they worked alone as a sole nursing professional on
a scheduled shift is not implausible. The Plaintiffs also maintain
their allegations of what precluded them from meal breaks are not
conclusory and threadbare they specifically allege the policy that
precluded them from taking breaks during their shift and that they
were forced to punch out during their breaks even though they were
not relieved of all their duties.

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs meal- and rest-break
claims are adequately alleged.

Unpaid Minimum Wages

California Labor Code Section 1194 requires employers to pay at
least minimum wages for all the time Plaintiffs and putative class
members were suffered or permitted to work or were under their
employer's control.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant automatically deducted time
from the Plaintiffs' total hours worked for meal periods that were
not provided, during which times the Plaintiffs and putative class
members were working and/or remained under the Defendant's control
in that they were not permitted to leave the work premises.

The Defendant argues this claim is predicated entirely on the
Plaintiffs' meal- and rest-break claims, which the Defendant
maintains are insufficiently pled. However, the Plaintiffs meal-
and rest-break claims are adequately stated. The Plaintiffs unpaid
minimum wage claim predicated on the meal-and rest-break claims is
therefore viable.

Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

California Labor Code Ssection 226 requires employers to provide
employees with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing
nine critical payroll elements.  

The Defendant first argues the Plaintiffs' allegations supporting
their inaccurate wage statement claim are conclusory and must be
dismissed. This claim is predicated in large part on the
Defendant's purported failure to pay overtime due for every shift
the Plaintiffs worked and for all meal- and rest-breaks which the
Plaintiffs allegedly missed because of the policy they were to
remain on property and available for work during their breaks.  

The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged they received wage
statements that were silent as to the total hours they worked
(e.g., overtime hours and meal and rest breaks), the wage
statements were inaccurate for that reason, and they could not
promptly and easily determine the total hours worked and the
applicable hourly rates -- e.g., regular, overtime and double-time
rates. The Court concludes the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an
injury under Section 226, and their inaccurate wage-statements
claim is viable.

Waiting Time Penalties Claim and California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200

The Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action arises under California Labor
Code Sections 201, 202, and 203 which require employers to pay all
wages due and owing immediately upon an employee's involuntary
termination of employment, and within 72 hours to employees who
quit voluntarily.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiffs all wages due on employment termination because the
Defendant knew it had failed to pay overtime or double-time wages
and wages had been deducted for off-duty meal periods that were not
provided.  

The Defendant argues they are predicated on the overtime, minimum
wage, and meal/rest break claims which the Defendant maintains are
all deficiently pled. The predicate claims are adequately alleged.
As the allegations pertaining to those claims are incorporated by
reference, the wait-time penalty and Section 17200 claims are
sufficiently pled. As to waiting time penalties, the Plaintiffs
allege their employment was involuntarily terminated in June 2018
when the Defendant lost its contract with Tulare County. The
Plaintiffs further allege they were not paid for any overtime or
missed meal and rest breaks which are all wages that allegedly
should have been paid at termination.

This claim is sufficiently pled. Pertaining to Section 17200,
because Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient predicate claims, the
Section 17200 claim is also viable.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as
follows:

   a. the Plaintiffs' Cal. Labor Code Section 510 claim for failure
to pay overtime compensation for shifts exceeding 40 hours in a
workweek is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend;

   b. the Plaintiffs' Cal. Labor Code Section 510 claim for
double-time compensation for shifts longer than 12 hours in a day
is dismissed with leave to amend as set forth in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint; and

   c. the Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief is dismissed
with prejudice and without leave to amend.

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects.

The Court directs the Plaintiffs to file their proposed SAC with
the noted amendments.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y628kqkvfrom Leagle.com.

Bruce Morrelli, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones --
ajones@wagnerjones.com -- Wagner and Jones, Daniel M. Kopfman,
Wagner and Jones & Lawrence Mark Artenian, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman &
Artenian LLP.

Jose Rojas, Janice Andres, Sandra Cruz-Perez, Victoria Martinez,
Veronica Vizcarra & Laura Padilla, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel M. Kopfman, Wagner and Jones & Lawrence Mark Artenian,
Wagner, Jones, Kopfman & Artenian LLP.

Corizon Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres -- btorres@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C.


CRAIG MCKENZIE: Gruber Files Class Action in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKenzie, et al. The
case is styled as Jon D Gruber, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Craig M McKenzie, Timothy R
Brady, Gabriel G Claypool, Michael L. Reger, Terry H Rust, Paul M
Crownie, David J Fellon, Gary L Alvord, James L Thornton, Ryan R.
Gilbertson, Ryan R. Gilbertson, Joseph Clark Reger, individually
and as Custodian for W.J.R. and J.M.R. (UTMA), Weldon W.
Gilbertson, individually and as Custodian for H.G. (UTMA), and as
Trustee of the Ryan Gilbertson 2012 Family Irrevocable Trust, Total
Depth Foundation, Jessica C Gilbertson also known as: Jessica
Medlin, Kellie Tasto as Custodian for H.G. (UTMA), Defendants, Case
No. 0:19-mc-00019 (D. Minn., Mar. 26, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.

Craig M. McKenzie, is the former chief executive officer at ZaZa
Energy Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Michael E Rowe, Esq.
     Dorsey & Whitney LLP
     50 S 6th St Ste 1500
     Mpls, MN 55402-1498
     Phone: (612) 492-6724
     Fax: (612) 340-2828
     Email: rowe.michael@dorsey.com


CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking
dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit initiated by David
Smith.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements
were contained in financial filings that led to stock price
fluctuations and resulting financial harm.

Several additional individuals filed similar claims. On November
15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard
Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated actions.

On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee
for the Ina Family Trust filed a "consolidated amended complaint".


On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.


CV Sciences said, "Management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations. Since no discovery has been conducted and the case
remains stayed, an estimate of the possible loss or recovery cannot
be made at this time."

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer
Products. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


CVR REFINING: Bought Common Unitholders on the Cheap, Barai Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BHARAT H. BARAI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF BHARAT H. BARAI, MD
& PANNA B. BARAI, MD TRUST FBO SUNITI MEDICAL CORPORATION MPP &
TRUST UA 11/30/87 on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated former unitholders of CVR REFINING, LP v. CVR REFINING,
LP, CVR ENERGY, INC., CVR REFINING HOLDINGS, LLC, CVR REFINING GP,
LLC, ICAHN ENTERPRISES, L.P., CARL C. ICAHN, SUNGHWAN CHO, JONATHAN
FRATES, DAVID L. LAMP, ANDREW LANGHAM, LOUIS J. PASTOR, KENNETH
SHEA, JON R. WHITNEY, AND GLENN R. ZANDER, Case No. 2019-0210 (Del.
Ch., March 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendants, among other
things, breached the terms of the First Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership of CVR Refining, LP, dated as of
January 23, 2013 (the "Partnership Agreement").

This suit challenges the multi-step plan by which Icahn
Enterprises, L.P. ("Icahn"), an investment firm controlled by Carl
Icahn, acting through various entities, weaponized a call right in
the limited partnership agreement of the CVR Refining, LP (the
"Partnership") in order to buy out the Partnership's public common
unitholders on the cheap.

The Partnership is an oil refiner and marketer of transportation
fuels organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the
state of Delaware.  It is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.

CVR Refining GP, LLC (the "General Partner") is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware, and is an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of CVR
Energy through CVR Holdings.  The General Partner is the general
partner of the Partnership, and has direct responsibility for
conducting the Partnership's business and managing its operations.

CVR Holdings is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware, and is an indirectly
wholly owned subsidiary of CVR Energy.  CVR Holdings owns and
controls the General Partner.

CVR Energy is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware.  The Partnership, CVR Holdings, and the
General Partner are now wholly owned subsidiaries of CVR Energy. At
all relevant times, CVR Energy controlled the General Partner.

Icahn is a limited partnership organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware.  At all relevant times, Icahn and
its affiliates owned approximately 82% of the outstanding common
stock of CVR Energy.  At all relevant times, Icahn either directly
or indirectly controlled the actions of CVR Energy, CVR Holdings,
the General Partner, and thus the Partnership.

Carl Icahn served as Chairman of the Board of the General Partner
from January 2013 until July 2018, as well as Chairman of the Board
of CVR Energy from June 2012 until July 2018.  At all relevant
times, Carl Icahn, directly or indirectly, wholly owned the general
partner of Icahn and owned approximately 91% of Icahn's outstanding
depositary units.  The other Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of one or more of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Jeffrey Gorris, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
                  jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
                  cquinn@friedlandergorris.com

               - and -

          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS
          919 N. Market Street
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  adam@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3062
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Brandon Walker, Esq.
          Marion Passmore, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  walker@bespc.com
                  passmore@bespc.com

               - and -

          Frank A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com


CVR REFINING: Mikulich Contests Public Common Unitholders' Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ED MIKULICH, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
former unitholders of CVR REFINING, LP v. CVR REFINING, LP, CVR
ENERGY, INC., CVR REFINING HOLDINGS, LLC, CVR REFINING GP, LLC,
ICAHN ENTERPRISES, L.P., CARL C. ICAHN, SUNGHWAN CHO, JONATHAN
FRATES, DAVID L. LAMP, ANDREW LANGHAM, LOUIS J. PASTOR, KENNETH
SHEA, JON R. WHITNEY, and GLENN R. ZANDER, Case No. 2019-0213-
(Del. Ch., March 15, 2019), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful scheme and plan to enable Carl Icahn to exercise a call
right to buy out CVR Refining, LP's (the "Partnership's") public
common unitholders at less than half their deserved consideration.

In January 2019, CVR Refining GP, LLC (the "General Partner"), the
general partner of the Partnership, held the call right to purchase
all common units held by the public "at the greater of (x) the
Current Market Price as of the date three days prior to the date
that the notice . . . is mailed or (y) the highest price paid by
the General Partner or any of its Affiliates for any such Limited
Partner Interest of such class purchased during the 90-day period
preceding the date that the notice . . . is mailed" (the "Call
Right").

Before this assignment, the Plaintiff alleges, Carl Icahn and the
Defendants, including the General Partner, caused a significant
decrease in the price of the Partnership's common units, which
permitted them to exercise the General Partner's call right at a
lower price than otherwise would have been paid for the common
units.  The Plaintiff contends that this unlawful scheme was in
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
incorporated in the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership of CVR Refining, LP, dated as of January 23, 2013.

The Partnership is a Delaware limited partnership, and maintains
its principal executive offices in Sugar Land, Texas.  The General
Partner is a Delaware limited liability company, and is an
indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of CVR Energy through CVR
Holdings.  The General Partner is the general partner of the
Partnership and conducts and operates the Partnership's business.

CVR Refining Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
indirectly wholly owned by CVR Energy.  CVR Holdings owns and
controls the General Partner, and at all relevant times owned
97,315,764 common units of the Partnership, or approximately 66% of
the outstanding common units.

Icahn Enterprises, L.P. ("IEP") is a Delaware limited partnership,
with depositary units listed for trading on the Nasdaq under the
ticker symbol "IEP."  At all relevant times IEP and its affiliates
owned approximately 82% of the outstanding common stock of CVR
Energy.

Carl Icahn has served as Chairman of the Board of the General
Partner from January 2013 through July 2018, and as Chairman of the
Board of CVR Energy from June 2012 through July 2018.  Defendant
Icahn owns and has owned the general partner of IEP, and owned
approximately 91% of IEP's outstanding depository units.  Defendant
Icahn, at all relevant times, directly or indirectly controlled the
actions of IEP, CVR Energy, CVR Holdings, the General Partner, and
the Partnership.  The other Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of one or more of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


CVS PHARMACY: Tashjian Sues over Solicitation of Prescriptions
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES TASHJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; and CVS CAREMARK INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-06550
(Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 27, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants' scheme of soliciting prescriptions from consumers'
medical providers which the Defendants could then sell to consumers
constitutes violation of the Breach of the Fiduciary Duty of
Confidentiality, Negligence, Breach of Privacy, and Tortious
Misappropriation of Private and Personal Information.

According to the complaint, the Defendants falsely represented to
the medical providers that the Defendants had spoken with the
consumer, and that the consumer requested that the Defendants
contact the medical providers to obtain certain prescription
medicines. The Defendants' scheme was perpetrated despite the fact
that the Defendants knew that their pharmacists had not, in fact,
spoken to the consumers about contacting the medical providers and
the consumers had not, requested that Defendants contact the
medical providers.

As part of the scheme, the Defendants never notify the medical
providers or the patient that the Defendants were being compensated
for sending the letters, nor did the scheme notify the medical
providers that the Defendants had not spoken with the consumer, and
that the consumer did not request the Defendants to send the
letters.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. operates pharmacy and drug stores in the United
States. Its drug stores offer health products and medicines;
vitamins; and personal care, skin care, beauty, and home health
care products. The company also provides drug information; health
information; and new, transfer, refill, and transfer prescriptions.
The company sells products through its retail and online stores.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. was formerly known as CVS, Inc. and changed its
name to CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in February 1997. The company was
incorporated in 1969 and is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW
          MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Rivera Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deckers Outdoor
Corporation. The case is styled as Luis Rivera, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deckers
Outdoor Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Deckers Retail, LLC, a
California limited liability company d/b/a UGG, Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC19574786 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Mar. 26, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints".

Deckers Outdoor Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, markets, and distributes footwear, apparel, and
accessories for casual lifestyle use and high performance
activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.


DEL TACO: Discovery Still Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, 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  January 1, 2019, that discovery is still
ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by a former
employee of the company.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims.


Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis.

Del Taco said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and
the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of
the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable and
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore,
Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of January 1,
2019."

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

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Still Defends Class Action in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, 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 company continues
to defend a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company. Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
public filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016
(the "potential class period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
24, 2017. The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for
reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018.

Diplomat Pharmacy said, "Management believes the complaint and
allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against the action. The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on its results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

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

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DOYLE MOVING: Rodriguez Seeks Wages & Overtime for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DOYLE MOVING & STORAGE, INC., a
Colorado corporation, and ANGELA DOYLE, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00826 (D. Colo, March 19, 2019), seeks
wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation at the proper
regular rates of pay under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons employed by Doyle
Moving and Storage, Inc. in any of the following positions: Lumpers
(day laborers paid on a daily basis) Warehousemen, Movers, Packers,
Unloaders, and individuals holding comparable positions with
different titles ("Laborers") employed by DMS.

The Plaintiff began his employment with DMS as a Laborer in or
around April 2018, and was terminated from his employment on March
16, 2019. During his employment, Plaintiff, like most DMS
employees, was expected to fill numerous roles with DMS depending
on the needs of the day. In a typical day, the Plaintiff could be
involved in packing and moving household goods from a dwelling to a
truck, driving the truck to the warehouse, unloading the truck
(including operating a forklift), and related tasks. The same is
true of all members of the Collectives and the Colorado Classes,
though as a general matter the duties of women members of the
Collectives and the Colorado Classes are restricted to packing due
to the physical strength required for the other tasks.

According to the complaint, DMS lacks a policy in which Laborers
are permitted regular breaks during the day, and Laborers typically
do not receive breaks required by the Colorado Wage Order.Laborers
regularly work over 40 hours in each workweek. However, because of
DMS's manipulations of the time records (and in particular the
automatic deduction of thirty minutes per work day, or two and a
half hours per workweek, assuming five work days), not all hours
are even counted in calculating pay for Laborers. Laborers often
work more than 12 hours in a work day. On those occasions on which
the (manipulated and inaccurate) time records reflect hours
exceeding 12 in a work day or 40 in a workweek, DMS pays for there
excess hours at straight time rather than paying the overtime
premium (time-and-a-half) required by FLSA and the Colorado Wage
Order.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEWIS | KUHN | SWAN PC
          620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: (719) 694-3000
          Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
          E-mail: plewis@lks.law
                  mkuhn@lks.law
                  aswan@lks.law

ESSEX 123 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Romero et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROMERO; and ALBERTO GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ESSEX 123 INC. d/b/a
CHAMPION PIZZA; NEW ASTORIA CORP. d/b/a CHAMPION PIZZA; KEH CORP.
d/b/a CHAMPIOIN PIZZA; NJK CORP. d/b/a CHAMPION PIZZA COLUMBUS; MHS
PIZZA CORP. d/b/a CHAMPION PIZZA LUDLOW; RIGHT; RIGHT BRAIN PIZZA
BRAIN PIZZA CORP. d/b/a CHAMPION PIZZA; TAE SUN KIM a/k/a EDWARD
KIM; JOSEPH GUEVARA; and HAKKI AKDENIZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01690 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Romero was employed by the Defendants as counter
worker. The Plaintiff Guevara was employed as pizza maker, cook,
and delivery worker.

Essex 123 Inc. d/b/a Champion Pizza manufactures food products. The
Company specializes in pizzas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          Jaime Sanchez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  morales@pechmanlaw.com
                  sanchez@pechmanlaw.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: April 15 Deadline to Answer Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc., the defendants'
deadline to respond to the consolidated amended complaint is April
15, 2019, according to Farmland Partners Inc.'s Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. (the Kachmar Action"), was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain of its officers by a purported
Company stockholder.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company's disclosure related to the FPI Loan Program was
materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Mariconda Action") was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar
Action.

Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar
Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.  On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar
action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action.

On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported FPI
shareholders, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner
(the "Turners"), as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action.  The
Turners filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Mariconda
Action on March 11, 2019.

The defendants' deadline to respond to the consolidated amended
complaint is April 15, 2019.

The Company said that it can provide no assurances as to the
outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related
expenses at this time.

