CAR_Public/190410.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 72

                            Headlines

A10 NETWORKS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Shah Class Suit
AEGON NV: Settlement Approved in Suit over Monthly Deduction Rates
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Suit v. Keryx Underway
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Hossfeld Suit Alleging TCPA Violations

ALTA MESA: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
AMBEV SA: Appeal in Brewers Retail Litigation in Canada Pending
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Markell Suit Asserts Wage and Hour Violations
AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Underpays Bartenders, Lightner Suit Says
AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Settlement Reached in Retired Employees' Suit

AMPIO PHARMA: Shaffer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ANDERSONS INC: Faces Murphy Suit over Employee Bias
AUMNI GROUP: Jaquez Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Sale of Fannie and Freddie Bonds
BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund Class Suit

BRISTOW GROUP: Lilienfeld Says Financial Report Misleading
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Suarez Class Suit
CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Against O'Charley's Dismissed
CAREGUARDIAN INC: Removes Labor Suit to S.D. New York
CAS MEDICAL: Faces Suits over Edward Lifesciences Merger

CATHEDRAL CITY, CA: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Goddard Alleges
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wave Lengths Suit Okayed
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal in Disconnection-Related Suit Dismissed
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal on Dismissal of Messages Suit Denied
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Awaits Court OK on Termination Fee Settlement

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Portability Fees Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Subscribers Privacy Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Defends Call Detail Service-Related Suit
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Prescod Files False Labeling Suit
CENTENE CORP: Scott Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff

CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: East Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay and Expenses
CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Underpaid Workers File Class Suit in Calif.
COATES ELECTRIC: IBEW Seeks Final Class Certification
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Portman Sues over Debt Collection Practice
CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of At-Home CSRs

CONN'S INC: MicroCapital Opts Out of Securities Suit in Texas
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Ill. Residents Class Certified in Bakov Suit
COVERALL NORTH: Bille Seeks Class Certification
COVIA HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Not Yet Rescheduled
CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend SSA Bonds-Related Suits

CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend USD LIBOR Litigation
CREDIT SUISSE: Defending Against USD ICE LIBOR Litigation in SDNY
CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit
DELTA AIR: Pica Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Agreement Reached in SSA Direct Participants Suit

DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit in NY
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suits over Trading of US Agency Bonds
DEUTSCHE BANK: RMBS Trust-Related Class Suits Dismissed
DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement Reached in Canadian Precious Metal Suits
DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims

DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Royal Park Investments Suits
DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds Ongoing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits over Mexican Government Bond Ongoing
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
DOORDASH INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Goldman-Hull Says

EAST RIVER RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
EGV COMPANIES: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
EMSP LLC: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Ruling in Funez FLSA Suit
ENSIGN GROUP: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Ibrahim Sues over Hostile Work Environment

FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Parshall Sues over Securities Transaction
FIRST INTERSTATE: Parshall Suit Dropped
FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Daniel Herrera Labor Suit
FTD COMPANIES: Bid for Review in EasySaver Rewards Suit Pending
G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending

G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing
GATEWAY TRANS: Wooldridge Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers
GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Martinez Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson May File Second Amended Complaint

GLOBAL FIXTURE: Tillis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Workers
GLOBAL LOCKSMITH: Armstrong et al. Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Transient Tax Suit Granted
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
GS FIRE: Violates FLSA by Misclassifying Workers, Guzman Alleges

HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
HANJIN INT'L: Brimhall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
HELIOS AND MATHESON: Arbitration Bid in Tabas Case Pending
HELIOS AND MATHESON: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
HELIOS AND MATHESON: MoviePass Faces Weinberger Class Suit

HERSHEY CO: Court Narrows Claims in Brookside Mislabeling Suit
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
HOME DEPOT USA: Hartley Seeks Overtime Pay
IC SYSTEM: Faces Moody Suit over Debt Collection Practices
IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA

IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under Damasco Decision
INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Moves to Certify Hourly Employees Class
INNERWORKINGS INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit
JEH ENTERPRISES: Kwong Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
JONES SCAFFOLD: Accused by Ross of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages

KEARNY BANK: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Hawkins Says
KIA MOTORS: Faces Palmberg over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
KND PARTNERS: Website Not Accessible, Kennedy Alleges
KNOLLMEYER BUILDING: Condo Unit Owners Sue over Negligence
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Brooks Seeks Certification of RICO Class

LENDING CLUB: Plouffe Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiry
LESAINT LOGISTICS: Diller Challenges Collection of Biometric Info
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accord in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Appealed
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Certify Class in Mason Suit Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Kramer Suit in Calif.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Dana Gold Litigation
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Suit in Canada Ongoing
LYFT INC: Faces McGee Suit over Breach of Contract
MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing
MARYSVILLE, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Avondale Homeless Suit

MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California
MDL 2548: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gold Futures MDL
MDL 2709: Court Certifies Classes in 16 States
MDL 2804: Stracener Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Omega

MEGAN BRENNEN: Faces Robinson Suit over Employment Discrimination
MICHIGAN: Seeks Court of Appeals Review of Ruling in Bell Suit
MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License
MONSANTO CO: Faces Heisch Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bellangers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bruinsmas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cashdollar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORTON BUILDINGS: Helms Seeks to Certify Construction Workers Class
MSD ENTERPRISES: Palapa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR: Ali Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Nikrothanond Sues over Telemarketing Calls
NATIONAL VISION: Removes Mendoza Labor Suit to N.D. California
NB BAKER: Cal. App. Affirms PAGA Arbitration Denial in Correia Suit
NEVADA GOLD: Settlement Entered in Maverick Merger-Related Suits
NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Moves to Certify Class of Employees

NORTH CAROLINA: Suit by Inmates over Hep C Screening Certified
NUNNO CORP: Faces Bradley Suit for Wrongful Termination
NUVASIVE INC: Goldstein Seeks Damages over Wrongful Termination
NY TEX CARE: Faces Francisco Labor Suit
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Prelim. Nod of Miller Suit Settlement

OCEANFIRST BANK: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NJWHL, Horner Says
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading
ORACLE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due April 19
PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
PARTNER COMMS: Breach of License-Related Class Suit Ongoing

PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful SMS Charges Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Cellular Plan Promo Okayed
PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Robinson"
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in in Donelson-Friend Suit Still Pending
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Advance Trust Suit

QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Still Ongoing
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Polat Class Action
RELIANCE FIRST: DeSantis Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buonopane Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Defends Consolidated Too and Spock Class Suits

RUBY HAND: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/IMWL, Cervantes Says
SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Pocrass Suit over Layoffs Moved to N.D. Cal.
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Pending
SEMPER BLUE: Springer Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
SEO'S CAFE: Trinidad Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay

SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL: Parshall Drops Suit over Reliance Merger
SSC KERRVILLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Passmore FLSA Suit
SURE CHECK: Removes FDCPA Suit to Western District of Missouri
SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Still Ongoing
TEG STAFFING: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks

TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING: Speakman Alleges Workplace Harassment
TURTLE BEACH: Court Certifies Shareholders Class Suit
ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Hellman Merger
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Failed to Pay Final Wages at Termination
VIVID SEATS: Derdiger Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Ticket Scheme

WEST HILLS SURGICAL: Braun Sues over Hospital Surprise Billing
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over State's Parole
WILLIAM SINGER: Faces Bendis Suit Over College Admission Scandal

                            *********

A10 NETWORKS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Shah Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, 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 lead plaintiff in the
case, Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., did not file an amended
complaint by the Court-ordered deadline.