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Maccariella Suit Over Vehicle Emission Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MACCARIELLA, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., and FCA US
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-10791-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., March 15, 2019),
alleges that Fiat Chrysler consumers did not receive what they paid
for when they bought or leased one of these gasoline-powered
vehicles:

   a. 2011-2016 MY Dodge Journey (FWD);
   b. 2011-2014 MY Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger (FWD);
   c. 2011-2012 MY Dodge Caliber (FWD, CVT); and
   d. 2011-2016 MY Jeep Compass/Patriot (FWD, CVT).

Mr. Maccariella, the owner of two Class Vehicles, a 2015 Jeep
Patriot and a 2016 Jeep Compass, contends that he would not have
purchased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid less for his
vehicles, had he known that they would not comply with emission
standards; that they require one or more emissions repairs to
become emissions compliant; that they may not retain their resale
value; and that they may not in the future achieve the advertised
performance and/or fuel economy.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.  Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. is FCA's corporate parent.  In 2009, Fiat's
predecessor, Fiat S.p.A., began its acquisition of FCA's
predecessor, Chrysler Group LLC.  The acquisition was completed in
January 2014, at which time Chrysler Group LLC became a
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Fiat and was renamed FCA US
LLC.  FCA's principal place of business and headquarters is located
in in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

FCA is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of
new, previously untitled motor vehicles.  Like its predecessor,
Chrysler, FCA is one of the "Big Three" American automakers, in
addition to Ford and General Motors.  FCA distributes and sells new
and unused passenger cars and motor vehicles under the Chrysler,
Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat brands.  Major divisions of FCA also
include Mopar, its automotive parts and accessories division, and
SRT, its performance automobile division.

Fiat, the corporate parent of FCA, is a Dutch corporation
headquartered in London.  Fiat owns numerous European automotive
brands in addition to FCA's American brands, including Maserati,
Alfa Romeo, Fiat Automobiles, Fiat Professional, Lancia, and
Abarth.  As of 2018, Fiat Chrysler is the eighth largest automaker
in the world by sales alone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Rachel Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrorhback.com
                  rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (205) 456-1497
          E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com


FOCAL POINT: Fuentes Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Fuentes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Focal Point Exports, LTD, and
Focal Point, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03890 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., March 26, 2019) is a class action complaint pursuant to
the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure seeking to redress and curtail
Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIP
A"), specifically to regulate companies that collect, store and use
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as handprints. Notwithstanding
the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendants
disregard their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collect, store, disseminate, and use employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA.

Plaintiff has never been informed of any biometric data retention
policy developed by any the Defendant, nor has he ever been
informed of whether any Defendant will ever permanently delete his
biometric data. Plaintiff has never been provided with, nor ever
signed, a written release allowing any the Defendant to collect,
store, use, or disseminate his biometric data. Plaintiff has
continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful
conditions created by each Defendant's violations of BIPA, notes
the complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an Order: (1) declaring that
Defendants' conduct violates BIPA; (2) requiring Defendants to
cease the unlawful activities; and (3) awarding liquidated damages
to Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

Plaintiff Alfredo Fuentes worked for Focal Point as a Quality
Inspector from August of 2018 until February of 2019.

Defendant Focal Point Exports, LTD, is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


FREEDOM BOAT: Donde Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Donde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Freedom Boat Club LLC, a Florida company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60785 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2019) is an
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a
federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices.

Plaintiff never consented to receive FBC's text messages, which
were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because
telemarketing campaigns generally send text messages to hundreds of
thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of proposed nationwide
classes of other persons who received illegal telemarketing text
messages from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Plaintiff Donde is a Broward County, Florida resident.

Freedom Boat Club LLC is a Florida limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Venice, FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
     KAUFMAN P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (305) 469-5881
     Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
            rachel@kaufmanpa.com


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Traynor Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02693-RA (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2019) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Because Defendant's website, www.frys.com is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), notes the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant is an electronics retailer that operates
www.frys.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dov Mittelman, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: Mittelmandov@yahoo.com


FUBU: Traynor Files Class Action Under ADA
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUBU The Collection,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUBU The
Collection, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02686 (S.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 26, 2019).

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

FUBU is an American hip hop apparel company. It includes casual
wear, sports wear, a suit collection, eyewear, belts, and
shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that IDT Energy continues to
defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez.

On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

On November 30, 2018, IDT Energy filed its Answer and Defenses to
the complaint and the parties will now proceed to engage in
discovery in accordance with a scheduling order entered by the
Court on January 18, 2019.

IDT Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it
believes to be completely, meritless and plans to vigorously defend
this action.

Genie Energy said, "Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment
of this matter, a loss is not considered probable, nor is the
amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018."

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. It resells electricity
and natural gas to residential and small business customers
primarily in the Eastern and Midwestern United States; and offers
energy brokerage and advisory services. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GLOBAL MANAGEMENT: Underpays Cooks, Niwano Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JUNJI NIWANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL MANAGEMENT USA, INC.; JS WORLD, LLC;
JK PRIME HOUSE, LLC; JAESUNG KIM; JAE KYUNG SON; and DONG C. SON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00968-MHC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 27, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Niwano was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Global Management USA, Inc. doing business as Kiku Japanese Steak &
Sushi, Kiku Japanese House, and/or Sushi Kiku, engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian G. Kim, Esq.
          BRIAN KIM, PC
          1815 Satellite Blvd. #303
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 878-4200
          Facsimile: (404) 878-4208
          E-mail: brian@briankimpc.com


GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: Underpays Drivers, Laguna Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL LAGUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE,
INC.; COPAN EXPRESS, INC.; JUAN F. PERDOMO; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV343326 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Feb. 27, 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.

Plaintiff Laguna was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Golden State Overnight Delivery Service Inc. provides ground and
overnight delivery services in California and Utah, and select
metropolitan areas of Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Its services
also include pickup, shipping, delivery, and package tracking, as
well as customer service. The company serves casual shippers, small
to medium sized businesses, and large distributors. It was founded
in 1995 and is based in Pleasanton, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
          Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
          212 9th Street, Suite 314
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269-4200
          Facsimile: (408) 657-4684
          E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com
                  jds@advocatesforworkers.com
                  est@advocatesforworkers.com


GOULET PEN: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Goulet Pen
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Goulet
Pen Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02698 (S.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Goulet Pens provides fountain pen enthusiasts the most personal
online shopping experience through comprehensive education and
exemplary service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over "Sham Telephone Orders"
--------------------------------------------------------
Christian Hetrick, writing for Philly.com, reports that a
Philadelphia-area restaurant chain claims that Grubhub, the online
food delivery and takeout platform, has "stolen" millions of
dollars from small businesses by charging them for "sham telephone
orders," according to a proposed class-action lawsuit.

The suit, filed in federal court by a pair of Tiffin Indian food
restaurants, alleges that Grubhub has charged commissions for phone
calls that did not generate food orders. The Tiffin chain, founded
by Wharton MBA and ex-investment banker Munish Narula, argues that
Grubhub's actions ate into restaurants' revenues for more than
seven years.

Tiffin claims it's bringing the case on behalf of the roughly
80,000 restaurants that Grubhub works with across the country. The
case is seeking unspecified damages and restitution. The lawsuit
also wants a judge to bar Grubhub from charging businesses for
customer calls that don't result in food orders.

Grubhub, which declined comment on March 11, filed a motion to send
the case to arbitration. In court filings, the Chicago-based
company has said it did not act deceptively nor breach its
contracts with the two Tiffin eateries named as plaintiffs. The two
restaurants, located in Elkins Park and Mount Airy, are part of a
chain of 10 Tiffin eateries in the region.

Tiffin's lawyer, Catherine Pratsinakis, declined comment. Narula
did not return a request for comment.

Founded in 2004, Grubhub allows customers to find local restaurants
and place food orders through its online platform. Restaurants pay
a commission, typically a percentage of the order (Tiffin pays 15
percent per order, court documents show). Grubhub, which recently
expanded its Philadelphia presence with a Center City tech hub,
competes with other food delivery services such as UberEats, and
DoorDash.

Grubhub generated $1 billion in revenue in 2018, an increase of
more than 46 percent from the $683.1 million collected in 2017. The
company says it serves 17.7 million active diners.

According to the lawsuit, reported by Philadelphia Magazine in
January, Grubhub also charges businesses when customers place
orders using unique phone numbers found on its online platform.
Grubhub tracks the calls and bills the restaurants accordingly,
imposing a fee based on a monthly average of previous commissions
charged to the restaurant, according to the complaint filed in
December in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

But Grubhub does not verify whether the calls actually result in
food orders and relies solely on the length of the phone call to
justify charging commissions, the suit says. Tiffin cited examples
of customers calling to ask about ingredients, existing orders, and
hours of operation -- calls that the eatery said resulted in
charges from Grubhub.

In one case last year, a woman called a Tiffin restaurant through
the phone number listed on Grubhub's platform, asking questions
about the menu because she had food allergies, the complaint says.
She proceeded to place an order through Grubhub's website, and
Grubhub charged Tiffin twice for both the call and online order.

According to the complaint, a Grubhub worker told Narula, the
Tiffin founder and president, that the platform charges commissions
for calls that exceed 45 seconds, regardless of whether a customer
places a food order.

In a 2013 post on Quora, Grubhub founder Mike Evans wrote that
there are a "few key indicators" that show whether a call is an
order.

"Among them are time of call (during business hours), duration of
call, exclusion of multiple call from same number, etc.," Evans
wrote at the time. "It turns out to be possible to predict with a
high degree of accuracy which calls are orders or not."

Making matters worse for small businesses, Tiffin argues, is that
customers often place calls through Grubhub because an internet
search for restaurants using Google could list Grubhub's ad before
the restaurant's website.

Tiffin said Grubhub orders make up nearly 15 percent of the Indian
chain's revenues.

Grubhub's lawyer asked a judge to send the case to arbitration,
noting its contracts with the Tiffin eateries contain an
arbitration clause with a class-action waiver. Tiffin's lawyers
have not yet responded to the motion. [GN]


HAMILTON BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Hamilton Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 12, 2019, that
the company is facing a putative class action lawsuit entitled,
Parshall v. Carol Coughlin, et al.

On October 23, 2018, Hamilton Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") and
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. ("Orrstown") entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") under which
the Company will merge with and into Orrstown, with Orrstown as the
surviving company (the "Merger").  

On March 5, 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. Carol Coughlin et. al., naming each
Company director, Orrstown and the Company as defendants (the
"Parshall Action".  

The Parshall Action alleges, among other things, that the Company'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.  

The relief sought by the Parshall Action includes 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.

While the Company believes that the Actions lack any merit and that
the disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus comply fully with
applicable law, in order to avoid the expense, nuisance and
distraction of litigation the Company and Orrstown have determined
to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus with a
supplemental disclosures .

Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company
and Orrstown specifically deny all allegations that any of the
Supplemental Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were
or are required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/wHx6WU.

Hamilton Bancorp, Inc. provides commercial banking services. The
company was incorporated in 2016 and is based in Ephrata,
Pennsylvania.


HD SUPPLY: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 3, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated class action lawsuit before the Northern District
of Georgia.  

On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior
members of its management (collectively, the "securities litigation
defendants") made certain false or misleading public statements in
violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016
and June 5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints").


Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on
November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") against the securities litigation defendants on behalf
of all persons other than the securities litigation defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the securities litigation
defendants made certain false or misleading public statements,
primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain
supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's
Facilities Maintenance business unit.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the securities
litigation defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified
monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the securities litigation defendants' motion to dismiss. The matter
is now in discovery.

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

HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in
North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities
Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly
known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD
Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply
Holdings, Inc.


HILLS PET NUTRITION: Faces Brown Suit in District of Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc. The
case is captioned as JOSEPH W. BROWN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, HILLS PET NUTRITION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02110-CM-TJJ (D. Kan., Feb. 27, 2019).
The case is assigned to District Judge Carlos Murguia and referred
to Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The
company was formerly known as Hill Packing Company and founded in
1939 and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas.  It operates as a
subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive Co. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
     SHARP MCQUEEN PA
     6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
     Overland Park, KS 66211
     Telephone: (913) 661-9931
     Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
     E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


HLO COLLECTION: Schmidt Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HLO Collection
Services, LLC. The case is styled as David Schmidt, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HLO
Collection Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00542 (E.D. Mo., March 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

HLO Collection Services, LLC is engaged in the debt collection
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


HOAMBRECKER ENTERPRISES: Molloy Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, RION L. MOLLOY, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, vs. HOAMBRECKER
ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a The Station, and JANET M. HOAMBRECKER, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-CV-6030 (W.D. Mo., March 21, 2019),
targets Defendants' deliberate failure to pay its employees their
earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Missouri state laws. Defendants' policy and practice is to deny
minimum wage and overtime pay to its hourly employees.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees, worked
for Defendants and was paid an hourly wage. The lawsuit is brought
as a collective action under FLSA and as a state law class under
Rule to recover unpaid wages and related penalties and damages owed
to Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, the
lawsuit says.

The Station is a combination gas station, liquor store, convenience
mart, and pizza establishment that operates in Kansas City and
Parkville, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
          Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
          CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
          214 S. Spring Street
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: 816-974-7220
          Facsimile: 855-974-7020
          E-mail: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                  v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Heather J. Hardinger, Esq.
          THE MEYERS LAW FIRM, LC
          503 One Main Plaza
          4435 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: 816-444-8500
          Facsimile: 816-444-8508
          E-mail: hhardinger@meyerslaw.com

HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DIANA SOUKHAPHONH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOT
TOPIC, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05124-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order on May 17, 2019, granting certification of class
and subclass, and appointing class counsel.

The class is defined as:

   "all persons whose cellular telephone numbers were contained in
   the file transmitted by Hot Topic to the company known as Impact

   Mobile identified as HT_IM-Opt_in_OneTime.ZIP on September 22,
   2015 and who thereafter received one or more of the below
   described text messages from the shortcode telephone number
   86742."

The subclass is defined as:

   "all persons who received the following text message from the
   shortcode telephone number 86742: "Thanks! Ur subscribed to Hot

   Topic Alerts: 8msg/mo. Reply STOP to Cancel, HELP for Help. For

   info visit www.4u2entr.com/hottopic info. Msg&Data rates may
   apply."

The action arises out of Defendant Hot Topic, Inc.'s practice of
sending advertising and telemarketing text messages en masse to
consumers and presents a textbook case for class certification. Hot
Topic, a retail chain specializing in selling clothing through
brick and mortar stores and a website, sent millions of impersonal
an promotional advertising and telemarketing text messages to over
one million cellular telephone numbers between November 1, 2015 and
December 26, 2015.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  ecf@careyrodriguez.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hotel On
Rivington Managing Member Corp. d/b/a The Hotel On Rivington. The
case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. The Hotel On Rivington
Managing Member Corp. d/b/a The Hotel On Rivington, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02717 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

The Hotel on Rivington is a 20-story luxury hotel on Rivington
Street between Ludlow and Essex Street in Downtown Manhattan.[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


HUMANA AT HOME: Court Certifies 4 FLSA Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DAVERLYNN KINKEAD et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
HUMANA AT HOME, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-01637-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' second motion to amend complaint; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification.

The Court certifies the following classes:

   Connecticut Effective Date class, consisting of:

   "all home healthcare workers employed by defendants in
   Connecticut who worked in excess of 40 hours in a week between
   January 1, 2015, and October 12, 2015";

   New York Effective Date class, consisting of:

   "all home healthcare workers employed by defendants in New York

   who worked in excess of 40 hours in a week including at least
   one 24-hour live-in shift between January 1, 2015, and October
   12, 2015";

   Connecticut Unpaid Hours class, consisting of:

   "all home healthcare workers employed by defendants in
   Connecticut who worked 24-hour live-in shifts between January 1,

   2015, and January 25, 2016"; and

   New York Unpaid Hours class, consisting of:

   "all home healthcare workers employed by defendants in New York

   who worked 24-hour live-in shifts between November 11, 2009 and

   the present."

The Plaintiffs are home healthcare workers employed by defendant
Humana, Inc. and its corporate affiliates. They have filed this
collective and class action lawsuit alleging that Humana has
unlawfully failed to pay them time-and-a-half overtime wages and
unlawfully failed to pay them for the number of hours that they
worked. They bring their claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act
and New York Labor Law.[CC]

INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MONPLAISIR, JACKY CHARLES, and STERLING FRANCOIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC and ITG COMMUNICATIONS LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01484 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, minimum
wage and overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

The case is a collective and class action complaint against ITG to
challenge its policies and practices of denying proper payment of
all wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages, expense
reimbursement, and improper deductions), compensation for
nonproductive work time, as well as ITG's failure to authorize,
permit, and/or make available rest periods and meal periods.

The Plaintiffs and members of the putative Collective and Classes
are current and former non-exempt employees of ITG, who carried out
ITG's installation service business. The Plaintiffs seek to
represent other current and former non-exempt employees who work as
Technicians in this collective and class action. The Plaintiffs
allege ITG has engaged in an unlawful pattern and practices in
violation of the FLSA and the applicable laws of the states of
California and Pennsylvania, the lawsuit says.

Integrated Tech Group LLC was founded in 2013. The Company's line
of business includes the warehousing and storage of a general line
of goods.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Collective, and putative
Classes:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
            WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Stacy Savett, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

J & L FIBER SERVICES: Angel Alleges Unlawful Compensation System
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against J & L Fiber
Services, Inc. for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The case is
captioned HECTOR ANGEL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J & L FIBER SERVICES, INC., 831
Progress Avenue Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-420 (E.D. Wis., March 25, 2019). The Plaintiff seeks for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorney’s fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief.