On March 22, 2018, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers, were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01772-VC (the
"Securities Action").

On August 31, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On
October 5, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The amended complaint named the same defendants as the initial
complaint, in addition to one of the Company’s former executive
vice presidents. The Company and individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 21, 2019, the court granted the motions to dismiss with
leave to amend within 21 days.

The lead plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the
Court-ordered deadline.

A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and
Latin America. A10 Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


AEGON NV: Settlement Approved in Suit over Monthly Deduction Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aegon N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has approved
the settlement made in the class action suit relating to the
company's increases in monthly deduction rates ("MDR") on universal
life products.

Several US insurers, including Aegon subsidiaries, have been named
in class actions as well as individual litigation relating to
increases in monthly deduction rates ("MDR") on universal life
products.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the increases were made to recoup
past losses rather than to cover the future costs of providing
insurance coverage. In one such class action against Aegon's
subsidiary pending in the US federal district court for the Central
District of California, the parties agreed to settle the case which
resulted in a net charge to the income statement for 2018 of USD
166 million.

In January 2019, a court approved the aforementioned settlement.

Aegon N.V. provides insurance, pensions, and asset management
services worldwide. It offers life, accident, and health insurance;
property and casualty insurance; home and car insurance; individual
investment accounts; annuities; retirement plan services; stable
value solutions; retail and institutional investment management
solutions; savings products; group pensions; mortgage loans; and
bank accounts. Aegon N.V. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered
in The Hague, the Netherlands.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Suit v. Keryx Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., is discovery.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Keryx
and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A.
Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the
Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an
amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017).

Plaintiffs seek to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The parties are presently engaged in discovery.  No trial date has
been set.  

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiff in the
case, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has
decided to drop the lawsuit, without prejudice.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and Alpha
Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which
the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming
a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, or the Merger. On
December 12, 2018, the company completed the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of the company),
former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven
C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael
Rogers, some of whom are current members of the company's Board of
Directors), and, with respect to one action, the Merger Sub and
Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the
Merger.

The complaints in the Merger Securities Actions generally allege
that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
our advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of one
of Keryx's advisors; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may
have taken place regarding which individuals would serve on the
company's Board of Directors after consummation of the Merger as
well as future employment of officers.

Each of the complaints seeks to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the Merger; however, none of the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking such relief before the Merger was consummated. The
complaints also seek rescission of the Merger or rescissory
damages, a declaration that that the defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and
an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions are pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).  

On January 4, 2019, plaintiff John Andreula filed a motion to
consolidate the three actions pending in the Delaware District
Court and appoint himself as lead plaintiff. The Delaware District
Court has yet to rule on that motion.

The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the
Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). The
plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice, on February 19, 2019.  

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Hossfeld Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01897
(N.D. Ill., March 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making non-emergency calls
to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
without prior express consent.

Allstate Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Northbrook, Illinois.

Allstate provides personal lines property and casualty products.
The Company offers home security, business, supplemental health,
long-term care, boat, flood, identity theft expenses, and motor
home insurance products.  The Company also provides financial
products, such as annuities, education savings, IRAs, and mutual
funds; emergency roadside assistance; and checking and savings
accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ALTA MESA: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FNY PARTNERS FUND LP and FNY MANAGED ACCOUNTS, LLC, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALTA MESA
RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORPORATION II, HARLAN
H. CHAPPELLE, JAMES T. HACKETT, THOMAS J. WALKER, WILLIAM D.
GUTERMUTH, JEFFREY H. TEPPER, DIANA J. WALTERS and RIVERSTONE
HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01027 (S.D. Tex., March 19, 2019),
is brought for alleged violations of:

    (i) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims") on behalf of themselves and
        all other persons or entities, excluding the Defendants,
        that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Alta
        Mesa Resources, Inc., f/k/a Silver Run Acquisition
        Corporation II ("Silver Run II" or the "Company") during
        the period August 16, 2017 through February 25, 2019,
        inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby;
        and

   (ii) Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Proxy
        Claims") on behalf of themselves and other Alta Mesa
        shareholders as of the January 22, 2018 record date that
        were entitled to vote on the proposed transaction (the
        "Acquisition") to acquire Alta Mesa Holdings, LP ("Alta
        Mesa") and Kingfisher Midstream LLC ("Kingfisher").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the run up
to the Acquisition concerning, among other things, the estimated
2018 and 2019 earnings for Kingfisher and Alta Mesa.  In March
2018, less than two months after shareholders voted for the
Acquisition, Silver Run II adjusted the Kingfisher and Alta Mesa
earnings estimates downward 46% and 8%, causing Silver Run II's
stock to lose 16.5% of its value in the ensuing four trading days.
Remarkably, Silver Run later conceded that the conditions that led
to these adjustments began in 2017 -- before the January 2018 Proxy
was issued.

Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., is an oil and gas company with its
principal place of business located in in Houston, Texas.  The
Company is incorporated in Delaware and is focused on oil and gas
exploration and production in the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Riverstone Holdings, LLC, is a private equity firm focused on the
energy sector.  Riverstone sponsored the initial public offering
and the Acquisition through various related affiliates and
investment vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  jporter@entwistle-law.com
                  asher@entwistle-law.com


AMBEV SA: Appeal in Brewers Retail Litigation in Canada Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambev S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal by the
plaintiffs in Brewers Retail Inc. litigation is pending.

On December 12, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario (LCBO), Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or
"TBS"), and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada,
Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, or the
Brewers.  

The lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, which sought, among other things: (1) to obtain a
declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to
allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since June
1, 2000; (2) to obtain a declaration that the Brewers conspired to
fix, increase and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees
(on-trade) for beer and the fees charged by TBS to other
competitive brewers who wished to sell their products through TBS;
and (3) damages for unjust enrichment. As part of this third
allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal trade practices by the
Brewers.

They are seeking damages not exceeding C$1.4 billion; punitive,
exemplary and aggravated damages of C$5 million; and
changes/repeals of the affected legislation.

The company have not recorded any provision in connection
therewith. In March 2018, the court granted summary judgment and
dismissed the class claims. The plaintiffs have appealed. The
hearing before the Court of Appeals was held on January 28 and 29,
2019 and the judgement is expected in the second quarter of 2019.

Ambev S.A., through its subsidiaries, produces, distributes, and
sells beer, draft beer, carbonated soft drinks (CSD), other
non-alcoholic beverages, malt, and food products in the Americas.
It operates through three segments: Latin America North, Latin
America South, and Canada. The company was founded in 1885 and is
headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil. Ambev S.A. is a subsidiary of
Interbrew International B.V.


AMERICAN ADVISORS: Markell Suit Asserts Wage and Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MARKELL; FRANK RIOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01058063-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., March 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under
the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages
for all hours worked and overtime wages at the proper rate.

The Defendants are California citizens doing business in Orange
County in the state of California.  The Plaintiffs are unaware of
the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of lending mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


AMERICAN MEIZHOU: Underpays Bartenders, Lightner Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
RAENIECE LIGHTNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO GROUP,
INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO HOLLYWOOD, INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU
DONGPO IRVINE, INC.; AMERICAN MEIZHOU DONGPO ARCADIA, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07263
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Lightner was employed by the Defendants as server and
bartender.

American Meizhou Dongpo Group, Inc. operates in the restaurant
management industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676


AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Settlement Reached in Retired Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation 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 has
reached a settlement in the class action suit initiated by Retired
Former Employees.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned
the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District
Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to compel
arbitration on August 29, 2018.

The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied.
Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs, which remains subject to approval by the court.

Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this
settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources."

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products to
commercial and industrial users worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Forged and Cast Engineered Products; and Air and
Liquid Processing. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was founded in 1929
and is headquartered in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.


AMPIO PHARMA: Shaffer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, 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 case, Shaffer v.
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On August 25, 2018 and August 31, 2018, two purported stockholders
of the Company brought putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Shi
v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-07476-SJO-RAO, and in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, Shaffer v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02252-KLM, together, the "Securities Class
Actions".

Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions allege that the Company
and certain of its current officers violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the
AP-003 Phase III clinical trials of Ampion.

Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
December 14, 2017 through August 7, 2018. The Securities Class
Actions seek unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On October 24, 2018, certain purported stockholders filed motions
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the Shi case.

On November 6, 2018, the Shaffer case was voluntarily dismissed.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


ANDERSONS INC: Faces Murphy Suit over Employee Bias
---------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against The Andersons, Inc.
over its alleged employment discrimination practices.  The case is
captioned Murphy v. The Andersons, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00184-SRW
(M.D. Ala., March 13, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Susan
Russ Walker.

The Andersons, Inc. is a diversified company rooted in agriculture
that conducts business around the world in the commodity trading,
ethanol, plant nutrient and rail sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashley Meade Posey, Esq.
     Humble Law LLC
     3112 Blue Lake Dr-Ste 100
     Birmingham, AL 35243
     Telephone: (205) 358-3100
     Facsimile: (205) 358-3033
     E-mail: ashley@humble.law

          - and -

     Dustin John Kittle, Esq.
     Humble Law LLC
     3112 Blue Lake Drive
     Vestavia, AL 35243
     Telephone: (205) 358-3100
     Facsimile: (205) 358-3033
     E-mail: dustin@humble.law


AUMNI GROUP: Jaquez Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL JAQUEZ on behalf of himself, individually, and all others
similarly situated v. AUMNI GROUP, INC. d/b/a CITY BUSINESS INC.,
CREDICO (USA) LLC, and PRANAV VERMA, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-02448 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime compensation and liquidated damages
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Aumni Group, Inc., doing business as City Business Inc., is a New
York domestic business corporation with its principal place of
business located in New York City.  Pranav Verma is an owner,
manager, principal, and/or agent of Aumni.

Credico (USA) LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.  Credico
is the parent company of Aumni.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen J. Criscione, Esq.
          CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP
          250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 920-7142
          Facsimile: (800) 583-1787
          E-mail: GCriscione@lawcrt.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued over Sale of Fannie and Freddie Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank
Plc and others alleges that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy
to systematically raised their profits earned from dealing Fannie
and Freddie bonds (FFBs).

The Defendants are horizontal competitors and the dominant dealers
of debt securities issued by the Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. These
financial instruments are collectively referred as "FFBs," short
for Fannie and Freddie bonds. FFBs refer to unsecured issuances,
and do not include the mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were the largest players
in the process that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use to issue FFBs
which gave Defendants control over FFB supply ultimately available
to investors.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division is currently
pursuing a criminal investigation into price-fixing in the
secondary market for FFBs, where the Defendants are the largest
dealers in terms of the volume of FFBs they sell to, and buy from,
investors. Multiple sources indicate that the investigation focuses
on antitrust and fraud violations in connection with the activities
of bank traders in the $550 billion secondary market.

The secondary market for FFBs is a vast "over-the-counter" ("OTC")
market. Unlike stocks, by contrast, FFBs are not traded on a
national exchange. In order to buy or sell FFBs, an investor must
typically communicate directly with a salesperson or trader
employed by a dealer over computer networks and/or by phone to
receive a price quote. An OTC market is therefore a dark market
that enables a few select, knowledgeable, and privileged dealers to
collude and harm investors -- especially as compared to stock
markets with a multitude of banks and investors and other agents
able to see public information updated in real-time as they trade.

Consistent with the DOJ Antitrust Division's investigation,
empirical, economic price data and other market facts demonstrate
that Defendants used their control over FFB supply to fix the
prices of these instruments, causing the Commonwealth and the Class
to pay too much (when buying FFBs) and receive too little (when
selling FFBs) on their FFB transactions during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff obtained pricing data for over 13,117 unique FFBs and
a total of 1.6 million FFB transactions. The price data and other
market data reveal highly anomalous FFB pricing. The economic facts
are consistent with price-fixing of the FFBs which Defendants
traded with their customers during the Class Period.

First, the economic facts strongly suggest an agreement by
Defendants to charge inflated, supracompetitive prices for
newly-issued FFBs that they sold to investors after acquiring them
from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Inflating prices after FFB
issuances was lucrative for Defendants because a large volume of
their FFB sales occurred in the week following an FFB issuance.
Consequently, each Defendant had the common motive to inflate the
prices of these products by charging agreed-upon, supracompetitive
prices to investors after acquiring FFBs from Fannie Mae or Freddie
Mac.

Second, the economic facts strongly suggest coordination amongst
Defendants to inflate the prices of older FFBs in the days prior to
each new FFB issuance. This acted to drive the market price of new
FFBs artificially higher by establishing an inflated benchmark for
comparison so that Defendants could earn excess, unlawful profits
once they had new FFB inventory to sell.

Third, throughout the Class Period, the market and pricing data
strongly suggest Defendants, rather than competing with each other
for investors' FFB transactions, agreed to inflate the prices at
which they sold FFBs to investors (the "ask" price), or deflated
the price at which they purchased FFBs from investors (the "bid"
price), or both. Observation of the bid-ask spreads that Defendants
charged during the Class Period in comparison with the bid-ask
spreads that Defendants charged after the Class Period shows that,
after the Class Period, bid-ask spreads in the FFB market markedly
decreased for no other apparent economic reason, evidencing that
prices during the Class Period were not reflective of a competitive
market.

Tellingly, the patterns of these three behaviors are observed to
statistically diminish after April 2014 following the increase in
oversight and scrutiny of banks' fixed income operations in the
wake of the LIBOR scandal, when multiple government regulators
forced Defendants to institute internal controls to deter a
recurrence of widespread anti-competitive conduct in their sales
and trading businesses, as well as the publicity surrounding the
criminal investigation into banks' manipulation of the foreign
exchange ("FX") market.

Defendants thus colluded to manipulate prices in the secondary
market to extract supra-competitive profits for themselves at the
expense of Commonwealth Funds and Class members. Defendants'
conspiracy systematically raised their profits earned from dealing
FFBs at the expense of their customers -- investors who traded FFBs
with Defendants and who were repeatedly overcharged and underpaid
due to Defendants' anti-competitive conduct.