J & L Fiber Services, Inc., is a privately owned company
headquartered in Portland, Oregon -- but with a location in
Waukesha, Wisconsin -- that provides production and manufacturing
services in the pulp and paper industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Telephone: (262) 780-1953
     Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
     E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


JKR PROPERTY: Violates ADA, Lopez Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JRK Property
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JRK
Property Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02713 (S.D.
N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

JRK Property Holdings is a Los Angeles-based real estate holding
and property 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



JOHN TILLEY: Rhodes Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Tilley. The case
is styled as Casey Rhodes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Tilley, James Erwin and Randy
White, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00019-GFVT (E.D. Ky., March 20,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil
Rights-other filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aaron Joseph Bentley, Esq.
   Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley
   P.O. Box 278
   Prospect, KY 40059
   Tel: (502) 690-6054
   Email: abentley3b@gmail.com

      - and -

   Camille Bathurst, Esq.
   Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley
   P.O. Box 278
   Prospect, KY 40059
   Tel: (502) 292-2452
   Email: camillebathurst@aol.com

      - and -

   Gregory Allen Belzley, Esq.
   Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley
   P.O. Box 278
   Prospect, KY 40059
   Tel: (502) 292-2452
   Email: gbelzley@aol.com



JOHN'S COFFEE: Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RIVERA On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. P.R. CREPE LTD. d/b/a JOHN'S COFFEE SHOP,
GEORGE TSINIAS and NIKOLAS TSINIAS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02430 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages
and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful
violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by the minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
Restaurant and its owners/managers. Throughout his employment, the
Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work,
more than 40 hours per week. However, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of 1-1/2
times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked
per week in excess of 40, as the FLSA and the NYLL require.

Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his spread of
hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiff with accurate and/or any wage statements on each payday
as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice
containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL.

Defendants paid and treated of all their non-managerial employees
who worked for them in the same manner.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com

LA BOOM: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Duran's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment on the issue of defendant's liability in the case
captioned RADAMES DURAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LA BOOM DISCO, INC., Defendant.
No. 17-cv-6331 (ARR) (CLP)(E.D.N.Y.).

Radames Duran brings this action against La Boom Disco, Inc. for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Plaintiff claims that the defendant, a nightclub in Queens,
N.Y., sent him numerous text messages over a two-year period in
violation of the TCPA.

As the statute makes clear, there are three exceptions to the
general prohibition on autodialer calls: (1) a call made for
emergency purposes (2) a call made with the prior express consent
of the called party and (3) a call made to collect government
debts. The TCPA provides for a private right of action allowing a
plaintiff to recover $500 for each violation or $1500 if the
violation is willful or knowing.  

Defendant cannot avoid TCPA liability on the ground that plaintiff
consented to the text messages.

The Federal Communication Commission defines advertisement as any
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services and telemarketing as the initiation of
a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the
purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or
services, which is transmitted to any person. The calling party
bears the burden of demonstrating prior express written consent.  

The Defendant appears to argue that the prior express consent
standard governs this case and that defendant received such consent
when plaintiff provided his phone number to defendant.Defendants
need not have obtained prior express written consent from
plaintiff. While defendant is correct that giving one's number to a
caller satisfies the prior express consent standard for
non-advertising and non-telemarketing calls, the only text in this
case that was not an advertising or telemarketing text was
defendant's initial text to plaintiff granting him free admission
to a particular event. The subsequent texts which advertised events
at defendant's nightclub and encouraged plaintiff to purchase
ticket clearly fall under the FCC's definition of advertisement or
telemarketing. Thus, while plaintiff's act of giving his number to
defendant constituted sufficient consent to receive the initial
text, this action did not grant defendant permission to send
subsequent advertising and telemarketing texts.  

Here, defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating prior
express written consent for the advertising and telemarketing
texts. Thus, defendant cannot avoid liability on a consent theory.

ExpressText and EZ Texting do not qualify as autodialers as a
matter of law, and summary judgment against plaintiff is therefore
appropriate.

The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity (A) to
store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. The
question of what qualifies as an ATDS has generated substantial
questions over the years. The FCC and the courts have attempted to
clarify the definition of an ATDS through various administrative
orders and judicial opinions, but the definition remains unclear.
The Court finds it useful to provide an overview of the relevant
orders and opinions in order to arrive at my understanding of the
law. The Court ultimately conclude that the pre-2015 FCC guidance
on autodialer functions remains good law, and that under this
guidance, the ExpressText and EZ Texting programs do not qualify as
autodialers.

Autodialer definition

The 2003 FCC Order

A predictive dialer is an automated dialing system that uses a
complex set of algorithms to automatically dial consumers'
telephone numbers in a manner that predicts the time when a
consumer will answer the phone and a telemarketer will be available
to take the call.

The FCC rejected the industry members' argument and held that
predictive dialers do fall under the statutory definition of an
ATDS. Regarding the use of a database of numbers, the FCC wrote:
"In the past, telemarketers may have used dialing equipment to
create and dial 10-digit telephone numbers arbitrarily. As one
commenter points out, the evolution of the teleservices industry
has progressed to the point where using lists of numbers is far
more cost effective. To exclude equipment that uses predictive
dialing software from the definition of automated telephone dialing
equipment simply because it relies on a given set of numbers would
lead to an unintended result."

The 2015 FCC Order and ACA International

In 2015, the FCC again addressed the statutory definition of an
autodialer. The FCC mainly focused on the meaning of the word
capacity under the statute. Adopting a broad interpretation, the
FCC held that the TCPA's reach extends to devices with the
potential ability to function as an autodialer.

In ACA International, the D.C. Circuit invalidated several aspects
of the 2015 Order, including the FCC's definition of capacity. The
court found that extending TCPA liability to equipment with the
future capacity to meet the definition of an autodialer invites the
conclusion that all smartphones are autodialers. Thus, the court
held, the FCC's interpretation of the statute is an unreasonably,
and impermissibly, expansive one.

The D.C. Circuit also struck down the portion of the 2015 Order
describing the requisite functions of an autodialer, reasoning that
the FCC offered competing explanations that failed to satisfy the
requirement of reasoned decisionmaking. The court noted that by
reaffirming its 2003 Order, the FCC appeared to confirm its prior
determination that equipment can meet the statutory definition of
an autodialer even if it has no capacity itself to generate random
or sequential numbers (and instead can only dial from an externally
supplied set of numbers.
  
The Impact of ACA International

Currently, federal courts are in disagreement over whether ACA
International's invalidation of the 2015 Order also invalidated the
analogous portions of the 2003 and 2008 Orders concerning
predictive dialers. While the Second Circuit plainly held that the
2015 Order had been invalidated, the court nowhere explicitly
addresses the validity of the prior FCC Orders.  

The Second Circuit, however, only analyzed the meaning of capacity
under the statutory language itself. As discussed earlier, the
court declined to weigh in on the requisite functions of an
autodialer. Importantly, the invalidation of the 2015 Order does
not have the same impact on capacity as it does on autodialer
functions. Regarding capacity, the invalidation of the 2015 Order
forces courts to analyze capacity under the statute, because the
FCC had not offered prior guidance on the term.

While courts in this circuit do not appear to have addressed the
issue, a growing number of courts in other circuits have. Many
courts have upheld the validity of the prior FCC Orders, in large
part because ACA International does not clearly address the
validity of these Orders. Courts finding that the invalidation of
the 2015 Order implicitly invalidates the prior FCC Orders
generally engage in a two-part analysis. First, the courts cite to
the D.C. Circuit's holding that the 2015 Order is invalid because
it offers competing views as to whether an autodialer must be able
to generate random or sequential numbers. Second, the courts
conclude that the 2003 Order must also offer a competing view,
because as the D.C. Circuit noted, both the 2003 and 2015 Orders
drew a distinction between numbers that are randomly or
sequentially generated and numbers that come from lists.  

This line of reasoning is incorrect. As discussed earlier, the 2003
Order clearly holds that equipment that calls from a list can meet
the statutory definition of an autodialer.  While the D.C. Circuit
did bring attention to the 2003 Order's distinction between
randomly or sequentially generated numbers and a list of numbers,
it did so only to reinforce its understanding of the 2015 Order,
i.e., that the FCC's use of dialing random or sequential numbers
meant generating those numbers and then dialing them. Only the 2015
Order contained a contradiction, however, by stating that equipment
must have the capacity to dial random or sequential numbers in
order to qualify as an autodialer. Because the logic behind
invalidating the 2015 Order does not apply to the prior FCC Orders,
the Court concludes that the invalidation of the 2015 Order does
not implicitly invalidate the prior FCC Orders.  The Court will
therefore continue to rely on those Orders to interpret the
definition of an autodialer.

Express Text and EZ Texting

The Court interprets the prior FCC Orders as holding that equipment
can meet the definition of an autodialer if it pulls from a list of
numbers, so long as the equipment also has the capacity to dial
those numbers without human intervention. The Plaintiff concedes
that the programs at issue lack the ability to generate randomized
or sequential numbers.  Because the Courts do not understand the
prior FCC Orders as requiring random or sequential number
generation, the Courts do not find that the programs' reliance on a
database of numbers disqualifies them from TCPA coverage; rather,
the Court concludes that they do not qualify as autodialers because
they are not capable of dialing numbers without human
intervention.

In sum, because a user determines the time at which the ExpressText
and EZ Texting programs send messages to recipients, they operate
with too much human involvement to meet the definition of an
autodialer. Summary judgment for plaintiff is therefore improper.
Further, since plaintiff's motion turns on whether the programs
qualify as autodialers, The Court concludes that all of the
evidentiary materials that plaintiff might submit in response to a
motion for summary judgment on this issue are before the court.
Because the record reveals no material dispute as to how the
programs work, and the Court finds that the programs are not
autodialers as a matter of law, a sua sponte grant of summary
judgment against plaintiff is appropriate.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s February 25, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3gv6ozffrom
Leagle.com.

Radames Duran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC, Taimur Alamgir, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, William M.
Brown, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group,
PLLC.

La Boom Disco Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Lynn.


LEX HOTEL: Lopez Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lex Hotel LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Lex Hotel LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02721 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Lexington Hotel LLC operates as a hotel. The Company offers
accommodations, lobby lounge, valet parking, food, meetings, and
other recreational facilities.[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


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces 210 Claims at March 18 over 3T Device Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC 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 facing 210
filed and unfiled claims worldwide involving its 3T device.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

As of March 18, 2019, the company is aware of approximately 210
filed and unfiled claims worldwide, with the majority of the claims
in various federal or state courts throughout the United States.

The complaints generally seek damages and other relief based on
theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing
defect, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation or concealment,
unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer
protection statutes.

The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all
Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan
York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM
infection. Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T
devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical
monitoring, damages, and attorneys' fees.

The company has appealed the District Court's class certification.
The class action and cases in federal court have been stayed as a
result of the federal multi-district litigation. However, cases in
state courts in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside the U.S
continue to progress.

As a result of information that the company learned in the fourth
quarter of 2018, the company recognized a $294.0 million provision,
which represents its best estimate of the Company's liability for
these matters. While the amount accrued represents the company's
best estimate, the actual liability for resolution of these matters
remains uncertain and may vary from our estimate.

Total coverage under the Company's product liability insurance
policies is $32.9 million, once the self-retention limit of $11.0
million is met.

LivaNova said, "While the Company has not currently recorded a
receivable for recovery under the insurance policies as of December
31, 2018, the Company intends to pursue recovery under the policies
in connection with the future settlement of the litigation
involving our 3T device."

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation
(NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.


LONG BEACH, CA: Demurrer to Evidence in W. Marquez's Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued an Opinion reversing the judgment of the District
Court sustaining the Defendant's Demurrer to Evidence in the case
captioned WENDY MARQUEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY
OF LONG BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. No. B282270. (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs Wendy Marquez and Jasmine Smith appeal from a judgment
of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave
to amend the demurrer filed by the City of Long Beach (City) to
plaintiffs' class action complaint.

The Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for violations of the Labor
Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage orders
based on the City's alleged failure to pay workers employed as
pages and recreation leader specialists wages at or above the
statewide minimum wage.

The trial court found the authority to determine employee
compensation was reserved to the City as a charter city under
article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, and the state
could not impose a minimum wage for the City's employees because
the City's compensation of its employees was not a matter of
statewide concern. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the Legislature's
interest in the provision of a living wage to all workers is a
matter of statewide concern, and the minimum wage requirement is
appropriately tailored to address that concern.

The City's Demurrer

In its demurrer, the City argued the plaintiffs' claims were barred
under the home rule doctrine because wages set by charter cities
are municipal affairs, not subject to state regulation. The City
also asserted in its reply that charter cities did not come within
the statutory definition of employers subject to the minimum wage
requirement.

Further, the wages to be paid to the City's pages and recreation
leadership specialists were set by a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the union representing those employees and the City,
ratified by the City Council. According to the City, application of
the minimum wage to its employees would unlawfully impair the MOU.

The Trial Court Erred in Sustaining the City's Demurrer

California's minimum wage law

Over a century ago, the Legislature responded to the problem of
inadequate wages and poor working conditions by establishing the
IWC, giving it authority to investigate various industries and
promulgate wage orders establishing minimum wages, maximum work
hours, and conditions of labor.

In 2013 the Legislature again enacted graduated increases in the
minimum wage, effective July 1, 2014 ($9.00 per hour) and January
1, 2016 ($10.00 per hour). Most recently, effective January 1, 2017
the Legislature set a series of graduated increases in the minimum
wage to take effect each year on January 1, culminating in a $15.00
per hour minimum wage for all covered employees effective January
1, 2023, with limited exceptions. Section 1182.12, subdivision
(b)(3), also provides that for purposes of this subdivision setting
the minimum wage, employer' includes the state, political
subdivisions of the state, and municipalities.

The home rule doctrine and state regulation of charter city and
county wages and other employment relations.

Charter cities are specifically authorized by our state
Constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative
intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs. Article
XI, section 5, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution
represents an affirmative constitutional grant to charter cities of
all powers appropriate for a municipality to possess and includes
the important corollary that so far as municipal affairs' are
concerned, charter cities are supreme and beyond the reach of
legislative enactment.

However, a charter city's authority to enact legislation is not
unlimited The Legislature may regulate as to matters of statewide
concern even if the regulation impinges to a limited extent'
citation on powers the Constitution specifically reserves to
counties.  

In areas considered municipal affairs, the general law of the state
prevails over local law only where the general law is reasonably
related and narrowly tailored to resolution of an issue of
statewide concern.

The Supreme Court has considered the extent to which the state may
regulate charter city employee compensation and other employment
issues many times. In Popper, the Supreme Court addressed the
constitutionality of two 1897 state statutes specifying the
salaries for various ranks of police officers and firefighters
employed by municipalities of the first class. (Popper, supra, 123
Cal. at pp. 456-457, 459.) The court invalidated the statutes,
concluding the pay of firemen and policemen clearly falls within
the term municipal affairs.

In City of Pasadena v. Charleville (1932) 215 Cal. 384
(Charleville), the Supreme Court held the City of Pasadena, as a
charter city, was not required to comply with the Public Works Wage
Rate Act of 1931, which required that any contract for public works
pay the prevailing wage for the type of work in the locality in
which the work was to be performed.

The court concluded the Legislature lacked the authority to bind
the city to the statutory scheme because the construction of public
works projects was a municipal affair.  

Most recently, the Supreme Court in City of Vista revisited the
issue of the constitutionality of state prevailing wage laws for
public works projects. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p.
552.) There, a federation of labor unions sought to compel the City
of Vista to pay the prevailing wage in the local construction
industry, as required by state law.

Under this analytical framework, the court must consider (1)
whether the city ordinance at issue regulates an activity that can
be characterized as a municipal affair (2) whether there is an
actual conflict between [local and state law (3) whether the state
law addresses a matter of statewide concern and (4) whether the law
is reasonably related to resolution' of that concern and narrowly
tailored' to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.

If the court is persuaded that the subject of the state statute is
one of statewide concern and that the statute is reasonably related
to its resolution and not unduly broad in its sweep, then the
conflicting charter city measure ceases to be a municipal affair
pro tanto and the Legislature is not prohibited by article XI,
section 5(a), from addressing the statewide dimension by its own
tailored enactments.

The state minimum wage law is designed to address a statewide
concern for the health and welfare of workers and is reasonably
related to its purpose.

To determine whether the state's minimum wage law may be applied to
the City, as a charter city, we apply the four-part analysis set
forth by the Supreme Court in City of Vista.

Compensation of charter city employees is a municipal affair under
section 5 of article XI of the California Constitution

There is no question that salaries of local employees of a charter
city constitute municipal affairs. Article XI, section 5,
subdivision (b)(4), of the state Constitution, confers to charter
cities plenary authority subject only to the restrictions of this
article, to provide for the compensation of their deputies, clerks
and other employees.

The minimum wage requirement is in conflict with the City's
resolution and MOU setting wages.

The Court must first determine the existence of an actual conflict
between the state and local laws at issue before proceeding to the
difficult state constitutional question of which law governs a
particular matter.

The Plaintiffs and the City contend there is no conflict, but for
different reasons. They are both incorrect.

The wage orders' minimum wage provisions apply to the City, the
Court rules.

The City contends sections 1182.12 and 1194 do not by their terms
apply to charter cities, thus obviating any conflict.

The Court disagrees.

Although the City is correct that during the relevant period in
2016 former sections 1182.12 and 1194 were silent as to whether
they applied to state and local governments, the relevant IWC wage
orders were not.

In actions under section 1194 to recover unpaid minimum wages, the
IWC's wage orders do generally define the employment relationship,
and thus who may be liable. Accordingly, an employee who sues to
recover unpaid minimum wages actually and necessarily sues to
enforce the wage order.

Here, the express terms of IWC Wage Order Nos. 4-2001, section
1(B), and 10-2001, section 1(C), make their minimum wage provisions
applicable to any city. Section 4 of both applicable wage orders
requires every employer to pay a specified minimum wage to its
employees. And neither wage order contains an exception from the
minimum wage requirements for public entity employers such as the
City.

The minimum wage requirement cannot be reconciled with the City's
charter and the enactments of its council.