The conspiracy injured investors, many of whom were drawn to FFBs
for their safety and liquidity. FFBs are not perceived to be risky
investments, and their returns to investors typically reflect this
fact. However, investors did not bargain for the overcharges and
underpayments that the Defendant banks caused. The Defendants'
alleged agreement to restrain trade in the FFB market is another
instance of collusion and price-fixing in financial markets by
these same Defendants during the same period of time. Given the
persistent, pervasive, and secret nature of Defendants' conspiracy,
as well as the existence of ongoing governmental investigations
into the alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff believes that further
evidentiary support for his claims will be unearthed after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.

The case is captioned as JOSEPH M. TORSELLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS TREASURER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC;
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; FIRST
TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02438 (S.D.N.Y., March 19,
2019).[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914-997-0500
          Facsimile: 914-997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge, Esq.
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA
          Telephone: 215-399-4770
          Facsimile: 610-862-9777
          E-mail: glawrence@lowey.com
                  jmcgrath@lowey.com

               - and -

          Christopher Craig, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA TREASURY DEPARTMENT
          OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL
          129 Finance Building
          Harrisburg, PA 17120
          E-mail: ccraig@patreasury.gov

BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by the
Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund.

On March 20, 2019, a class action was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, Santa Clara County, by the Lincolnshire
Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated ("Plaintiff"), against the Company, certain of
its directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering (IPO) in July 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the purchase
of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Form S-1
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's IPO.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BRISTOW GROUP: Lilienfeld Says Financial Report Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lilienfeld, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRISTOW GROUP INC., JONATHAN
E. BALIFF, and L. DON MILLER, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01064 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Bristow's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that Bristow lacked adequate
monitoring processes related to non-financial covenants within its
secured financing and lease agreements; as a result, Bristow could
not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial
covenants; as a result, Bristow was reasonably likely to breach
certain agreements; as a result, Bristow had understated its
short-term debt; the required corrections would materially impact
financial statements;  there was a material weakness in Bristow's
internal controls over financial reporting; and as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Bristow's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On February 11, 2019, after the market closed, Bristow filed a Form
8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that it
"did not have adequate monitoring control processes in place
related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured
financing and lease agreements."  On this news, Bristow's stock
price fell $1.22 per share, or nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per
share on February 12, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.  As
a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit states.

Bristow is an industrial aviation services provider with major
transportation operations in the North Sea, Nigeria and the Gulf of
Mexico, and in most other major offshore energy producing regions
of the world.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: 972-521-6868
          Facsimile: 281-254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

CAMDEN PROPERTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Suarez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Dever III grants the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled JORGE SUAREZ v. CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER,
LP, Case No. 5:17-cv-00124-D (E.D.N.C.).

Judge Dever denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment, and denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The Clerk is directed to close the case.

On January 24, 2017, Jorge Suarez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed this complaint in Wake County Superior
Court against the Defendants alleging violations of the Residential
Rental Agreements Act, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act and
the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

In his order, Judge Dever opines that Mr. Suarez's claims for
violations of the RRAA, the NCDCA, and the UDTPA all fail on the
merits.  Judge Dever states that the claims fail as a matter of law
because the Plaintiff cannot show that the Defendants committed an
unfair or deceptive act.[CC]


CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Against O'Charley's Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Cannae Holdings, 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 case entitled, Otis
v. O'Charley's, LLC, has been dismissed.

Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, was filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S.
District Court, Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit purports
to bring a national class action on behalf of all O'Charley's
servers and bartenders under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
similar state laws.

The complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the
applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped employees
to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time performing
non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food preparation,
cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house" duties; and
(b) perform "off the clock" work. Plaintiffs seek damages and
declaratory relief.

The named plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties
to employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia,
for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes. On
October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying all
proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States Supreme
Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari filed in
several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the issue of
whether agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate
disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

The Order provides that, if certiorari is granted in any of the
Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, the stay of the Otis case will
continue until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the
merits in the cases.

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three
of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the
enforceability of arbitration agreements. On May 21, 2018, the
Supreme Court ruled on the issue, holding that class-action waivers
in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable.

The parties reached a settlement on January 2, 2019, whereby the
plaintiffs agreed to a full and complete settlement and release of
all claims that were asserted or that could have been asserted in
the litigation.

The settlement is not material to the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or liquidity.

The settlement was approved and the case was dismissed with
prejudice by court order on February 15, 2019.

Cannae Holdings, Inc. engages in the restaurant business. It owns
and operates the O'Charley's, Ninety Nine, Village Inn, and Bakers
Square restaurants; and food service concepts, as well as its
Legendary Baking bakery. Cannae Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in
2017 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


CAREGUARDIAN INC: Removes Labor Suit to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Careguardian, Inc. and Joshua Bruno remove case styled SANDRA
OLIVER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. CAREGUARDIAN, INC., JOSHUA BRUNO, AKASH SHAH AND
JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02541 (Filed
Nov. 18, 2018), Case No. 655748/2018, from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan
Division) on March 21, 2019.

The Plaintiff seeks an award of unpaid wages, spread of hours
wages, overtime wages and minimum wages and statutory and punitive
damages due under the New York Labor Law and New York common
law.[BN]

Counsel for Careguardian, Inc. and Joshua Bruno:

          Meghan E. Hill, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          41 South High Street, Suite 2000
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: +1 614.365.2700
          Facsimile: +1 614.365.2499
          30 Rockerfeller Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 101112
          Telephone: +1.212.407.0105
          Facsimile: +1.212.872.9815
          E-mail: meghan.hill@squirepb.com

CAS MEDICAL: Faces Suits over Edward Lifesciences Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
CAS Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is facing
several class action suits related to merger of the company with
Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc. and Crown Merger Sub, Inc.

On February 11, 2019, the Company, Edwards Lifesciences Holding,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards" or the "Acquiror") and
Crown Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Acquiror ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of  Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set
forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving company and
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Acquiror.  

The Board of Directors of the Company has unanimously approved the
Merger Agreement, the Merger, and the other transactions
contemplated thereby.

On or about March 7, 11, 14 and 21, 2019, four putative class
action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Adam
Franchi v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Shiva Stein v. CAS
Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Thomas Torreano v. CAS Medical
Systems, Inc. et al. and Joseph Rish Jr. v. CAS Medical Systems,
Inc. et al., respectively, and on or about March 11, 2019 an
additional putative class action complaint challenging the merger
was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut,
Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, captioned Charles New
v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al.

The complaints were filed on behalf of the public shareholders of
CASMED and name as defendants CASMED and the members of its board
of directors. The complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies
in the preliminary proxy statement for the merger that CASMED filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 1, 2019.


The complaint in the Stein action also alleges that CASMED's
directors agreed to sell CASMED for inadequate consideration, the
complaint in the New action also alleges that CASMED's directors
agreed to sell CASMED for an unfair price as a result of an unfair
sale process and the complaint in Torreano also alleges that the
Merger contains preclusive deal protection provisions.  

The Torreano complaint also alleges claims against Edwards
Lifesciences Holding, Inc. Crown Merger Sub, Inc. and Edwards
Lifesciences Corporation.  

The complaints seek a variety of relief, including an injunction
preventing the consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger
if it is consummated or rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

CAS Medical said, "The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints, but believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit."

CAS Medical Systems, Inc., a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets non-invasive patient monitoring products
worldwide. It was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Branford,
Connecticut.


CATHEDRAL CITY, CA: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Goddard Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
COREY GODDARD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00482 (C.D.
Cal., March 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant fail to fully
compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
for all overtime hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The City is a political subdivision of the state of California and,
at all relevant times hereto, employed the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Ian B. Sangster, Esq.
          Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
          A Professional Corporation
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
          E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                  istevens@mastagni.com
                  isangster@mastagni.com
                  tbillington@mastagni.com


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wave Lengths Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 26, 2019,
that on March 20, the board of directors of CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc. approved the structure of a settlement in the
class action lawsuit filed on March 16, 2016 in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court") by
Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian.

As previously disclosed, plaintiff's motion for class certification
of a nationwide RICO class and a Florida RICO and FDUTPA (Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act) class was partially
granted by the Court on January 7, 2019.

In its action, plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages as
well as costs and attorneys’ fees, based on allegations that we
and certain affiliated entities overcharged tenants at bulk metered
malls for electricity.

The company's petition seeking to appeal the Court's class
certification order was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on March 4, 2019. On March 11,
2019, the Court set the trial date for April 2, 2019. On March 15,
2019, following mediation proceedings, a proposed structure of a
settlement was approved by representatives of the parties.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company have denied
all allegations of wrongdoing and have asserted that our actions
have at all times been lawful and proper.

A copy of the proposed settlement is available at
https://bit.ly/2FRrwed.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal in Disconnection-Related Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the appeal from a
decision in the class action lawsuit related to service
disconnection has been dismissed.

In January 2017, the district court partially approved a request to
certify a lawsuit filed against the company in February 2013 as a
class action, relating to an allegation that the company failed to
disconnect customers within the time frame set in its license and
applicable law.

In March 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
allegations which were not approved, to the Supreme Court.

In September 2018 plaintiff's appeal was consensually dismissed.

The total amount claimed had the purported class action been
approved was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 72
million.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal on Dismissal of Messages Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs' appeal on
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit has been denied.

In December 2016, the district court partially approved a request
to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in July 2014 as a
class action, relating to an allegation that the commercial
messages the company sent to its subscribers failed to meet the
requirements of applicable law.

In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
allegations which were not approved, to the Supreme Court.  

The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 21 million.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Awaits Court OK on Termination Fee Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement
has been filed with the court in a class action lawsuit related to
unlawful termination fees and the proceedings are still pending.

In August 2016, the district court approved a request to certify a
lawsuit filed against the company in February 2015 as a class
action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully
charged our subscribers with early termination fees.

The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 15 million.

In January 2018, a settlement agreement was filed with the court
and the proceedings are still pending.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Portability Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement
has been filed with the court in the class action suit relating to
the unlawful subscribers' portability fees and the proceedings are
still pending.

In October 2016, the district court approved a request to certify a
lawsuit filed against the company in January 2013 as a class
action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully
charged its subscribers before the subscribers' portability to the
company' network was completed. The total amount claimed was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 19 million.

In February 2019, a settlement agreement was filed with the court
and the proceedings are still pending.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settlement Pending in Subscribers Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a settlement agreement
has been filed with the court in the purported class action suit
alleging violation of the privacy of the company's subscribers.
The proceedings are still pending.

In 2015, a purported class action was filed against the company, by
plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming
compensation for non-monetary damages in connection with
allegations that the company unlawfully violated the privacy of its
subscribers and were unlawfully enriched by so doing.

Cellcom said, "The amount claimed from the company, if the lawsuit
is certified as class action is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
NIS 15 billion."

In February 2017, a settlement agreement was filed with the court
and the proceedings are still pending.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Defends Call Detail Service-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F 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 suit related to the company's breach of
subscription agreements.

In December 2017, the district court partially approved a request
to certify as a class action a lawsuit filed against the company in
May 2015, relating to an allegation that the company breached the
agreements with its subscribers by charging them for a call details
service, which was previously provided free of charge, without
obtaining their consent.

In February 2018, the company  appealed the approval of this
allegation to the Supreme Court and the plaintiff appealed the
dismissal of other allegations. In January 2019 the company's
appeal was consensually dismissed and the plaintiff's appeal was
consensually accepted.

The total amount claimed was not estimated by the plaintiffs.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. provides cellular and landline
telecommunications services in Israel. It operates through two
segments, Cellular and Fixed-line. Cellcom Israel Ltd. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Netanya, Israel.


CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Prescod Files False Labeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PRESCOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV09321 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 19, 2019), accuses the Defendants of deceiving purchasers of
Celsius Live Fit drink by falsely labeling the Product as having
"No Preservatives."

Mr. Prescod seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief on
behalf of a California class of consumers, who purchased the
Product, which was falsely labeled and advertised as having "No
Preservatives" when it actually contains "citric acid," a
well-known preservative.

Celsius Holdings, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.  Celsius is the one of the owners, manufacturers,
and distributors of the Products.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


CENTENE CORP: Scott Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Staff
------------------------------------------------------
RUBY SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. CENTENE CORP. and CENTENE MANAGEMENT
CO., LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00198-SWW (E.D. Ark., March 21, 2019),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The case is a hybrid class and collective action brought by
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other hourly-paid call
center employees, employed by Defendant, as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and the others overtime compensation for
all hours that Plaintiff and the others worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

Centene Corporation is a large publicly-traded company and a
multi-line managed care enterprise that serves as a major
intermediary for both government-sponsored and privately insured
health care programs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 south shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com

CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: East Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay and Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC. and UNITED REFINING COMPANY, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01427 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2019), seeks full
compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and others for all alleged
unpaid wages, including overtime and double time, all denied meal
and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage
statement penalties, and waiting time penalties under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

CertifiedSafety is an American company that provides skilled safety
personnel to clients operating oil refineries.  CertifiedSafety
provides services to clients with oil refineries throughout the
United States, including California.  CertifiedSafety maintains its
headquarters in League City, Texas.

United Refining Company is an American corporation that refines and
markets petroleum products.  United operates oil refineries in
Pennsylvania and the United States, and maintains its headquarters
in Warren, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com
                  sgordon@schneiderwallace.com


CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Underpaid Workers File Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC.; SHELL OIL COMPANY; and SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01428 (N.D. Cal., March 18,
2019), challenges the Defendants' alleged policies and practices of
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and others for all hours
worked, minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime and double
time wages.

Headquartered in League City, Texas, CertifiedSafety is an American
company that provides skilled safety personnel to clients operating
oil refineries.  CertifiedSafety provides services to clients with
oil refineries throughout the United States, including California
and Washington.

Shell Oil Company is an American corporation that refines and
markets petroleum products.  Shell Oil Company is the United
States-based wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, a
British-Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in
the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom.