The Plaintiffs contend there is no conflict between the state
minimum wage law and the City Charter because the City is free to
determine the wages of its employees, so long as those wages are at
or above the state minimum. However, the City's charter provides
that wages for the City's employees are to be set by the City
Council.  

Thus, the City's enactment setting subminimum wages conflicts with
the state's minimum wage requirements.

Because there is an actual conflict between the state minimum wage
law and the City Charter, the Court considers whether the minimum
wage is a matter of statewide concern.

The minimum wage for California workers is a matter of statewide
concern.

When, as here, state law and the ordinances of a charter city
actually conflict and the Court must decide which controls, the
hinge of the decision is the identification of a convincing basis
for legislative action originating in extramunicipal concerns, one
justifying legislative supersession based on sensible, pragmatic
considerations.

The Legislature's interest in the provision of a living wage also
directly implicates the state's own coffers because employees
receiving wages below the statewide minimum are more likely to
receive state-funded public assistance. The legislative history
accompanying the 2013 statute setting the $10.00 per hour minimum
wage notes projected savings on state public assistance spending.

As the Supreme Court observed in Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4
Cal.4th 389, 407, We do not doubt that conservation of the state's
limited funds is a statewide concern. The court concluded, however,
that a state law ban on public funding of political campaigns was
not justified by a statewide interest because the ban would impact
the local funding of campaigns, not state funding.  

While the views of the Legislature are not binding on this court,
they are relevant and entitled to great weight. In this case, the
concerns that led the Legislature to adopt and increase the
statewide minimum wage justify application of the minimum wage to
all employees, including those of charter cities. Beginning in
1913, the Legislature has consistently acted, whether directly or
through the IWC, to ensure those employed in California are paid a
wage sufficient to provide for their health and well-being.

The Court's conclusion is bolstered by the scope of the state's
minimum wage mandate. A state law of broad general application is
more likely to address a statewide concern than one that is narrow
and particularized in its application. Here, the state's minimum
wage requirement is of broad general application, applying to every
industry regulated by the IWC wage orders, and to the private and
public sectors alike. This is in contrast to the state compensation
laws the Supreme Court has invalidated under the home rule
doctrine.

Considered in light of the Legislature's goal of ensuring workers
earn a sufficient wage to provide the necessities of life and raise
them above the poverty level, the Court concludes the minimum wage
law addresses a statewide concern that justifies' the state's
interference in what would otherwise be a merely local affair.

The minimum wage is appropriately tailored to address the statewide
concern in the health and welfare of workers.

Under the fourth and final inquiry, the Court determines whether
the law is reasonably related to  resolution' of the statewide
concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in
local governance.  

Here, the statewide concern in worker health and welfare is
reasonably related to the imposition of a minimum wage. As
discussed above, the minimum wage law does not deprive the City
completely of its authority to determine wages. Rather, the law
sets a floor based on the Legislature's judgment as to the minimum
income necessary for a living wage within this state. The City
retains authority to provide wages for its employees above that
minimum as it sees fit. The minimum wage requirement therefore
intrudes less on local authority than the prevailing wage laws,
mandatory binding arbitration requirements, and prohibitions on
cost-of-living pay increases held invalid by the Supreme Court.

Application of the minimum wage requirement does not
unconstitutionally impair the MOU between plaintiffs and the City.

The City contends in the alternative that enforcement of the state
minimum wage against it would unconstitutionally impair the
negotiated MOU between the City and plaintiffs. This argument lacks
merit. Both the United States and California Constitutions prohibit
laws impairing the obligation of contracts under certain
circumstances.

The City's claim fails because it has identified no valid contract
existing at the time of the legislative action at issue. When the
relevant MOU was enacted by resolution of the City Council in
September 2015, the statute setting the minimum wage at $10.00 per
hour effective January 1, 2016 had already been enacted by the
Legislature two years earlier. In short, the legislation could not
impair the contract because at the time of the legislation's
enactment the contract had not yet been entered into by the
parties.

Thus, any agreement by plaintiffs to work for less than the minimum
wage does not relieve the City of its duty to pay plaintiffs at or
above the minimum wage.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 25, 2019 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y2nm4tlcfrom Leagle.com.

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, David A. Rosenfeld --
drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net -- Lisl R. Soto --
lsoto@unioncounsel.net -- and Alejandro Delgado --
adelgado@unioncounsel.net -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Rutan & Tucker and George W. Shaeffer, Jr. -- bshaeffer@rutan.com
-- for Defendant and Respondent.


LYFT INC: Oliver Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY A. OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Lyft, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01488 (N.D. Cal.,
March 21, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unauthorized text message calls to consumers' cellular telephones
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, despite the
Plaintiff entering "stop" in response text messages to the
Defendant.

According to the complaint, in a misguided effort to promote its
ride-sharing service to former drivers, Lyft, an operator of a
nationwide ride-sharing network, engaged in an invasive and
unlawful form of outreach through the transmission of unauthorized
text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
throughout the nation.

By effectuating unauthorized text message calls, the Defendant has
violated the called parties' statutory rights and has caused
consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to
the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies unauthorized automated text messages, but also because
consumers, like the Plaintiff, must frequently pay their cell phone
service providers or incur a usage allocation deduction from their
calling plans for the receipt of such messages, notwithstanding
that the text messages were made in violation of specific
legislation on the subject, the lawsuit says.

Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California and operating in the United States and
Canada. It develops, markets, and operates the Lyft mobile app.
Launched in June 2012, Lyft operates in approximately 300 U.S.
cities, and provides over 1 million rides per day.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Edwin I. Aimufua, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN I. AIMUFUA
          11150 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite A
          Mission Hills, CA 91345-1126
          Telephone: (747) 246 4141
          Facsimile: (818) 855 1118
          E-mail: eia@aimufualaw.com

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, 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 company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Superior Court of San Juan, Puerto Rico.

On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the
Company that it had been served with a putative class action
lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant
Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own
behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy
Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC;
Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan.

The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an
electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least
$300 million.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.

Mammoth Energy said, "However, the Company continues to evaluate
the facts and circumstances and at this time is not able to predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material
impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations
or cash flows."

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an oilfield service
company. The company operates in three segments: Infrastructure
Services, Pressure Pumping Services, and Natural Sand Proppant
Services. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Boyd Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
William Boyd, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc. and Starwood
Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00205-JM (E.D. Ark., March 26, 2019) is a proposed class
action on behalf of all persons who have suffered, and continue to
suffer, financial losses and increased data security risks arising
as a direct result of the Defendants' failure to safeguard their
personal information.

This action arises from a four-year long data breach experienced by
the Defendants wherein the data of over 500 million customers of
Marriott's Starwood division was compromised. The Defendants'
laxity and security deficiencies were so significant that hackers
were not only able to breach Defendants' systems, but they were
able to go undetected for a four-year time period. As one privacy
expert stated, "They can say all they want that they take security
seriously, but they don't if you can be hacked over a four-year
period without noticing."

The Defendants' security failures put Plaintiff's and Class and
Subclass members' personal information at serious, immediate, and
ongoing risk, resulting in costs and expenses to Plaintiff and
members of the Class and Subclass in time spent and the loss of
productivity in taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate,
mitigate and deal with the actual and future consequences of the
theft of their personal information, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Pulaski County, Arkansas. Plaintiff
provided Defendants with his PII.

Marriott International, Inc. is a publicly-traded corporation with
its principal place of business at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Henry, Esq.
     Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
     David Slade, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 W. 7th St.
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 312-8500
     Fax: (501) 312-8505


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Murphy Suit Moved to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRYAN E. MURPHY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00609, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on February
27, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00524-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Murphy suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancy.com

               - and -

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          Frank Castiglione, 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: kasif@khowajalaw.com
                  fcastiglione@khowajalaw.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


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Raab Suit Moved to District of Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SUSAN GOLDFINE RAAB, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC; STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE
INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08007, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on February 27, 2019.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00522-PWG to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Raab suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 2879.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

              - and -

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


MBI ENERGY: Overtime Compensation for Wireline Engineers Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MBI ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; MISSOURI
BASIN WELL SERVICE, INC. d/b/a MBI ENERGY; and HIGH PLAINS INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00800 (D. Colo., March 18, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his
similarly situated co-workers -- salaried wireline engineers and
all other similar workers -- who work or have worked for MBI Energy
Services, Inc., Missouri Basin Well Service, Inc., and High Plains
Inc. in the United States under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
Colorado Wage Laws, and orth Dakota Wage Law.

MBI has made several significant and strategic acquisitions to
position itself as a broad-based oilfield services company,
including, among other services, wireline units. In this regard,
MBI acquired High Plains, Inc. in 2011, and officially merged High
Plains, Inc. with MBI Energy in June 2016, to increase its well
completion and wireline services.

Accordng to the complaint, in order to offer its completion
services, MBI Energy employs several hundreds of oilfield workers
throughout the United States, including oilfield workers to support
its cased-hole wireline division for completions and well
intervention services it offers its clients.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated Wireline Engineers work on the
oil well sites and typically work at least 12-hour shifts, 7 days a
week, for weeks at a time, all while in some of the harshest
working conditions.

In order to avoid paying Wireline Engineers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendants uniformly
misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding state wage and hour
laws.

Despite this classification, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Wireline Engineers have non-exempt primary duties. In this regard,
Wireline Engineers have non-exempt primary duties that involve
operating a wireline truck's winch, lowering tools down wells,
setting wireline plugs, setting lines in the well site, rigging up
and rigging down well sites, and completing route client/company
checklists. Moreover, Wireline Engineers cannot hire or fire
employees, nor are they involved in the interview process. As such,
Wireline Engineers are non-exempt employees under the FLSA and
corresponding state wage and hour laws.

Established in North Dakota in 1979, MBI Energy has grown to a $600
million company and is a leader in completion and well intervention
and water management and logistics. MBI has established its
presence in the Williston Basin in North Dakota and the Rocky
Mountain region, and has further expanded to offer services in the
Eagle Ford play in Texas, the Marcellus play in Pennsylvania, and
the Niobrara play in Wyoming. Moreover, as explained by MBI Energy
CEO Jim Arthaud in Energy & Mining International Magazine, MBI
Energy's workforce has grown from 200 to "more than 1,600
employees" in recent years. In May 2018, global investment firm
Cerberus Capital Management acquired MBI Energy to continue its
expansion in to the oilfield services market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Putative Collective and Classes:

          Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza No. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Appeal in Martin Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case,
Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years.

Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has
engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on
life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower
authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful
business practice under California law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Defend Miller Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Miller, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed January 4,
2019).

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in this putative class
action, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company allegedly charged smoker rates
for certain non-smokers.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Approves Settlement in Voshall Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court
has approved the parties' settlement in Voshall v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company .

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments
and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits
and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such
policies.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The parties reached a settlement, which the court approved on
January 3, 2019.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Non-Certification of Sales Practice Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Court
of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed the lower court's decision to
not certify the sales practices claims in the Ontario regarding Sun
Life Assurance Company's of Canada Indemnity Claim.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that
were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment.
In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the
policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and
transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that another purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is obligated to indemnify
Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits.

In September 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the
lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in
the Ontario Litigation.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Owens Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan.
The action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by
members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's
partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court
certified a nationwide class. The court also certified a Georgia
subclass.

Metropolitan Life said, "The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously."

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Roycroft Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court
has dismissed the class action suit entitled, Roycroft v. MetLife,
Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed June 18, 2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons
due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not receive
the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiff asserts
claims for unjust enrichment, accounting, and restitution based on
allegations that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife,
Inc. failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group
annuitants.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

The court dismissed this matter as to all defendants on January 15,
2019.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Julian & McKinney
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD
claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Court Approves Accord in FCRA-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the California
Superior Court has approved the parties' settlement of a class
action alleging illegal background checks.

On December 11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc. (MSI) was served with a
lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former
employee. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing
plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a
putative class of applicants who applied for employment with
Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background
check for employment was procured.

The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization
to conduct background checks. Since the initial filing, another
named plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February
2015, Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
with substantially similar allegations.

The plaintiffs sought statutory and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the case in New Jersey, five additional
purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were filed,
Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Michelle
Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California
for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Sue
Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition,
the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged
violations of California's unfair competition law.

The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as well as the claims
by Michele Castro, have been dismissed.

The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were
transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District of
New Jersey.

On January 24, 2017, the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing was granted, and the court declined to rule on the merits
of plaintiffs' claims. The dismissal order was stayed for 30 days
to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. Because there
were no amendments filed, two of the three centralized cases were
dismissed and subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and the remaining case (Michelle Bercut) was
remanded to California Superior Court.

The parties reached a class settlement which was approved by the
California Superior Court on October 10, 2018. The resolution of
the lawsuits did not have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements.

The Michaels Companies, Inc. owns and operates arts and crafts
specialty retail stores for Makers and do-it-yourself home
decorators in North America. It operates Michaels stores that offer
approximately 45,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) in crafts, home
decor and seasonal, framing, and paper crafting. The Michaels
Companies, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Irving,
Texas.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces 3 Class Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in three class action lawsuits in New York.

On January 23, 2019, a complaint was filed against Micron and two
of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and David Zinsner, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of our
stock during the period from June 22, 2018 through November 19,
2018.

Subsequently two substantially similar cases were filed in the same
court adding one of our former officers, Ernie Maddock, as a
defendant and alleging a class action period from September 26,
2017 through November 19, 2018.

The three complaints allege that defendants committed securities
fraud through misrepresentations and omissions about purported
anticompetitive behavior in the DRAM industry and seek compensatory
and punitive damages, fees, interest, costs, and other appropriate
relief.

Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Tillman Files Class Suit under FDCPA in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Devonna Tillman also known
as: Fricks, Devonna, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Midland Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-04030-SOH (W.D. Ark., March 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., 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 is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Salim Says Financial Report Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------
SHAYAN SALIM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOBILE TELESYSTEMS PJSC, ANDREI A.
DUBOVSKOV, ALEXEY V. KORNYA, and ANDREY KAMENSKY, the
Defendants,Case No. 1:19-cv-01589 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Mobile
TeleSystems from March 19, 2014 through March 7, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

According to the complaint, on March 18, 2014, the Company
announced that had "received a voluntary request for documents and
information regarding [its] business in Uzbekistan from the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission regarding investigations
into the activities of unaffiliated parties."

On March 19, 2014, the Company disclosed that "the United States
Department of Justice also is conducting a parallel investigation
related to Mobile's former operations in Uzbekistan which concerned
Mobile and not merely the activities of unaffiliated parties."

On April 24, 2014, the Company filed a Form 20-F with the SEC,
which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013. The 2013 20-F was signed by Defendant
Dubovskov. The 2013 20-F contained signed certifications pursuant
to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Dubovskov and
Kornya attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all
fraud.

On November 20, 2018, the Company disclosed that it had reserved
approximately $840 million as the potential liability concerning
investigations by the SEC and the DOJ into its former operations in
Uzbekistan.  On this news, shares of Mobile TeleSystems' stock
price fell $0.64 per share or nearly 8% to close at $7.45 per share
on November 20, 2018. On March 7, 2019, the DOJ reported that the
Company and its subsidiary entered into an agreement to pay $850
million in penalties to the United States to resolve charges
arising from its role in a scheme to pay $420 million in bribes in
Uzbekistan. Shares in Mobile TeleSystems' stock fell $0.24 per
share or over 3% to close at $7.54 per share on March 7, 2019,
damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Mobile TeleSystems purports to provide telecommunication services
in Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, and Armenia. The Company is
incorporated in the Russian Federation with headquarters in Moscow,
Russia. The Company's securities are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "MBT."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MONEY MAP: Carfagno Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
Terri Carfagno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Money Map Press, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00728 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
arising from the Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the
TCPA.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing
consists of sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to
purchase its goods and/or services. The Defendant caused thousands
of unsolicited text 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. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages
on behalf of herself and Class Members, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Sarasota County, Florida.

Defendant is a Maryland corporation who sells literary
subscriptions to consumers which include self-help financial
courses and documents.[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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Butkovich Sues for Injuries Over Roundup Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Butkovich and Candice Butkovich, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto
Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00653 (E.D. Mo., March 26,
2019) is an action for 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,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

In 1996, the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") filed a lawsuit
against Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of
Roundup products. Among the representations the NYAG found
deceptive and misleading about the human and environmental safety
of Roundup. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same
manner in any state other than New York, and on information and
belief still has not done so today. The results of these studies
were confirmed in recently published peer-reviewed studies and were
at all times available and/or known to Defendant. The Defendant
knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than
glyphosate alone and that safety studies on Roundup, Roundup's
adjuvants and "inert" ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA were
necessary to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.

The Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately test Roundup,
Roundup's adjuvants and "inert" ingredients, and/or the surfactant
POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup. The Defendant fraudulently,
intentionally, and/or negligently misrepresented to the public, and
to the Plaintiffs, both directly and by and through the media, the
scientific literature and purported "community outreach" programs,
the safety of Roundup products, and/or fraudulently, intentionally,
and/or negligently concealed, suppressed, or omitted material,
adverse information regarding the safety of Roundup, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Bond County, Illinois who
endured personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup.

Defendant advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the
State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Cossentinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS J. COSSENTINO, and DIANA LYNN COSSENTINO, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00210-TSB
(S.D. Ohio, March 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
Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Damon B. Willis, Esq.
          EWING & WILLIS
          6009 Brownsboro Park Blvd., Suite B
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 585-5800
          Facsimile: (502) 585-5858
          E-mail: damonwillislawyer@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Says Antitrust Class Action Baseless
----------------------------------------------------------
The Real Deal reports that it takes aim at some of the central
tenets of the U.S. real estate business: Multiple Listing Services
and buyer's broker's commissions.