Shell Oil Products Company LLC is an American company that refines
and markets petroleum products.  Shell Oil Products is a related
entity to Shell Oil Company.  Shell Oil Products operates oil
refineries in California, Washington, and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com
                  sgordon@schneiderwallace.com


COATES ELECTRIC: IBEW Seeks Final Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as, I.B.E.W. Local No. 494 et
al., the Plaintiffs, vs. Coates Electric, LLC and Brody Coates,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV1849 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for final class certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs filed this motion alongside their motion for default
judgment and damages. The purpose of the motion is to allow Glen
Savage and Walter Thornton who are not currently named as
Plaintiffs in the complaint. The suit seeks to recover damages
under the FLSA as a part of the Plaintiffs' motion for default
judgment and damages.

Savage and Thornton, like 12 of the 21 Named Plaintiffs in the
complaint, has still not been paid for some of their hours worked.
Savage and Thornton are similarly situated to each of the 21 Named
Plaintiffs in having a claim for liquidated damages, which under
the FLSA is not affected by whether wages were untimely paid or
were outright unpaid, the lawsuit states.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          Christopher Ahrens, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: 414 271-4500
          Facsimile: 414 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Portman Sues over Debt Collection Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB PORTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.;
CAPIO PARTNERS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant(s), Case No.
3:19-cv-08798-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 21, 2019), alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair practices.

The Plaintiff brings the state-wide class action on behalf of
himself and all New Jersey consumers and their successors in
interest, who were harmed by the Defendant's conduct in violation
of the FDCPA, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (877) 827-3395
          Facsimile: (201) 803-6611
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of At-Home CSRs
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TIARA TURNER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONCENTRIX SERVICES
US, INC., and CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-01072-SOH
(W.D. Ark.), asks the Court to conditionally certify the class
defined as: All hourly At-Home Customer Service Representatives
since
November 30, 2015.

Ms. Turner brought this suit on behalf of all former and current
hourly At-Home Customer Service Representatives employed by the
Defendants to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to:

   A. approve of the use of U.S. Mail and text message (or
      alternatively, U.S. Mail and e-mail) to distribute
      Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join;

   B. approve the form and content of Exhibits 1–5;

   C. order the Defendants to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative class member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within seven (7) days after this Court's
      Order is entered;

   D. allow for an opt-in period of ninety (90) days, to begin
      seven days after the day that Defendants produces the names
      and contact information for the putative class members, in
      which putative class members may submit a Consent to Join
      this lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff;

   E. grant the Plaintiff leave to send a follow-up reminder
      Postcard via U.S. Mail (and alternatively e-mail message),
      beginning 30 days after the opt-in period begins, to
      potential plaintiffs who have not responded to the Notice;
      and

   F. award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant all
      other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Short, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CONN'S INC: MicroCapital Opts Out of Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2019, that MicroCapital Fund, LP,
MicroCapital Fund Ltd, and MicroCapital LLC have provided notice
that they were opting out of the class action entitled, In re
Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548.

The company and two of its former executive officers were
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (the "Court"), captioned In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action").

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and
prospects. They alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and sought to certify a class of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock
or call options, or sold or wrote Conn's put options between April
3, 2013 and December 9, 2014.

On June 14, 2018, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement for the Consolidated Securities Action.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement terms and
stayed the Consolidated Securities Action on June 28, 2018. The
$22.5 million settlement was funded solely by proceeds from the
company's insurance carriers.

As part of the settlement, the company, along with the other
executive officer defendants, have denied and continue to deny any
wrongdoing giving rise to any liability or violation of the law,
including the U.S. securities laws, as well as each and every one
of the claims alleged by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Action.

The Court held a final settlement approval hearing on October 11,
2018 and that same day the Court signed its Final Order and
Judgment approving the terms of the settlement of the Consolidated
Securities Action.

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal on November 15, 2018.

All claims of class members who did not opt out of the Consolidated
Securities Action were settled and dismissed.

MicroCapital Fund, LP, MicroCapital Fund Ltd, and MicroCapital LLC
(collectively "MicroCapital") provided notice that they were opting
out of the class action.

Conn's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of durable consumer
goods and related services in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Retail and Credit.  The company was founded
in 1890 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Ill. Residents Class Certified in Bakov Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit
captioned ANGEL BAKOV and JULIE HERRERA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED WORLD TRAVEL, INC.
d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, a Florida Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court certifies the class as to the claims of the Illinois
residents, but lacks jurisdiction over the Defendant as to the
claims of the nonresident, proposed class members.

In this class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs Angel Bakov, Julie
Herrera, and Kinaya Hewlett allege that the Defendant directed an
Indian company called Virtual Voice Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to place
phone calls to the Plaintiffs and potential class members without
prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Randall Snyder
is granted.  The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Kenneth R. Sponsler and the Defendant's Motions to Exclude the
Testimonies of Colin Weir and Christina Peters-Stasiweicz are all
denied.[CC]


COVERALL NORTH: Bille Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CARIBE BILLE and QUINCY REEVES,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00092-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for class certification.

According to the complaint, Connecticut employers may not classify
workers as independent contractors unless they can show that the
workers are (a) free from control and direction, (b) performing
their work away from the employer's places of business and outside
their usual course of business, and (c) "customarily engaged" in an
"independently established" trade, occupation, profession or
business.

The Plaintiffs challenge what they contend are illegal employment
practices by a large national cleaning company that sells
low-paying janitorial jobs to primarily immigrant workers under the
guise that the workers are buying their own businesses.

Coverall North America sells cleaning "franchises" to workers who
pay large sums of money in order to obtain this low-wage cleaning
work. Coverall requires these workers to pay fees both upfront and
on an ongoing basis for the right to continue working, including
franchise fees, finder's fees, workers' compensation insurance,
liability insurance, and assorted other fees, as well as
chargebacks (which require the workers to return payments they have
already received for their services when customers fail to pay
their bills).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
persons:

          Richard Hayber, Esq.
          Michael T. Petela, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          750 Main Street, Ste 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (203) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

COVIA HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Not Yet Rescheduled
------------------------------------------------------------
Covia Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the hearing to
consider final approval of a class action settlement has not yet
been rescheduled.

The final settlement hearing, originally scheduled for March 12,
2019, was postponed due to conflicts with the Court's schedule. The
hearing has not yet been rescheduled.  

On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin")
completed its previously announced merger transaction (the
"Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged
into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a
separate corporate entity.  The combined entities began operating
as Covia. Fairmount Santrol common stock was delisted from the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") prior to the market opening on June 1,
2018 and Covia commenced trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as
of that date.

Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its
directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware. The lawsuits
generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated
the federal securities laws by issuing misleading disclosures in
connection with the Merger.  

The lawsuits sought, among other things, to enjoin the special
meeting at which stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled
to vote on, among other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger
agreement.

On May 15, 2018, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between
counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants,
Fairmount Santrol disseminated additional information to Fairmount
Santrol stockholders through a Current Report on Form 8-K. Also on
May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their pending motions for a
preliminary injunction. On June 1, 2018, after the holders of the
majority of the outstanding shares of Fairmount Santrol voted to
approve the Merger, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger
agreement.  

On November 9, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement and the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The final
settlement hearing, originally scheduled for March 12, 2019, was
postponed due to conflicts with the Court's schedule. The hearing
has not yet been rescheduled.  

Covia Holdings Corporation provides diversified mineral-based and
material solutions for the industrial and energy markets. The
company operates through two segments, Energy and Industrial. Covia
Holdings Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in
Independence, Ohio.


CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend SSA Bonds-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to supranational, sub-sovereign
and agency (SSA) bonds.

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions and individuals, have been named in several putative
class action complaints filed in the Southern District of New York
(SDNY) relating to the supranational, sub-sovereign and agency
(SSA) bonds.

The complaints generally allege that defendants conspired to fix
the prices of SSA bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the
secondary market. These actions have been consolidated in the SDNY.
On April 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on November 3, 2017, which defendants moved to dismiss on
December 12, 2017.

On August 24, 2018, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to
amend. On November 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss
on December 21, 2018.

Separately, on February 7, 2019, Credit Suisse AG and certain of
its affiliates, together with other financial institutions and
individuals, were named in a putative class action filed in the
SDNY, which makes allegations similar to the consolidated class
action, but seeks to represent a putative class of indirect
purchasers of US dollar SSA bonds where the purchase was made in or
connected to New York.

Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with
other financial institutions, have also been named in two Canadian
putative class actions, which make allegations similar to the
consolidated class action.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Continues to Defend USD LIBOR Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend the USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) litigation.

Beginning in 2011, certain Credit Suisse entities were named in
various civil lawsuits filed in the US, alleging banks on the US
dollar LIBOR panel manipulated US dollar LIBOR to benefit their
reputation and increase profits.

All but one of these matters have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes into a multi-district litigation in the Southern District
of New York (SDNY). The majority of the actions have been stayed
since their outset, while a handful of individual actions and
putative class actions have been proceeding.

The Credit Suisse entities have been dismissed from all non-stayed
putative class actions.

In a series of rulings between 2013 and 2018 on motions to dismiss,
the SDNY (i) narrowed the claims against the Credit Suisse entities
and the other defendants (dismissing antitrust, Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Commodity Exchange
Act, and state law claims), (ii) narrowed the set of plaintiffs who
may bring claims, and (iii) narrowed the set of defendants in the
LIBOR actions (including the dismissal of several Credit Suisse
entities from various cases on personal jurisdiction grounds).

The plaintiffs have appealed several of the SDNY's rulings to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second
Circuit).

On February 23, 2018, the Second Circuit issued a decision in an
appeal of one individual (non-class) action that largely affirmed
the SDNY's rulings, including upholding the dismissal of certain
state law and securities law claims as to Credit Suisse Group AG,
but vacated certain rulings and remanded the case for further
proceedings. Another consolidated Second Circuit appeal is still
pending.

Separately, on May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in the three non-stayed
putative class actions moved for class certification. On February
28, 2018, the SDNY denied certification in two of the actions and
granted certification over a single antitrust claim in an action
brought by over-the-counter purchasers of LIBOR-linked derivatives.


In the same decision, the court dismissed Credit Suisse AG, the
only remaining Credit Suisse entity in the action, from the
over-the-counter action. All parties moved for immediate appellate
review of the class-certification decisions, and the Second Circuit
denied their petitions for review.

On June 15, 2018, plaintiffs in several non-class actions filed
amended complaints or filed for leave to amend their currently
operative complaints. On July 13, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaints and opposed leave to amend.

In the one matter that is not consolidated in the multi-district
litigation, the SDNY granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on
March 31, 2015. On June 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint in the SDNY; defendants'
opposition brief was filed on July 15, 2015. On March 20, 2018, the
SDNY denied the plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended
pleading and dismissed the case on the merits.

Plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Defending Against USD ICE LIBOR Litigation in SDNY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is facing a
consolidated US dollar Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) LIBOR suit.

In January 2019, members of the US dollar Intercontinental Exchange
(ICE) LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of
its affiliates, were named in three civil putative class action
lawsuits alleging that panel banks suppressed US dollar ICE LIBOR
to benefit defendants' trading positions.

These actions have been consolidated in the Southern District of
New York (SDNY).

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action lawsuit entitled, Yellowdog
Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt,
William Baker and Roger W. Dean.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

The complaint alleges that the company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons" of CURO. Plaintiffs purport to bring these
claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the
company's stock between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding the company's efforts to transition its
Canadian inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End
loans. Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendants made these misstatements and omissions to keep our stock
price high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

CURO Group said, "While we intend to vigorously contest this
lawsuit, we cannot determine the final resolution or when it might
be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this
litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an
adverse ruling, our management’s efforts and attention may be
diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these
claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a
material adverse impact on our results because of defense costs,
including costs related to our indemnification obligations,
diversion of resources and other factors."

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


DELTA AIR: Pica Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gabrielle Groff and Dana Pica filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Dana Pica, et al. v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02876-MWF-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Dana Pica, et al. v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55300, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 12, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 13, 2019;

   -- Appellants Gabrielle Groff and Dana Pica's opening brief is
      due on June 21, 2019;

   -- Appellees Delta Air Lines, Inc., Does and [27].AI, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on July 22, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants DANA PICA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and GABRIELLE GROFF, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: jpg@foleybezek.com

Defendant-Appellee DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
is represented by:

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2782
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Nicholas Akrotirianakis, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          E-mail: jakro@kslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee [27] .AI, INC., a California Corporation, is
represented by:

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

               - and -

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



DEUTSCHE BANK: Agreement Reached in SSA Direct Participants Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has reached an agreement to settle the actions by direct market
participants for the amount of US$48.5 million.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in several putative class action
complaints filed in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York by alleged direct and indirect market participants
claiming violations of antitrust law and common law related to
alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for Sovereign,
Supranational and Agency Bonds (SSA) bonds.

Deutsche Bank has reached an agreement to settle the actions by
direct market participants for the amount of US$48.5 million and
has recorded a provision in the same amount. The settlement is
subject to court approval.

The action filed on behalf of alleged indirect market participants
is in its early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the lead
plaintiff in the shareholders class action suit pending before the
Southern District of New York has filed an amended class action
complaint.

Deutsche Bank and certain of its current and former officers and
management board members are the subject of a purported class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Deutsche Bank on
a United States exchange or pursuant to other transactions within
the United States between March 20, 2017 and May 30, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege that Deutsche Bank's Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the years 2016 and
2017 and its quarterly interim reports on Form 6-K for calendar
2017 contained materially false and misleading statements regarding
its business, operational and compliance policies and internal
control environment.

On January 25, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint.

Deutsche Bank is defending the action.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Suits over Trading of US Agency Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has been named as defendant in four putative class action suits
related to the alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market
for US Agency bonds.

Deutsche Bank has also been named as a defendant in four putative
class action complaints filed in February and March 2019 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of antitrust law and common law related to alleged
manipulation of the secondary trading market for US Agency bonds.
These cases are in the early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: RMBS Trust-Related Class Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class
action suits related to certain Residential Mortgage-Backed
Security (RMBS) trusts have been dismissed.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in civil lawsuits brought by various
groups of investors concerning its role as trustee of certain
Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) trusts. The actions
generally allege claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, negligence
and/or violations of the US Trust Indenture Act of 1939, based on
the trustees' alleged failure to perform adequately certain
obligations and/or duties as trustee for the trusts.