A new class action lawsuit alleges that the National Association of
Realtors, along with the "Big Four" -- Realogy, HomeServices of
America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams -- violated federal antitrust
law by conspiring to require home sellers to pay buyer's broker's
commissions at inflated rates. The suit was first reported by
Inman.

The complaint, filed March 6, takes aims at NAR rules that require
all brokers to offer buyer broker compensation when listing a
property on a MLS, saying this has driven up costs to the seller
and stifled competition.

"Because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients
where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission, or
will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are
incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer
to procure the buyer brokers' cooperation by offering a high
commission," the complaint reads, "Absent this rule, buyer brokers
would be paid by their clients and would compete to be retained by
offering a lower commission."

Filed on behalf of Christopher Moehrl, a homeseller from Minnesota,
the lawsuit also says it will represent any home sellers who sold
property and paid a broker commission in the last four years in
specific geographic areas covered by different regional MLSs.

This includes areas in Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio,
Colorado, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, Arizona, Virginia, Utah and the District of
Columbia.

If other homesellers joined the class action, the defendants could
find themselves potentially liable for millions of dollars.

NAR responded by calling the lawsuit "baseless."

"The U.S. Courts have routinely found that Multiple Listing
Services are pro-competitive and benefit consumers by creating
great efficiencies in the homebuying and selling process," Mantill
Williams, a spokesperson for NAR, told Inman. "NAR looks forward to
obtaining a similar precedent regarding this filing."

On its website, NAR argues that MLSs and their accompanying rules
encourage both competition and cooperation among brokers to the
benefit of the consumer.

"The real estate market is competitive, and the business is unique
in that competitors must also cooperate with each other to ensure a
successful transaction. MLS systems facilitate that cooperation,"
NAR's website states. "MLSs are a powerful force for competition.
They level the playing field so that the smallest brokerage in town
can compete with the biggest multi-state firm." [GN]


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ryan et al. Sue over Non-Calls by Referees
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RYAN; and BARBARA RYAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE,
INC.; ROGER GOODELL; WILLIAM VINOVICH, III; PATRICK TURNER; GARY
CAVALETTO; and ALBERTO RIVERON, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01811-SM-DMD (E.D. La., Feb. 27, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants over violation of league rules.

According to the complaint, the referee during the football game
ignored the fouls committed by one of the team's defender that
changed the outcome of the game. Also, the failure of the
Defendants to appropriately and publicly acknowledge, investigate
and take appropriate action per their own league rules concerning
the intentional non-calls was a violation of fan trust and the very
integrity of the game.

National Football League, Inc. owns and operates a football league
in the United States and internationally. The company offers news,
videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings;
and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass,
tools and widgets. It provides its services through online, radio,
mobile, and TV. National Football League, Inc. was formerly known
as American Professional Football Association and changed its name
to National Football League, Inc. in June 1922. The company was
founded in 1920 and is based in New York, New York. It has
operations in Canada, China, France, Japan, Mexico, and the United
Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cle Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW OFFICES
          122 Representative Row
          Lafayette, LA 70505
          Telephone: (337) 232-2000
          Facsimile: (337) 234-9274
          E-mail: cle@simonlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Duck, Esq.
          DUCK LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          5040 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Ste. 200
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 406-1144
          Facsimile: (337) 406-1050
          E-mail: krd@ducklawfirm.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stines Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANA STINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00967-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 27, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395-7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


NCC BUSINESS: Elhendi Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED ELHENDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00576 (C.D.
Cal., March 26, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

In its efforts to collect the alleged debt owed from Plaintiff, the
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system," to place
its daily calls to Plaintiff seeking to collect an alleged debt
owed. The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone, says the complaint.

Furthermore, Plaintiff orally revoked any and all consent to be
contacted using an automated telephone dialing system, to the
extent any ever existed. Despite Plaintiff's oral revocation of
consent to be called, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiff, MOHAMED ELHENDI is a natural person residing in Orange
County in the state of California.

NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. is company engaged in collection
activity in connection with debts allegedly owed to it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 323-306-4234
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com


NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bail System Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DARLENE
COLLINS; BAIL BOND ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO; RICHARD MARTINEZ;
BILL SHARER; CRAIG BRANDT; cARL TRUJILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
CHARLES W. DANIELS; EDWARD L. CHAVEZ; PETRA JIMENEZ MAEZ; BARBARA
J. VIGIL; JUDITH K. NAKAMURA; NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT; NAN NASH;
THE SECOND JUDICIAL COURT; HENRY A. ALAINZ; ROBERT L. PADILLA;
BERNALILLO COUNTY METROPOLITAN COURT; JAMES NOEL; BERNALILLO
COUNTY; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF BERNALILLO,
Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 17-2217 and 18-2045. (10th Cir.).

This is a Section 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality
of New Mexico's system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene
Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (BBANM), and five
New Mexico state legislators allege that New Mexico's system of
bail violates the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as
well as the procedural and substantive components of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
because it found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lack
standing, the Defendants are immune from suit, and the Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim.

BBANM

The Plaintiffs argue that BBANM has standing because it (1) has
associational standing and (2) has third-party standing to assert
the constitutional rights of potential customers who will be denied
bail.

In reality, whether BBANM has standing is only a question of
third-party standing. An association has standing to raise the
claims of its members, only if: (a) its members would otherwise
have standing to sue in their own right (b) the interests it seeks
to protect are germane to the organization's purpose and (c)
neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the
participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
   
The Court need only consider the first prong of associational
standing. Because BBANM's members are not criminal defendants, they
do not possess the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights asserted
in the Plaintiffs' complaint. Therefore, like BBANM itself, BBANM's
members only have standing if they can assert the constitutional
rights of criminal defendants.

The Legislator Plaintiffs

A threshold question in the legislator standing inquiry is whether
the legislator-plaintiffs assert an institutional injury.
Individual legislators may not support standing by alleging only an
institutional injury. An institutional injury constitutes some
injury to the power of the legislature as a whole rather than harm
to an individual legislator.

The Plaintiffs suggest that the Legislator Plaintiffs have standing
to challenge the 2017 Rules because the rules represent an
unconstitutional usurpation of legislative] power by the New Mexico
Supreme Court.

Darlene Collins

The Defendants do not challenge Collins's standing on appeal,
though they did unsuccessfully raise the issue before the district
court in their motion to dismiss. The Court can raise issues of
standing and mootness sua sponte because the Court have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.

In summary, BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lack standing to
assert the claims raised in this case; Collins has standing to seek
damages and retrospective declaratory relief based on the alleged
violation of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; but
Collins's claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief
are moot. Therefore, we turn to the question of whether Defendants
are immune to Collins's claims for damages and retrospective
declaratory relief.

The Court review de novo whether Defendants are immune from suit.
The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of
establishing the justification for such immunity. Three immunity
doctrines are at issue in this case, sovereign immunity, judicial
immunity, and legislative immunity.

Sovereign Immunity

Per the Eleventh Amendment, states may not be sued in federal court
unless they consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless Congress,
pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unequivocally expresses its
intent to abrogate the immunity. This prohibition encompasses suits
against state agencies[ and suits against state officials acting in
their official capacities. Amendment's prohibition on suits against
states in federal court by seeking to enjoin a state official from
enforcing an unconstitutional statute.

Collins has sued three New Mexico courts and various state
officials in their official capacities to obtain declaratory and
injunctive relief. New Mexico has not consented to this suit and
Congress has not abrogated New Mexico's immunity from Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims.

Therefore, the Court must decide whether the New Mexico courts
named as defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity and whether
Ex parte Young allows Collins to proceed against the state
officials in their official capacities.

Collins's claims against the state officials in their official
capacities also fail. Collins cannot proceed under Ex parte Young
because she only has standing to seek retrospective declaratory
relief. Therefore, sovereign immunity also bars Collins's claims
against the individual defendants in their official capacities.

Judicial Immunity

Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an
immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.
The immunity applies only to personal capacity claims.  At issue
here is whether the chief judges and court executive officers of
the Second Judicial District Court and the Bernalillo County
Metropolitan Court are immune from Collins's claims for damages.

In two sentences of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the
Second Judicial District Court and the Bernalillo County
Metropolitan Court adopted and implemented the Arnold Tool. In the
district court, Plaintiffs argued that these were administrative,
not judicial, acts. The district court found that judicial immunity
barred Plaintiffs' claims against the chief judges and court
executive officers, in their individual capacities, because
Plaintiffs' claims targeted the judicial act of implementing the
2017 Rules. In their briefing on appeal, Plaintiffs never discuss
how the district court erred when analyzing judicial immunity. In a
single clause from the section of their Opening Brief discussing
Rule 11 sanctions, Plaintiffs passingly characterize adoption of
the Arnold Tool as a ministerial decision. Plaintiffs have
abandoned their argument regarding judicial immunity by failing to
address the district court's analysis or cite authority for their
position.

Legislative Immunity

Absolute legislative immunity attaches to all actions taken in the
sphere of legitimate legislative activity.  Whether an act is
legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the
motive or intent of the official performing it. A state court and
its members are immune from suit when acting in their legislative
capacity, such as by promulgating rules of general application that
are statutory in character.

In summary, sovereign immunity bars Collins's claims against the
state courts and state officials in their official capacities; the
Plaintiffs have abandoned their argument regarding judicial
immunity, which disposes of Collins's claims against the state
court chief judges and court executive officers in their individual
capacities; and legislative immunity bars Collin's claims against
the supreme court justices in their individual capacities.

To bring it all together, Collins is the only Plaintiff with
standing, but the Defendants are immune to her claims, so we do not
address the merits of Collins's claims that the 2017 Rules and the
Arnold Tool violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather,
the Court turn to the issue of sanctions.

A sanction order against an attorney currently of record is not a
final decision for purposes of a Section 1291 appeal where the
underlying controversy remains unresolved. Even once the merits of
a case have been resolved, an appeal from the award of sanctions
may not be taken until the amount has been determined. Here, the
district court's order imposing Rule 11 sanctions is a final
appealable order because the substance of the case has been
resolved and the parties have stipulated that the sanction is
$14,868.00.  The funds have been deposited in the registry of the
district court, where they are earning interest.  

The Plaintiffs' standing arguments ignored controlling precedent.
Under Kowalski, 543 U.S. at 131-34, BBANM and its members lack
standing to assert the constitutional rights of criminal
defendants. Under Kerr II, 824 F.3d at 1214-17, the Legislator
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert an institutional injury. When
the Plaintiffs were confronted with these binding authorities in
the Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for Rule 11 sanctions,
the Plaintiffs unreasonably attempted to distinguish themselves
from the plaintiffs in Kowalski and Kerr II.

The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding immunity suffer from similar
infirmities. Most glaringly, the Plaintiffs maintained that any
argument regarding sovereign immunity was just not applicable in
this case because Congress waived sovereign immunity for individual
state actors by enacting Section 1983. It also offers no
explanation why the Plaintiffs thought the New Mexico Supreme
Court, the Second Judicial District Court, and the Bernalillo
County Metropolitan Court were proper defendants. The Plaintiffs'
arguments regarding judicial and legislative immunity fare little
better.

The Plaintiffs abandoned their arguments about judicial immunity by
failing to adequately brief them on appeal. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have not shown how the district court abused its
discretion when finding that the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding
judicial immunity were not supported by existing law.

The Court ordinarily review a denial of a motion to amend a
pleading for abuse of discretion. However, when denial is based on
a determination that amendment would be futile, our review for
abuse of discretion includes de novo review of the legal basis for
the finding of futility.

While the Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for Rule 11
sanctions were pending, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint to add a new claim: that the Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to freedom of speech by moving
for sanctions.  The district court denied the motion to amend as
futile because the First Amendment does not protect frivolous
claims, so the Rule 11 Motion was not a retaliatory act to punish
the Plaintiffs, but rather, an acceptable pleading expressly
allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The right of access to the courts is an aspect of the First
Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of
grievances. As discussed when affirming the district court's
imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, the Plaintiffs' arguments
regarding standing and immunity were baseless. Therefore, the
district court correctly found that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend
was futile; the Defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions did not
interfere with the Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.  

Accordingly, the Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's February 25, 2019 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y4my9qpqfrom Leagle.com.

Richard Westfall -- rwestfall@halewestfall.com -- Hale Westfall,
Denver, Colorado (A. Blair Dunn and Dori E. Richards, Western
Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellants.

Ari Biernoff, Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Santa Fe,
New Mexico, appearing for Appellees Charles W. Daniels, Edward L.
Chavez, Petra Jimenez Maez, Barbara J. Vigil, Judith K. Nakamura,
the New Mexico Supreme Court, Nan Nash, the Second Judicial Court,
Henry Alainz, Robert Padilla, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan
Court, and James Noel.

Brandon Huss, The New Mexico Association of Counties, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, on the brief for Appellee County Commissioners of the
County of Bernalillo.


NORTH CAROLINA: Inmate's ADA Retaliation Claim Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SEELIG, the Plaintiff, vs. KENNETH LASSITER, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CT-3206-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
James C. Denver entered an order on March 18, 2019:

   1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel;

   2. appointing North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, a
non-profit legal services firm, to assist the Plaintiff with
conducting discovery;

   3. dismissing Seelig's section 1983 claim, the John Doe
Defendants, and all Defendants in their individual capacities;

   4. dismissing Seelig's request for punitive damages and Seelig's
request for compensatory damages based on Seelig's ADA retaliation
claim (Seelig may proceed with his ADA claims, but he must file a
response to this order explaining the specific role of each
defendant in his ADA claims on or before April 5, 2019. The amended
complaint will be subject to further frivolity review.); and

   5. directing the clerk to send Seelig a form section 1983
complaint with a copy of the order (Seelig's failure to file an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal of the action).

Kenneth Lassiter is North Carolina Prisons Director.

On August 7, 2018, Paul Seelig, a state inmate proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. section
1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Seelig moves for
appointment of counsel, to reassign this action to another judge,
for class certification, and for a preliminary injunction. In
addition, a second inmate, Ricky Banks, has filed motions for
sanctions and a writ of mandamus.

The Court said Seelig has not plausibly alleged that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm absent injunctive relief, that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Thus,
the court denies the motion.[BN]

O'BRIEN STEEL: Stecker Seeks OT Wages for Sales Representatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA STECKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. O'BRIEN STEEL SERVICE CO., the Defendant,
Case No. 19-CV-400 (E.D. Wisc., March 19, 2019), alleges that
O'Brien has failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the class
members for overtime wages dues in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's wage and hour laws.

Stecker contends that since March 19, 2016, O'Brien has had a
common policy and practice of failing to compensate its Inside
Sales Representatives for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
given workweek and failing to factor certain non-discretionary
bonuses into the overtime rates of the Inside Sales Representatives
for purposes of determining overtime compensation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class
work, or have worked, for O'Brien as Inside Sales Representatives
at O'Brien's Wisconsin locations at times since March 19, 2017.
Since March 19, 2016, O'Brien has employed Plaintiff Stecker and
the Classes as Inside Sales Representatives with a primary duty of
selling O'Brien's steel products.

O'Brien has failed to properly compensate Plaintiff Stecker and the
Classes at one and one-half times their respective, regular rates
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in
violation of the FLSA and in violation of Wisconsin law, the
lawsuit says.

O'Brien processes and sells steel products used in a variety of
industries, including the construction, mining, agriculture, and
railroad industries, among others.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210, PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: 414-271-8650
          Facsimile: 414-271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com

PARK KITCHEN: Court Dismisses N. Allison's Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging the doctrine of claim
preclusion bars further adjudication in in the case captioned NANCY
ALLISON and HOLLY BURNEY, both in their individual capacities and,
in addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT DOLICH and ANNA JOSEPHSON,
indivuals; and PARK KITCHEN LLC and THE BENT BRICK, LLC, Oregon
limited liability companies, Defendants. Case No. 3:14-cv-01005-AC.
(D. Or.).

Plaintiffs Nancy Allison and Holly Burney filed this collective1
and individual action against their former employer seeking money
damages and declaratory relief for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

In the Second Amended Complaint filed, the Plaintiffs alleged the
Defendants violated the Act by requiring the Plaintiffs, and
collective members, to participate in a mandatory invalid tip pool
in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m) and, consequently,
violated 29 U.S.C. Section 206 by failing to pay them the federal
minimum wage when such wage was due.

Three days after filing the Federal Complaint, the Plaintiffs
initiated a second lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Multnomah. In the Second Amended
Individual and Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged
violations of Oregon's wage and hour laws, as well as numerous
equitable and common law claims, against Dolich, Josephson, Park
Kitchen, and Bent Brick.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment in the Federal Action
on the grounds that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion.

Claim preclusion, or res judicata, generally prohibits a party from
relitigating the same claims that were raised or could have been
raised in a prior action.

Oregon case law displays a strong allegiance to the doctrine of
claim preclusion. Unlike issue preclusion, claim preclusion does
not require actual litigation of an issue of fact or law nor does
it require that the determination of the issue be essential to the
final or end result reached in the action, claim or proceeding
(Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or. 134, 140, 795 P.2d 531, 535
(1990)).  Rather, for claim preclusion to apply, a party simply
must have had the opportunity to litigate, whether or not it was
used, and finality in the previous action.

The Defendants allege the State and Federal Actions ultimately stem
from the same factual allegations: that these particular
Defendants, particularly with respect to tips, did not pay these
particular Plaintiffs the amounts Plaintiffs claim that they should
have.

The Defendants also allege the claims in both Actions could have
been litigated in one proceeding, and therefore the imposition of
claim preclusion is warranted in this Action.  

The Plaintiffs disagree, arguing the Defendants have failed, in a
variety of ways, to prove claim preclusion applies. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs allege (1) the Defendants waived res judicata by
failing to timely plead a preclusion defense and by acquiescing to
dual litigation in multiple forums (2) every claim of every
plaintiff was not decided on the merits against every defendant (3)
the State and Federal Actions do not involve the same parties (4)
the State and Federal Actions do not involve the same factual
transaction and (5) there was not a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the claims together.

Whether Defendants Timely Pleaded Res Judicata

Waiver Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c)

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' assertion of res judicata,
arguing they failed to properly plead a preclusion defense or to
plead it with adequate specificity. Consequently, the Plaintiffs
claim the Defendants' assertion of res judicata is untimely in this
case. The Defendants counter that until the jury trial concluded
and final judgment became imminent in the State Action, there was
no basis on which to plead a preclusion defense. Thus, the
Defendants allege they raised the issue "as soon as practicable
under the circumstances.

The court agrees with the Defendants. A preclusion defense was
unavailable until a final judgment issued in the State Action, and
the Defendants filed this Motion in the Federal Action shortly
after jury and bench verdicts were rendered for the Plaintiffs in
state court. In fact, the issue was fully briefed by both parties
before final judgment was entered in the State Action on February
19, 2019. The Defendants thus asserted res judicata almost
immediately upon learning its availability was imminent.  

Waiver by Acquiescence

Waiver by acquiescence is a recognized exception to the doctrine of
claim preclusion. The exception is implicated when a plaintiff
pursues multiple actions involving the same claim simultaneously
rather than sequentially. When such circumstances arise, the
defendant waives her right to rely on claim preclusion if she
acquiesces to defending multiple lawsuits by failing to timely
object to the plaintiffs pursuit of parallel litigation.  

The Plaintiffs argue the Defendants have waived their ability to
rely on res judicata because they have acquiesced to litigating in
multiple forums. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that while the
Defendants objected vociferously in the State Action, they failed
to do so in this case, and never suggested that a final judgment in
the State Action would preclude resolution of the Federal Action.

The Defendants refute the Plaintiffs' arguments, recounting their
numerous attempts to consolidate the litigation, including removing
the State Action to this court. Consequently, the Defendants allege
they have done everything short of scream from the mountaintops
that they sought to litigate this case in a single federal forum.

Here, the Defendants have attempted from the outset to utilize
multiple procedural devices to force the Plaintiffs to consolidate
the two actions into a single proceeding in one forum. At no point
have the Defendants delayed objection to the Plaintiffs' pursuit of
dual litigation, nor have they sat on their rights in either court.
The Defendants have objected vigorously and often to the
Plaintiffs' unilateral and affirmative pursuit of dual actions, and
notified both courts that parallel litigation was pending in both
forums. The Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants acquiesced to
dual litigation by failing to object in this action is meritless.

The Defendants therefore have not waived their right to assert a
preclusion defense here.

Whether Every Claim Was Decided on the Merits in the State Action

The Plaintiffs contend that at least some claims in the State
Action were not resolved on their merits, alleging the state court
ruled plaintiffs' retaliation claims against the individual
defendants would not be included in the trial because defendants
allegedly had insufficient notice of a recent change in the law
allowing them.

The Defendants counter that each of the Plaintiffs' retaliation
claims were resolved on the merits by the state court's entry of
summary judgment or at trial. The Defendants explain the state
court declined to allow only one of six retaliation claims to move
forward against Dolich and Josephson individually because it was
unclear in the State Complaint whether the claim was asserted
against them as individuals.  

The Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing. Evidence in the record
indicates only one of six separate retaliation claims adjudicated
in the State Action were alleged against Dolich and Josephson
individually, while four were alleged solely against Park Kitchen
and one against Defendants generally.

Whether the State and Federal Actions Involve the Same Parties

The Plaintiffs do not dispute the State and Federal Actions involve
the same defendants, but allege the two actions do not involve the
same plaintiffs. At oral argument on the Motion, the Plaintiffs
specifically argued opt-in plaintiff Mary Bartlett (Bartlett) was
not a party to the State Action and therefore is not subject to
preclusion in this case.

The record before the court, however, reveals that Bartlett is
listed in the Plaintiffs' exhibits summarizing relevant records and
alleged damages among the minimum wage, wrongful deduction, and
tip-theft class members in the State Action. In fact, the state
filings submitted here demonstrate Bartlett was entitled to damages
as a member of both the successful minimum wage and wrongful
deduction classes. The Federal and State Actions therefore involved
the same parties and the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are
meritless.

Whether the State and Federal Actions Involve the Same Factual
Transaction

The Defendants allege the State and Federal Actions unquestionably
flow from the same factual transaction. Specifically, the
Defendants cite a number of similarities between the two, arguing
both cases involve the same parties; the same allegedly unlawful
policy of pooling tips among managers and front-of-the-house and
back-of-the-house employees; the same paychecks, rates of pay and
pay dates and the same allegedly unlawful motivation for
terminating.
  
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that Allison and Burney's individual
claims in the Federal and State Actions are based on identical
facts. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue two separate transactions are
involved here: (1) the Defendants' taking of the Plaintiffs' tips
and failing to pay them; and (2) the Defendant's failure to pay the
appropriate federal minimum wage.

Time

Time is a significant factor that requires the reviewing court to
consider whether enough events giving rise to the second claim
occurred prior to the initiation of the first claim so the party
against whom preclusion is sought could have combined the later
claims with the earlier ones.  

The Plaintiffs contend the events giving rise to the State and
Federal Action are different in time because the tip claims in the
State Action are based on the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiffs' tips in a weekly tip check, whereas the Federal Action
is based on the Defendants' failure to pay the federal minimum wage
in a biweekly paycheck.

The Defendants' tip-pooling practices within an overlapping period
of time, and the Defendants' liability stemming from those
practices had already arisen at the time both lawsuits were filed.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs admitted to this court and conceded in
multiple documents that all of their claims could have been filed
together in one action, but that they affirmatively chose not to do
so. The time factor therefore weighs in favor of preclusion.

Space

Closely related to the time factor, the space criterion requires
the court to consider whether the events giving rise to liability
are physically far removed from each other.

The wrongful acts in both the State and Federal Actions allegedly
occurred in identical physical locations: Park Kitchen and the Bent
Brick, restaurants located in the City of Portland.

The Plaintiffs claim the dissimilar violations at issue in the
State and Federal Actions were different in place, but they do not
allege, and the record does not reflect, the violations at issue in
either case occurred in any location other than Park Kitchen or the
Bent Brick. The space factor thus weighs in favor of preclusion.

Origin

The origin factor refers to the harm at issue whatever it was that
caused the party against whom preclusion is asserted to complain in
the first place.

The Plaintiffs allege the origin of the harm in the State and
Federal Actions is different because the State Action is based on
the Defendants' taking and nonpayment of the Plaintiffs' tips,
while the Federal Action is based on Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wage.   

The Defendants take a broader view, arguing the harm in both the
State and Federal Actions originated largely from the taking and
redistribution of the Plaintiffs' tips pursuant to the tip-pooling
policy, which included wrongfully distributing tips to both front-
and back-of-house employees and management.

The source of the complaint in the Federal Action was the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage to which
they were entitled as a result of the Defendants taking their tips
pursuant to an invalid tip pool. The origin of the harm in both
cases thus is the reduction in pay inflicted on the Plaintiffs'
through mandatory participation in the invalid tip pool. The origin
factor weighs in favor of preclusion.

Motivation

Motivation, which may be viewed objectively or subjectively and can
be a pivotal consideration, requires the court to consider whether
the defendants committed a series of acts against the plaintiff
motivated by a common plan or scheme.

Here, the Defendants' acts against Plaintiffs in both actions were
motivated by a common scheme: the invalid tip pool. The Defendants'
failure to pay the appropriate minimum wage was also due to
adherence to the invalid tip-pooling policy because the scheme
effectively lowered Plaintiffs' wages below the federal minimum
wage rate. Motivation therefore weighs in favor of preclusion.

Convenience

The convenience factor requires the court to consider issues of
trial convenience, and whether the party against whom preclusion is
sought had the ability to try the various claims at issue in a
single proceeding.  

In the State Action, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants
wrongfully took ownership of Plaintiffs' tips by requiring them to
participate in an invalid tip pool and failed to pay them the tips
to which they were entitled. In the Federal Action, Plaintiffs
alleged Defendants' invalid tip pool lowered their effective
minimum wage rate below the federal minimum to which they were
entitled. Both actions relied on the same pay and time records, the
same witnesses, proof of the same events occurring during the same
time period, and Allison and Burney's testimony which was virtually
identical in both cases.

The Plaintiffs, however, argue the State and Federal Actions could
not have been conveniently litigated in one proceeding.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege fewer than 40 members made up each
subclass for the state claims too few to meet the numerosity
requirement for class certification in federal court.

The Plaintiffs provide no authority, from this district or
otherwise, to support the proposition that a class or subclass of
fewer than 40 members cannot be certified. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
have failed to point to any evidence in the record of this case
that supports an inference of this court's unwillingness to certify
a class or subclass composed of less than 40 members. There is no
reason to believe that the classes would need to be further broken
down beyond the minimum wage, wrongful deduction, and tip theft
classes, as Plaintiffs suggested in oral argument.

The factors considered in determining whether numerosity is met
thus would have favored finding the requirement is met here.
Plaintiffs' contention that numerosity would have prevented
litigating the State and Federal Actions together in a single forum
are unpersuasive.

The convenience factor thus weighs in favor of preclusion.

Similarity of Acts

Finally, the court must consider the similarity between the acts
that caused harm to the plaintiff. If the acts giving rise to the
harm complained of are very different, such as a physical assault
and a forgery, the argument for preclusion is diminished.  

Here, the acts about which the Plaintiffs complain in the two cases
are different, but the acts combine to cause a single form of harm.
The State Action alleged tort and equitable claims stemming from
the theft of Plaintiffs' tips whereas the Federal Action alleged a
statutory violation under federal law for failing to pay the
required minimum wage. Though these acts are different on their
face, they both harm the Plaintiffs by withholding the pay to which
they are entitled.

Whether All Claims Could Have Been Fully and Fairly Litigated
Together

The Plaintiffs claim formal barriers create an exception to the
preclusive effect that might otherwise bar their federal claims.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the numerosity required for
class certification in federal actions, Oregon's constitutional
right to a non-unanimous jury verdict, inadequate notice to the
state class action members, and the substantial question of whether
this court would have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims created formal procedural barriers preventing the
Plaintiffs from litigating both their class action state law claims
and federal FLSA claims together in one lawsuit.  

The Plaintiffs' objections hold little weight. First, as discussed
in Section III-E, supra, the numerosity requirement for class
action certification in a federal forum does not bar the Plaintiffs
from bringing their claims in one action. Plaintiffs have provided
no evidence or authorities to suggest that this court would have
denied class certification based on a failure to meet the
numerosity requirement.

Second, that a plaintiff who files in state court may take
advantage of the unique non-unanimous jury rule provided by the
Oregon Constitution is of no consequence to whether or not
Plaintiffs could have fully and fairly litigated their state and
federal claims together.  

Third, the Plaintiffs' claim that binding the parties to the state
class action would violate their due process rights since they did
not receive proper notice that final judgment might preclude their
federal claims is unpersuasive.  

Finally, supplemental jurisdiction would have applied to the state
claims if the Plaintiffs had brought all of their claims in one
suit. There is nothing about the facts or legal theories involved
in either action that are unique or extraordinary such as to create
an exception. The Plaintiffs have provided no opinions from this
district, much less this court, that support their suggestion that
supplemental jurisdiction might not have been exercised.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y4vgold4from
Leagle.com.

Nancy Allison, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as
a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, Holly
Burney, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as a
collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, Rebecca
Elroy, Teal Garrels, Elizabeth McElligott, Bradford Bohrer, Tiffany
Cheri Cordeiro, Camille Titus, Nate Hillenkamp, True Name:, Mark
MacMinn, Beth Harding, Suzanne Latham, Nicholaus Petersen, also
known as Nic Petersen, Faith Holifield, Brandon Page, Eric Pavey,
Nicola Breuer, Lauren Boden, Mary Bartlett, Deanna Ternes, Andrea
Baiz-Escobedo & Tara Gower, Plaintiffs, represented by Jon M. Egan,
Jon M. Egan, P.C.

Scott Dolich, individual, Park Kitchen LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, Anna Josephson, individual & The Bent Brick,
LLC, Defendants, represented by John Baird Dudrey --
john.dudrey@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Karen L. O'Connor --
karen.oconnor@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

Anthony Motschenbacher, Interested Party, represented by Stephen P.
Rickles, The Rickles Law Firm, PC.


PASCHEN MANAGEMENT: Faces Morales Labor Suit in Ventura County
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Paschen Management Corporation. The case is captioned as COBY
MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PASCHEN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and
MCDONALDS USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 56-2019-00525405-CU-OE-VTA
(Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., Feb. 27, 2019).

Paschen Management Corporation, doing business as Mcdonald's,
operates as a fast food restaurant. The Company provides burger,
sandwich, drink, salad, and chicken products. Mcdonald's serves
customers in the State of California. [BN]


PROSPERA HOTELS: Anton Alleges Mishandling of Credit Card Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Prospera Hotels,
Inc. for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case is
captioned KELLY ANTON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROSPERA HOTELS, INC. d/b/a HYATT
HOUSE AT ANAHEIM RESORT/CONVENTION CENTER, a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00534 (C.D. Cal., March
25, 2019).

The Plaintiff alleges that the defendant knowingly or recklessly
providing Plaintiff and Class members with electronically printed
receipts that bear 10 of the 16 digits instead of the last five
digits. The FCRA unequivocally states that no person who accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall
print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the
expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the
point of the sale or transaction. By printing 10 of 16 digits,
Defendant risked that Plaintiff's and Class members' credit card
numbers would be compromised. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n on behalf of
herself and similarly situated Class members who paid for
Defendant's services with a credit or debit card.

Prospera Hotels, Inc is a California corporation with its principal
place of business located at 333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1900,
Orange, California 92868. It is a fully integrated hotel real
estate and investment company providing expertise in development,
operations, project management, Prospera’s portfolio consists of
five hotels and resorts of various brands located throughout
Anaheim, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
     Tanya Koshy, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1970 Broadway, Ste 1070
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 254-6808
     E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
             tkoshy@tzlegal.com

             - and –

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: (305) 479-2299
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@shamisgentile.com

             - and –

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
             utanski@edelsberglaw.com



PURDUE PHARMA: Cass County Sues Over Deceptive Marketing for Opioid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cass County, North Dakota and the City of Grand Forks, North
Dakota, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., Purdue Products
L.P., Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., Richard S. Sackler, Jonathan D.
Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe A. Sackler, Ilene Sackler
Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler, Theresa Sackler, David A. Sackler, Trust
for the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family, Endo
International plc, Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis plc, Allergan
Finance LLC f/k/a Actavis, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a
Watson Pharma, Inc., Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Mallinckrodt plc,
Mallinckrodt LLC, SpecGx LLC, Cardinal Health, Inc., McKesson
Corporation, and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00055-DLH-ARS (D. N.D., March 26, 2019) arises from the
opioid epidemic nuisance created by Defendants and seeks to recover
damages incurred as a result of Defendants' actions and omissions.

North Dakota, like many states across the country, is facing an
unprecedented opioid addiction epidemic. In 2015, there were
approximately 466,000 opioid prescriptions written (60
prescriptions per 100 people) in North Dakota. In 2016, the state's
medical examiners reported 54 Opioid Related Overdose Deaths.

The complaint asserts that drug manufacturers' deceptive marketing
and sale of opioids to treat chronic pain is one of the main
drivers of the opioid epidemic. Historically, prescription opioids
had been used for short-term, post-surgical and trauma-related
pain, and for palliative end-of-life care primarily in cancer
patients. The prevailing and accurate understanding of the enormous
risks and limited benefits of long-term opioid use constrained drug
manufacturers' ability to drive sales. In order to decrease
reasonable concerns about opioids and to maximize profits, opioid
manufacturers, including defendants Purdue, the Sackler Defendants,
Janssen, Endo, Cephalon, Insys, Mallinckrodt and Actavis
("Marketing Defendants") engaged in a concerted, coordinated
strategy to shift the way in which doctors and patients think about
pain and, specifically, to encourage the use of opioids to treat
not just the relative few who suffer from acute post-surgical pain
and end-stage cancer pain, but the masses who suffer from common
chronic pain conditions.

The Marketing Defendants deliberately conceived these strategies to
create, and in fact did create, an entirely new "health care"
narrative--one in which opioids are considered safe and effective
for long-term use and any pain is aggressively treated regardless
of the long-term costs, notes the complaint. The Marketing
Defendants' intention was to normalize aggressive prescribing of
opioids for various kinds of pain by downplaying the very real
risks of opioids, especially the risk of addiction, and by
exaggerating the benefits of use. False messages about the safety,
addictiveness and efficacy were disseminated by infiltrating
professional medical societies and crafting and influencing
industry guidelines in order to disseminate false and deceptive
pro-opioid communiques under the guise of science and truth, the
complaint asserts.

The Defendants were aware of the quantities and frequency with
which those drugs were distributed to entities in and around
Plaintiffs' areas. However, the Defendants persisted in failing to
report suspicious sales as required by state and federal law. Their
failure to follow the law significantly contributed to rising
addiction and overdose rates in Plaintiffs' jurisdictions, says the
complaint.

Cass County is the most populous county in North Dakota, with a
population of more than 175,000 people. It is home to the largest
city in North Dakota, Fargo.

Defendants are regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing
and distributing prescription opioids, either directly or
indirectly through third-party related entities, in this
State.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph A. Wetch, Jr., Esq.
     SERKLAND LAW FIRM
     10 Roberts Street North
     Fargo, ND 58108
     Phone: 701.232.8957
     Email: jwetch@serklandlaw.com

          - and -

     AELISH M. BAIG, Esq.
     MATTHEW S. MELAMED, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415.288.4545
     Fax: 415.288.4534
     Email: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com
            mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     PAUL J. GELLER, Esq.
     MARK J. DEARMAN, Esq.
     DOROTHY P. ANTULLIS, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: 561.750.3000
     Fax: 561.750.3364
     Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
            mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
            dantullis@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     THOMAS E. EGLER, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619.231.1058
     Fax: 619.231.7423
     Email: tome@rgrdlaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Harris Alleges Violation under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services
Incorporated. The case is styled as Antoinette Harris and Jasmine
Roebuck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Republic Services Incorporated, Republic
Services Customer Resource Center West LLC and Republic Services
Customer Resource Center East LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01891-JJT (D. Ariz., March 21, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Republic Services, Inc is the second largest provider of
non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, disposal,
recycling, and energy services in the United States, as measured by
revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Austin Winters Anderson, Esq.
   Anderson2X PLLC
   819 N Upper Broadway
   Corpus Christi, TX 78401
   Tel: (361) 452-1279
   Fax: (361) 452-1284
   Email: austin@a2xlaw.com

      - and -

   Corey R Feltre, Esq.
   Lubin & Enoch PC
   349 N 4th Ave.
   Phoenix, AZ 85003
   Tel: (602) 234-0008
   Fax: (602) 626-3586
   Email: corey@lubinandenoch.com

      - and -

   Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq.
   Lubin & Enoch PC
   349 N 4th Ave
   Phoenix, AZ 85003
   Tel: (602) 234-0008
   Fax: (602) 626-3586
   Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com

      - and -

   Stanley Lubin, Esq.
   Lubin & Enoch PC
   349 N 4th Ave
   Phoenix, AZ 85003
   Tel: (602) 234-0008
   Fax: (602) 626-3586
   Email: stan@lubinandenoch.com


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Robotics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, In re Restoration
Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo (the "Superior Court"), captioned Wong v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609.

On June 21, 2018 and June 28, 2018, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF,
respectively.

On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court related the
Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions and reassigned the Yzeiraj action to
Judge Edward J. Davila.

The Wong and Guerrini complaints names the company as defendants,
and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors, certain of the company's venture capital investors and
the underwriters in the company's initial public offering (IPO).

The Yzeiraj complaint names the company as defendants and certain
of its current and former executive officers and directors.

The Wong complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act.

The Guerrini and Yzeiraj complaints assert claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints all allege, among
other things, that our Registration Statement filed with the SEC on
September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October
13, 2017 in connection with the company's IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages,
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 8, 2018, the company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Wong complaint based on the forum selection clause
designating the federal district courts as the exclusive forum for
claims arising under the Securities Act contained in our Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and which asked the
court in the alternative to stay the Wong action.

Also, on August 8, 2018, the venture capital investor and
underwriters' defendants in the Wong action filed demurrers to the
Wong complaint, and the company, along with certain of the
company's current and former executive officers and directors,
joined in the venture capital investor defendants' demurrer.

A hearing on the company's motion to dismiss and the demurrers to
the Wong complaint was held on October 24, 2018. The company is
unable to predict the date on which the Superior Court will issue
any decision at this time.

On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court granted a
Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edgardo
Guerrini, which consolidated the Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions under
the caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD. The U.S. Northern District Court held
an initial hearing on January 24, 2019.

Restoration Robotics said, "We believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


RIP CURL INC: Traynor Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rip Curl, Inc. The
case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rip Curl, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02701 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Rip Curl is an Australian designer, manufacturer, and retailer of
surfing sportswear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Traynor Files Class Action Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Running Warehouse,
LLC. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Running Warehouse, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02707 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Running Warehouse, LLC is a privately held company in San Luis
Obispo, CA and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Wholesale Shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHERWOOD FORD: Alberta Court Tosses Class Action Over Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Froese, Esq. -- tfroese@mccarthy.ca -- and Kyle McMillan,
Esq., -- kmcmillan@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
recently struck a proposed class proceeding as an abuse of process,
refused to allow the proposed representative plaintiff (a
non-lawyer) to represent the proposed class, declared the plaintiff
to be a vexatious litigant, and restricted his future access to the
Court.  In Biley v Sherwood Ford Limited, 2019 ABQB 95, the Court
considered three separate actions by a self-represented plaintiff,
including a $11 million proposed class action.  Justice Kendell
rejected the plaintiff's argument that "[s]elf represented class
actions may be the only realistic way this large class of
vulnerable people receives justice" and held that the class action
was "futile, abusive litigation" and the plaintiff was a "busybody"
litigant with no legitimate interest in the proposed class action.


The plaintiff launched the proposed class action against his former
employer, an Edmonton car dealership, alleging that it had
unlawfully withheld commissions from its sales employees, including
himself.  However, he had already commenced an individual civil
claim against his former employer based on the same alleged
conduct.  This led the Court to find that the plaintiff had no
legitimate interest in the class action, and it was merely
"duplicate collateral attack litigation" and evidence of the
plaintiff's abusive intent.   

Also problematic was the plaintiff's attempt to represent other
class members, despite being self-represented, as section 106 of
the Legal Profession Act (Alberta) prohibits non-lawyers from
engaging in the practice of law. The plaintiff attempted to rely on
exceptions in section 106(2) that allow a person to represent
themselves in court on matters in which they are a party. The Court
followed the 2012 Alberta Queen's Bench case of Champagne v Sidorky
and rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that section 106(2)
does not allow a non-lawyer to represent any other person, even if
the non-lawyer is also a party in the same matter.

Interestingly, the plaintiff seems to have been aware of the
novelty of his self-representative-plaintiff application because he
also argued that self-representation on behalf of a class was a
necessary step in the evolution of the legal system in order to
provide adequate access to justice. The plaintiff attempted to
frame his class action suit as "Public Interest Litigation", citing
Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United
Against Violence Society. Justice Kendell discussed the numerous
problems with this approach, including that the class action was
based on claims in tort and contract rather than constitutional
challenges and that the class members could commence their own
individual claims if they felt that the defendant had withheld
commissions.

The Court took into consideration the entire suite of litigation
– including an earlier class action against another car
dealership - in its detailed analysis of abusive litigation and
vexatious litigants.  It struck the class action under Rule 3.68 of
the Alberta Rules of Court and used its inherent jurisdiction to
declare the proposed representative plaintiff to be a vexatious
litigant, imposing broad restrictions on his future access to
Alberta courts.

This case not only confirms that self-represented litigants cannot
be representative plaintiffs in class actions, but underscores the
importance of guarding against the misuse of class proceedings.
The procedural mechanisms of class actions are intended to enhance
judicial efficiency and access to justice, not to be abused for
vexatious purposes. [GN]


SI FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Class Action in Baltimore
------------------------------------------------------
SI Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County entitled, Parshall v. Mark
Alliod, et al.

On February 20, 2019, one purported SI Financial stockholder filed
a putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial, Berkshire
Hills and the members of the SI Financial board of directors in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, captioned Parshall v. Mark
Alliod, et al., Docket No. C-03-CV-19-000124 (the "Complaint").

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI
Financial stockholders, generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to SI Financial and its
stockholders in connection with a Merger Agreement.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: BHLB) ("Berkshire") and SI
Financial Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SIFI) ("SIFI") announced in December
the signing of a definitive merger agreement under which Berkshire
will acquire SIFI and its subsidiary, Savings Institute Bank and
Trust Company ("Savings Institute"), in an all-stock transaction
valued at $180 million based on Berkshire's stock price as of the
close of business on December 10, 2018.

On April 2, 2019, SI Financial announced that its stockholders
approved the merger deal at a meeting of the Company's stockholders
held on April 2. The stockholders of the Company also approved the
non-binding proposal with respect to the merger-related
compensation payable to the executive officers of the Company.
Subject to the receipt of the required regulatory approvals and the
satisfaction of customary closing conditions, the parties expect to
close the merger in the second quarter of 2019.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to secure adequate
value for SI Financial stockholders in connection with the Merger
and that the registration statement filed with the SEC on February
4, 2019 contains materially incomplete information regarding the
Merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the
Merger or rescissory damages (if the Merger is consummated), other
unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.


SI Financial Group, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company that provides various
financial services to consumers and businesses. SI Financial Group,
Inc. was founded in 1842 and is headquartered in Willimantic,
Connecticut.


SOHO HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoHo Hotel Owner, LLC
d/b/a 11 Howard Hotel. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On
Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. SoHo Hotel Owner, LLC d/b/a 11 Howard Hotel, ADR
Provider, Case No. 1:19-cv-02719 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Soho Hotel Owner LLC owns hotel and restaurant properties. The
company was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.[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


SOUTHERN OHIO: Howard Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Howard, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc.; Louis Metro; and Karen
Metro, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00222-TSB (S.D. Ohio, March 26,
2019) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act
("OMFWSA").

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the OMFWSA, Section 34a, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked,
asserts the complaint. All delivery drivers at the Wright Bros.
stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or
similar employment policies and practices, including policies and
practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for work-related
expenses, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has worked at Southern Ohio Domino's for approximately 5
years in Monroe, Ohio.

Defendants operate approximately 20 Domino's Pizza franchises in
Ohio and Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     Of Counsel to Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

          - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     Of Counsel to Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Web: www.billerkimble.com
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
            pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


STATE FARM: Faces Abraham Suit over PIP Claim
---------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance over a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim.
The case is captioned ANNA ABRAHAM, MARK ANDERSON, RONALD DRAKE,
LUTYSHIA EMERSON, LA VERNE GALLANT, EDGELL JUSTIN, and CYNTHIA
OLIVER, Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03821 (Ill. Cir, Cook County,
March 25, 2019). This complaint seeks class-wide declaratory relief
and class-wide injunctive relief for defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company's failure to comply with a uniform
legal standard under which the defendant must provide to its
insurance policy holders a meaningful written explanation, within
the statutory 30-day deadline of each affected state's  Personal
Injury Protection (PIP) statute, of (i) its inability or purported
inability to complete its investigation of a given PIP claim within
that statutory 30-day deadline, and (ii) its withholding of payment
of benefits for a given PIP claim within that same statutory 30-day
deadline.

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an
Illinois corporation with a principal place of business at One
State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, IL 61710. It is engaged in the
business of insurance, and regularly sells automobile insurance
(including PIP coverage) within the states of Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adrienne W. Brown Chan, Esq.
     STEVENS & CHAN, CHARTERED
     200 West Superior Street, Suite 410
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: (312)786-2244
   
           - and -

     John S. Spadaro, Esq.
     JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
     54 Liborio Lane
     Smyrna, DE 19977
     Telephone: (302)235-7745


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Womack Seeks OT Pay for Flowback Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------
AARON WOMACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES-NORTH AMERICA
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00074 (W.D. Tex., March 18, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, IPS utilized the services of Flowback
Operators like Womack to work on its behalf. Many of the Flowback
Operators IPS employed, including Womack, were staffed to IPS by
third-party entities.

Womack, and the other Flowback Operators like him who worked for,
or on behalf of IPS, regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.
But IPS did not pay Womack or the other Flowback Operators
overtime. . Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, IPS
improperly classified these workers as independent contractors and
paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation in violation
of the FLSA. From approximately September 2017 until February 2018,
Womack worked for IPS as a Flowback Operator, the lawsuit says.

IPS is North America's leading provider of coiled tubing, nitrogen,
and plunger lift services and products with an operational presence
in every basin around the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

SYNEOS HEALTH: Continues to Defend Vaitkuviene Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, 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 company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos
Health, Inc., et al.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of the company's shareholders.

The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.), names as defendants the company, Michael
Bell, Alistair MacDonald, Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Bermudez action"), and the second action, Vaitkuviene v.
Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.), filed on
January 25, 2018, names as defendants the company, Alistair
MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Vaitkuviene action").

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017.

The complaints allege that the company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel. These motions remain pending.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all
defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the same defendants listed
above, as well as each member of the board of directors at the time
of the INC Research-inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017,
contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under
Section 14(a) of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018.

Syneos said, "We and the other defendants deny the allegations in
these complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these
claims."

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


TEMPOE LLC: Deborah Rule Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH RULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEMPOE, LLC d/b/a WHY NOT LEASE IT, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-at-00201 (E.D. Cal., March 19, 2019), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of placing prerecorded calls and calls using
an "automatic telephone dialing system" to the cellular telephones
of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent; enjoin
the Defendant from continuing to place prerecorded and autodialed
telephone calls to consumers who did not provide their prior
express consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons
injured by Defendant's conduct.

The case addresses Tempoe's repeated pattern of practice of calling
consumers on their cell phone using prerecorded calls and an
autodialer who have no direct relationship with Tempoe. Tempoe
conducted a wide-scale debt-collection and information-collection
campaign that features the repeated making of unwanted autodialed
phone calls to consumers' cellular telephones without consent, all
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, by placing prerecorded and autodialed
calls, the Defendant collectively caused Plaintiff and the members
of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal injury.
Furthermore, Defendant made the calls knowing they interfered with
Plaintiff's and the other members of the Classes' use and enjoyment
of, and the ability to access their cellphones, including the
related data, software, and hardware components.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Amanda Benedict, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
          7710 Hazard Center Drive, Ste E104
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (760) 822-1911
          E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26 th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor
          Miami, Fl 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com

TESLA: No Class Action Yet Over Recent EV Price Cut
---------------------------------------------------
Luna Lin, writing for KrASIA, reports that Chinese Tesla owners who
have reportedly been exploring a class action lawsuit against the
premium electronic carmaker now say they don't plan to take
immediate legal action over the recent price cut.

Tesla's move to woo more Chinese buyers by drastically cutting
prices of its premium electronic vehicles (EV) was met with dismay
from those who purchased their Teslas shortly before the price
cut.

Liao Zongyi, a Tesla owner in Changsha bought his Model X in late
February and told KrASIA he lost RMB 200,000 (US$29,742) because he
bought his car just three days before it became cheaper. But he and
other Tesla owners with a similar fate are now distancing
themselves from the idea to file a class action suit against
Tesla.

"We have been in discussion with the dealers, and there's no plan
for class action yet," Liao said in a phone interview with KrASIA
on March 11. "We might have some news tomorrow," he added, hinting
at a possible solution between Tesla and the disgruntled Chinese
owners.

A group of Tesla owners reportedly staged a mini-protest in front
of a Tesla store in Changsha. [GN]


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Transfer IGNITE3 Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Ignite3-related class action suit against Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the defendants' request to transfer the case
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company said, "In July 2018, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, our chief executive officer,
our chief scientific officer and the underwriters of our July 2017
public offering, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint is brought on behalf
of an alleged class of those who purchased our securities pursuant
and/or traceable to our July and August 2017 public offering and
those who purchased our securities between March 8, 2017 and
February 13, 2018.  The complaint purports to allege claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE3.  The complaint
seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.  The defendants have moved to transfer
the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  We believe we have valid defenses against these
claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, develops various antibiotics for the
treatment of serious and life-threatening multidrug-resistant
infections. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in
Watertown, Massachusetts.


THOMAS DART: Hacker's Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Gerald Hacker, the Plaintiff, v. Thomas
Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04282 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order denying Hacker's Rule
23 motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 18, 2019,
a status hearing is set for April 18, 2019 at 9:15 a.m.[CC]

TRANSGENOMIC INC: Securities Class Action Dismissal Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit reversed the dismissal of a class action arising from the
merger of a biotechnical company ("Biotech Company") and a
cancer-diagnostics company ("Diagnostics Company") against the
Biotech Company, its former president, and the company that was
formed by the merger ("Post-Merger Company").  Campbell v.
Transgenomic, Inc., No. 18-2198, 2019 WL 983676 (8th Cir. Mar. 1,
2019).  Plaintiffs, former shareholders of the Biotech Company,
allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by providing a materially false and
misleading proxy statement to shareholders that failed to
accurately convey the value of the Diagnostics Company.  Judge John
M. Gerrard of the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska dismissed the case and held that the alleged misstatements
and omissions were immaterial as a matter of law.  Plaintiffs
appealed and the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that
whether the alleged misstatements and omissions were material was a
question for the trier of fact.

The Eighth Circuit first considered the allegations that omissions
in the proxy statement were materially misleading.  Plaintiffs
alleged that the proxy statement failed to provide the Diagnostics
Company's projected net income and loss as well as certain expenses
that could have allowed investors to independently calculate the
net income and loss.  The District Court found that the alleged
omissions were not materially misleading because there was no
obligation to disclose all financial figures, and the information
already provided was done so "honestly."  The Eighth Circuit
disagreed, noting that net income and loss can be particularly
valuable information for investors and that the omission of this
information here may have cast the Diagnostics Company "in a false
light that was materially misleading."  Furthermore, the disclosure
of the omitted figures could have "significantly altered the total
mix" of information available to shareholders.  The Court held that
the question of the alleged omissions' materiality was improperly
resolved as a matter of law.

The Eighth Circuit also considered the allegations that certain
statements in the proxy statement were materially misleading.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants ambiguously labeled a revenue
table in a way that caused investors to believe it was in reference
to the Diagnostics Company's revenue, thus suggesting an inflated
value.  Defendants argued that a reasonable investor would be able
to infer that the table referred to the Post-Merger Company based
on context and references to other financial data in the proxy
statement.  The Eighth Circuit held that whether the allegedly
ambiguous labeling was materially misleading could not be
determined as a matter of law and would have to be addressed by a
trier of fact.

Having found that plaintiffs adequately pleaded a primary violation
under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, the Eighth Circuit held
that plaintiffs' allegations under Section 20(a) against the former
president of the Diagnostics Company were also sufficient, and
reversed the dismissal of that claim. [GN]


U.S. XPRESS: Green Files Suit Over Unlawful Wage Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
APRIL GREEN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., and
U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc., and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00092 (E.D. Tenn., March 26, 2019) seeks to redress the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint asserts that the Defendants erroneously designated
Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors
and unlawfully deducted from and withheld portions of the wages
owed to them. Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to cover the costs of the Defendants,
intentionally reducing their wages below the minimum wage, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a commercial truck driver from
in or around September of 2018 through in or around January of
2019.

Defendants are companies engaged in the business of hauling and
delivery of freight by truck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Driver Misclassification Suit for $20MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Boston Globe, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. will pay $20 million to settle California
lawsuits challenging the company's classification of drivers as
independent contractors, and not employees owed the benefits of
traditional employment.

Resolution of the long-standing fight over benefits and pay comes
as Uber is preparing for its initial public offering later this
year. The litigation attacked the ride-sharing company's business
model of treating its drivers as contractors to avoid the costs of
paying a minimum wage, overtime, sick leave and health insurance.

The cases turned on whether drivers were essentially forced by
their contracts to resolve any conflicts one-on-one, behind the
closed doors of private arbitration and forbidden to join forces in
class-action lawsuits. Drivers argued Uber made it onerous for them
to opt-out of the arbitration provisions. [GN]


UNIFIN INC: Harper Asserts FDCPA Class Action in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc. The case
is styled as Jeffrey Harper, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson
Capital Systems, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00101 (E.D. Tenn., Mar. 26, 2019).

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

Unifin, Inc. is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable
Management firm. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides payment
rewards, bankruptcy collection, and debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


VISIONSTREAM: Line Workers' Lawyers Prepare to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ashton, writing for RNZ, reports that Line workers are being
told they have a strong case for proving they are employees, not
contractors, and could be in for a windfall.

They are preparing a class action against Chorus subcontractor
Visionstream, saying the company's system is driving them to
bankruptcy.

Line workers say they feel bullied and exploited.

Visionstream pays a set-price for each job, which workers said was
well below what it should be.

Some weeks they worked 60 hours but did not earn enough to cover
their costs. They could even have pay deducted if there are any
problems with their work down the line.

At the same time, their contracts stipulated they be available from
7 in the morning, until 7 at night, seven days a week.

A worker -- who was leaving the industry in his 50s because of
Visionstream -- painted a grim picture.

"I have hatred. I find them bullies. No heart, no soul, no
feelings, no sense of decency or values. As far as I'm concerned,
they've destroyed me."

Law firm Shine Lawyers suspected thousands of workers could be owed
money and encouraged them to come forward to join the action.

Employment lawyer Barbara Buckett said it was a strong case.

"They're wearing Chorus livery, they're directed where to work,
their work is allocated, and it's controlled by Chorus," she said.

"I think it's got legs in it."

But she added that the devil would be in the detail.

"I think that the real issue's going to come back to what we call
the fundamental legal test - whether they're free to go and work
somewhere else.

"It looks as though they're not."

Another employment lawyer Danny Gelb agreed the line workers had a
strong case.

He said their lack of control over hours worked was an argument for
being classed as employees.

But Mr Gelb said they could hypothetically earn more or less
depending on how fast they completed a job, which was an argument
for being contractors.

He said if they proved themselves to be employees, they could be in
for a windfall.

"Potentially holiday pay . . . each worker's entitled to four weeks
paid holiday pay each year, whereas a contractor's not entitled to
any holiday pay.

"As a contractor, there's no minimum wage as such -- but being an
employee, an employer must pay minimum wage."

The telecommunication's organiser for E tū union, Joe Gallagher,
said members were keen to join the class action.

But he said many were scared to come forward - despite being in
dire situations.

"Some of these guys can work 225 hours a month, and the primary
contractor can deduct money from their account, some of them can
end up with $80 a month.

"They invest in all this equipment on these promises of growing a
business, but it doesn't materialise. This guy I was talking to is
[also] working as a chef in a restaurant."

Chorus, which contracted Visionstream, said it heard the
contractors woes, and separate complaints made to the Labour
Inspectorate.

It was reviewing its contracting model and said changes were
likely.

"It's in everybody's best interests that people feel like they're
getting a fair go. We want a highly engaged and highly skilled
workforce.

"Without meaning to pre-empt the probable outcomes of the
independent review that we've commissioned, I think we can probably
anticipate that there's likely to be some structural changes."

Visionstream had not responded to repeated requests for comment.
[GN]


WAWA INC: Cunningham et al. Seek to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN J. CUNNINGHAM, DAVID CIUFFETELLI, BENJAMIN
DIDONATO and JOHN RUCKI, JR., the Plaintiffs, vs. WAWA, INC.,
RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF WAWA, INC., JARED G. CULOTTA, MICHAEL
J. ECKHARDT, JAMES MOREY, CATHERINE PULOS, HOWARD B. STOECKEL,
DOROTHY SWARTZ, RICHARD D. WOOD, JR., KEVIN WIGGINS and CHRISTOPHER
D. WRIGHT, the Defendants, and WAWA, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP
PLAN, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03355-PD (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order that Counts I-X be
certified and maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or, alternatively, under Rule
23(b)(3).

The case is a lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, against Defendants Wawa Inc., the Committee
Defendants (consisting of the Retirement Plans Committee of Wawa,
Inc. and its members Jared G. Culotta, Michael J. Eckhardt, James
Morey, Catherine Pulos, and Dorothy Swartz) and the Trustee
Defendants, (i.e. Richard D. Wood, Jr., Howard B. Stoeckel, and
Christopher D. Wright).

The Plaintiffs bring Counts I-IV, IX, and X as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), on behalf of a Class
consisting of:

   "All Participants in the Wawa, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
   Plan ("Wawa ESOP") with account balances greater than $5,000.00

   as of the date that they terminated employment whose accounts
   were liquidated on or after September 12, 2015 and the
   beneficiaries of such participants."

Plaintiffs Ciuffetelli and Rucki bring Counts VI and VIII as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), on behalf
of the Terminated Pre-2014 Employee Subclass, which pursuant to the
Parties' prior Stipulation as to Certain Class Certification
Issues, is defined as:


   "All Participant members of the Class who were employed by Wawa

   and participated in the ESOP before January 1, 2014 and who
   terminated employment on or after January 1, 2015 except for
   Participants whose accounts were liquidated due to death,
   disability or a voluntary request for distribution, and the
   beneficiaries of such participants."

Plaintiffs Cunningham and DiDonato bring Counts V, VI, VII and VIII
as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), on
behalf of the Retired Employee Subclass, which pursuant to the
Parties' prior Stipulation, is defined as:

   "All Participant members of the Class who Retired 1 between
   January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 except for Participants
   whose accounts were liquidated due to death, disability or a
   voluntary request for distribution, and the beneficiaries of
   such Participants."

Excluded from the Class and the Subclasses are: (a) Defendant
Trustees and members of the Defendant Committee and their immediate
families the current officers and directors fo Defendant Wawa and
their immediate families; (b) participants who were members of the
Class in Pfeifer v. Wawa, No. 2:16-cv-00497-PD (E.D. Pa.); and (c)
the legal representatives, successors, heirs, and assigns of any
such excluded persons.

Count I alleges that the Committee Defendants and the Trustee
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by causing
or permitting the forced sale of the Wawa stock in the ESOP
accounts of Plaintiffs and the Class that was for less than fair
market value and was not for adequate consideration.

Count II alleges that Wawa and the Trustee Defendants engaged in
prohibited transactions in violaton of ERISA because the Trustee
Defendants failed to ensure that Wawa paid no less than fair market
value for Wawa shares purchased by Wawa in the liquidation of the
ESOP accounts of Plaintiffs and the Class and Wawa profited from
those transcations.

Count III alleges that the Trustee Defendants Wood and Stoeckel
engaged in a prohibited transaction in violaton of ERISA because
they dealt with the assets of the ESOP in their own interest, acted
on behalf of the ESOP when their own interests were adverse to that
of the ESOP and received consideration in connection with these
transactions involving Plaintiffs and the Class.

Count IV alleges that the Committee Defendants and the Trustee
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in failing
to act in accordance with the terms of the Plan in connection with
the transfer and liquidation of the ESOP accounts of Plaintiffs and
the Class.

Count V claims that the Committee Defendants and Trustee Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by making omissions or
misrepresentations or to Plaintiffs Cunningham and DiDonato and the
Retired Employee Subclass about their rights under the Plan,
including the right hold Wawa stock after termination of
employment.

Count VI alleges that Wawa violated ERISA, by enacting and applying
the 2014 Plan Amendment and the 2015 Plan Amendments to Plaintiffs
and both the Retired Employee Subclass and the Terminated Pre-2014
Employee Subclass.

Count VII seeks an injunction against all Defendants that the 2015
Amendment is invalid as to Plaintiffs Cunningham, DiDonato and the
Retired Employee Subclass and these Plaintiffs and this Subclass
are entitled to have the Plan reformed accordingly so that their
rights and benefits are determined in accordance with its terms in
effect when they terminated or retired.

Count VIII alleges that the Committee Defendants violated ERISA, by
providing Plaintiffs and the Retired Employee Subclass and the
Terminated Pre-2014 Employee Subclass with Summary Plan
Descriptions (SPDs) that did not meet those standards at least to
information about their ability remain participants in the ESOP and
remain invested in Wawa stock after employees terminated
employment.

Count XI claims that Defendant Wawa breached its fiduciary duties
to Plaintiffs and the Class under ERISA by failing to monitor the
other fiduciaries who breached their duties or engaged in
prohibited transactions.

Count X seeks a determination against all Defendants by Plaintiffs
and the Class that the Plan's attempts to relieve its fiduciaries
of liability for fiduciary breaches is void pursuant to ERISA and
any fiduciary who agreed to such indemnification breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.[CC]

WEINSTEIN KARP: McLean Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weinstein, Karp &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Kyle McLean, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weinstein,
Karp & Associates, Inc., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02251 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 26, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Weinstein, Karp & Associates, Inc. is a collection agency located
in Pasadena, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
     Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
     8032 West Third Street Suite 201
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Phone: (323) 937-0400
     Fax: (866) 288-9194
     Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup


WELLS FARGO: Court Continues Renewed Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Taysir Tayeh, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order continuing Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 18, 2019,
the Motion hearing was held on the day. The Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification is entered and continued.

WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Alex
Shanklin.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske
(the "Raske Litigation").

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other
parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include
other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.

Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained
substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for
alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the
defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.

The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law
causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action,
in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, and discovery in
this action is continuing.  

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the action.

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Now Sole Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Shawn
Pressley but leaves Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more
recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  

Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Discovery is proceeding, and Ms. Pressley has withdrawn from the
case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff in the
Pressley Litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation
are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the
action.

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


[*] Congress Considering New Privacy Law to Govern Data Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilf-Townsend, Esq. -- daniel@guptawessler.com -- of Gupta
Wessler PLLC, in an article for The Washington Post, reports that
in 2016, Uber was hacked. The hackers stole personal information --
including driver's license numbers, cellphone numbers, and email
addresses -- from 50 million riders and 7 million drivers. Uber
then did not disclose it for a year, paying ransom to the hackers
and withholding the risks of identity theft from its customers and
the public at large.

The massive breach echoed an incident 10 years earlier, in which a
Countrywide Financial employee stole millions of customers' private
information, according to federal investigators, including bank
account information and Social Security numbers.
Countrywide's customers went to court and won a class-action
settlement that provided free credit monitoring and reimbursed
anyone who lost money. But when Uber's customers tried to band
together in a class action and sue, they were thrown out of court.
The reason? Between 2006 and 2016, they had effectively lost the
right to protect themselves in court as part of a dramatic change
in American law: the rise of forced arbitration.

Right now, Congress is considering a new federal privacy law -- the
kind that would govern these kinds of massive data breaches.
There's lots of momentum behind such a law, with support from many
Democrats and Republicans, and even major tech companies such as
Apple, Google and AT&T. But nearly all of the proposals on the
table have ignored the crucial issue of forced-arbitration clauses
in consumer contracts. Companies use these clauses to prevent
customers from suing them, often leaving no practical options for
consumers whose rights have been violated. No matter what rights a
new federal privacy law purports to provide, those rights could be
hard to enforce unless the law also addresses forced arbitration.

[Big tech firms still don't care about your privacy]

Public awareness of the problems associated with arbitration
clauses is growing, as the #MeToo movement has shed light on how
they can prevent employees from suing employers over sexual
harassment and other forms of discrimination. But arbitration
clauses -- a few words inserted into contracts that prevent
customers or employees from going to court -- can turn up in just
about any commercial transaction. Large companies often use them to
prevent people whose rights have been violated en masse from
joining in a class action. You might think, for instance, that
Uber's customers should have been able to hold it to account just
like Countrywide was. But Uber's terms of service contain an
arbitration clause; if you've ever used Uber, it's almost a sure
bet that you're bound by the clause, regardless of whether you
realized you were giving up your rights (though it ended this
practice last year for sexual misconduct allegations).

These clauses get their legal power from the Federal Arbitration
Act, a law passed nearly a century ago. For most of its existence,
the law did not affect many people: It was designed to apply mainly
to businesses dealing with each other and not to their consumers or
employees. But a string of Supreme Court decisions over the last 20
years dramatically broadened the law's scope, often with only a
narrow majority of the court's conservative members supporting the
expansion. Now, companies are allowed to require their customers
and employees to sign contracts that essentially waive any
effective remedy for broad categories of legal claims.

Arbitration clauses are especially harmful when it comes to the
Internet, because almost everything we do online involves a
contract. When your ISP delivers a Web page to your computer, when
you buy something online or share a photo or video, when you send
an email to a friend -- all of these actions take place under a
company's terms and conditions, the one-size-fits-all contracts
that we each must accept if we want to use a company's services.
Those terms often contain an arbitration clause. Even though these
terms of service are nonnegotiable, hard to decipher and rarely
read, courts generally enforce them. And because arbitration
clauses are empowered by federal law, states can do little to
change their own laws to protect citizens from them.

[Facebook could easily make privacy the default. It still hasn't.]

Companies have learned to use arbitration clauses to evade what
limited state and federal privacy laws exist. In 2013, for
instance, Yahoo suffered a massive data breach. Because its
customers were not all bound by an arbitration clause, they were
able to band together in a class action and go to court to argue
that Yahoo had legally inadequate data security. But then Verizon
acquired Yahoo in 2017 and rolled out a new contract complete with
an arbitration clause forbidding class actions -- ensuring that no
similar lawsuits can be brought in the future.

This tactic is widespread. Courts have recently forced arbitration,
for instance, on people alleging that Barnes and Noble unlawfully
shared customer information with Facebook; that the corporate
transparency site Glassdoor publicly revealed anonymous
contributors' information; and that Snapchat has been illegally
gathering and storing its users' biometric information. In these
disputes, the problem isn't that there's no law on the books, it's
that arbitration clauses prevent people from enforcing the laws
that already exist.

And those are just the cases that we know of because someone tried
to go to court anyway. The deeper problem with arbitration clauses
is that they prevent legitimate claims from being made in the first
place, especially when they forbid class actions. Nobody is going
to hire a lawyer to dispute a wrongfully added charge of $5 or $6
on their monthly Internet bill; combining many such claims is often
the only feasible way for private citizens to enforce their legal
rights. When that route is not available, many potential claims
will just never be made.

The rare consumer who does decide to take a dispute to arbitration
has to plead their case in front of a private arbitrator, who,
unlike a judge, usually rules in secret. The result is that the
rest of us -- other consumers, other companies, and law enforcement
entities -- may never know the extent of a company's legal
violations, or even whether the people who brought the lawsuits
were victorious. But the limited data available indicate that
success rates are shockingly low. A review of one arbitration
company by the consumer group Public Citizen, for example, found
that in a sample of 19,000 cases, the arbitrator ruled against
consumers 94 percent of the time.

[Why didn't Equifax protect your data? Because corporations have
all the power.]

When private citizens can't bring lawsuits, the enforcement of the
law rests entirely with government officials. The Federal Trade
Commission, for instance, has entered into a settlement with Uber
regarding the data breach mentioned above, as has a nationwide
coalition of attorneys general. But the recent record of public
enforcement is mixed, at best. Public agencies have limited
resources, and they can be hard-pressed to tackle violations by
some of the world's largest companies. The FTC has repeatedly been
criticized for failing to enforce its long-standing consent decrees
against Facebook and Google, and for refusing to enforce antitrust
laws against Google despite the recommendations of its own staff.
More broadly, the Trump administration has staffed federal agencies
with leaders who are often explicitly anti-enforcement, hitting
home the fragility of a system that does not allow consumers and
citizens to defend their own interests.

Any new privacy law should include a "private right of action,"
meaning a provision that allows individuals to sue someone who
violates their rights under the law, as the ACLU's Neema Singh
Guliani argued persuasively in a recent New York Times op-ed. But
that's only a first step, because it is precisely those rights to
sue that individuals can be forced to give up through arbitration
clauses. To be more than just words on a page, a new federal
privacy law will have to include a specific exemption from the
Federal Arbitration Act. There is precedent for this: The
Dodd-Frank Act, for instance, prohibited forced arbitration in
mortgage agreements; the Military Lending Act barred it for
consumer loans to troops; legislation introduced in the House of
Representatives last term would ban it for claims of sex
discrimination. Because so many privacy issues arise online, and
because so much online activity is governed by contracts, a new
privacy law is a natural candidate for a similar provision.

An arbitration carve-out in a federal privacy law wouldn't fix all
of the problems surrounding arbitration. Ultimately, the Federal
Arbitration Act should be amended to scale back some of the Supreme
Court's more far-reaching decisions. But given the consensus
building around the need for greater consumer protections online,
it's important to ensure that whatever laws Congress passes are as
effective as possible. There are many debates ahead about just what
a new privacy law should look like. Whatever the outcome of those
discussions, though, forced arbitration should not be on the table.
[GN]



                            *********

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 ***