Two putative class actions brought by a group of investors,
including funds managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors,
L.P., and others recently were settled. One of these putative class
actions was pending in the Superior Court of California until the
court dismissed the action with prejudice on January 11, 2019.

The second putative class action was pending in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York and was dismissed with
prejudice on December 6, 2018.

Deutsche Bank was also a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the
Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and five related
entities, but on September 28, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of their claims.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement Reached in Canadian Precious Metal Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has reached a settlement agreement in the Canadian class action
suits related to precious metal.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in Canadian class action proceedings
in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec concerning gold and silver.


Each of the proceedings seeks damages for alleged violations of the
Canadian Competition Act and other causes of action. Deutsche Bank
has reached agreements to settle these actions.

The agreements remain subject to court approval, and the amounts
are not material to the Bank.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court
overseeing the Bank Bill Swap Rate Claims litigation has granted
plaintiffs permission to file a second amended complaint.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Deutsche Bank and other defendants, bringing claims based on
alleged collusion and manipulation in connection with the
Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate ("BBSW") on behalf of persons and
entities that engaged in US-based transactions in BBSW-linked
financial instruments from 2003 through the date on which the
effects of the alleged unlawful conduct ceased.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things,
engaged in money market transactions intended to influence the BBSW
fixing, made false BBSW submissions, and used their control over
BBSW rules to further the alleged misconduct. An amended complaint
was filed on December 16, 2016.

On November 26, 2018, the court partially granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all claims
against Deutsche Bank.

On March 4, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs permission to file a
second amended complaint.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Royal Park Investments Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend the Royal Park Investments SA/NV class action
suits.

Deutsche Bank has been named as a defendant in six separate civil
lawsuits, two putative class actions and four individual lawsuits.

The putative class actions were brought by Royal Park Investments
SA/NV, concern 10 trusts, and are pending in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

In the first case, which plaintiff filed on June 18, 2014,
plaintiff alleges that the trusts suffered total realized
collateral losses of more than US$ 3.1 billion, although the
complaint does not specify a damage amount. On March 29, 2018, the
court issued an order denying plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification, and on August 7, 2018, the court of appeals denied
plaintiff's motion for leave to immediately appeal the denial of
class certification.

On September 28, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion seeking
permission to prove liability and damages using a statistical
sample of the loans at issue in the case. Discovery is ongoing.

On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class
action complaint against the trustee asserting claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable
accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the
payment from trust funds of the trustee’s legal fees and expenses
in the other, ongoing Royal Park litigation.

On August 13, 2018, the court stayed the action pending resolution
of the underlying Royal Park litigation and denied the trustee's
motion to dismiss without prejudice to its refiling once the stay
is lifted.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in Canada relating to the
alleged manipulation of secondary trading of Sovereign,
Supranational and Agency Bonds (SSA bonds).

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in putative class actions filed on
November 7, 2017 and December 5, 2017 in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice and Federal Court of Canada, respectively, claiming
violations of antitrust law and the common law relating to alleged
manipulation of secondary trading of Sovereign, Supranational and
Agency Bonds (SSA bonds).

The complaints rely on allegations similar to those in the US class
actions involving SSA bond trading, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages. The cases are in their early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits over Mexican Government Bond Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend several class action suits related to the
trades of Mexican government bonds.

Deutsche Bank was named as a defendant in several putative class
action complaints filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of US antitrust law and a
claim for unjust enrichment relating to Mexican government bond
trading. The case is in its early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KIM AKER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DOBBERSTEIN LAW FIRM LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-415-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

DOORDASH INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Goldman-Hull Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Doordash, Inc for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 251-262, and California Labor Code.  The case is captioned
NOAH GOLDMAN-HULL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01513 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2019).

Goldman-Hull alleges that Doordash misclassifies him and other
delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees
and fails to pay them all hours worked. Further, Goldman-Hull seeks
statutory penalties assessed in connection with California Private
Attorneys General Act. He also seeks to recover the damages for
claims of unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA.

DoorDash, Inc. provides takeout food delivery via a phone
application and website throughout the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net

          - and -

     Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 839-6506
     Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
     E-mail: marbuckl@baronbudd.com


EAST RIVER RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES ZAMORA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EAST RIVER RESTAURANT GROUP,
LTD. (D/B/A ELEVEN B), THE MATADOR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. (D/B/A
GUAC), and VINCENT A. SGARLATO, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02534 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. However, he was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to washing plates,
pots, utensils, preparing chicken, preparing dough, cutting
vegetables, organizing inventory, restocking the refrigerators with
beverages, folding pizza boxes, taking out the trash, and mopping
and sweeping.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff as
a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties
required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged
non-tipped duties.

The Defendants owned, operated or controlled an Italian and a
Mexican Restaurant, located at 174 Avenue B, New York, NY 10009
under the name "Eleven B" and at 179 Avenue B, New York, NY 10009
under the name "Guac".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

EGV COMPANIES: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EGV COMPANIES, INC., a Missouri
corporation, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-01170-MSG (E.D. Pa., March
198, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners and to obtain damages and
other redress for all persons injured by its conduct under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, all of the calls at issue in this case
were made on behalf o, for the benefit of, and with the knowledge
and approval of EGV.  Unfortunately for consumers, EGV, in an
attempt to sell more auto warranties, engaged in an aggressive
telemarketing campaign -- often stepping outside the law in the
process.  Specifically, the Defendant uses an automatic telephone
dialing system, to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to
cellphone numbers.  While calls to landlines may be permitted under
the Act, the lawsuit contends that the Defendants' action is a
plain violation of the TCPA to make those calls to cellphones
without first obtaining prior express consent.

EGV makes telemarketing calls to solicit to purchase auto
warranties that it administers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Barry Cohen, Esq.
          ROYER COPPER COHEN BREAUNFELD LLC
          Two Logan Square
          00 N. 18th Street, Suite 710
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 484 362 2628
          Fascimile: 484 362 2630

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODRWO & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com

EMSP LLC: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Ruling in Funez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants E.M.S.P., L.L.C., Edwin A. Miranda and Sadia Esther
Palacio filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Funez, et al. v. E.M.S.P., L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-1922,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
New Orleans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Sulma Hernandez, et al. v.
E.M.S.P., L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-30216, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SULMA HERNANDEZ, On behalf of themselves and
others similarly-situated; DIANNA MEJIA, On behalf of themselves
and others similarly-situated; DILCIA NUNEZ, On behalf of
themselves and others similarly-situated; KARLINA MOLINA, On behalf
of themselves and others similarly-situated; LYDIA VEGA, On behalf
of themselves and others similarly-situated; REYNA RODRIGUEZ, On
behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated; JESSICA MARILU
ROSALEZ FUNEZ, On behalf of themselves and others
similarly-situated; CANDY MELISSA ZAMORA, On behalf of themselves
and others similarly-situated; JULIE CARBALLO, Incorrectly named
Julia S. Carballo; MARLENE RODRIGUEZ, On behalf of themselves and
others similarly-situated; WENDY RAMIREZ; IRMA RIVERA; DORIS
HERNANDEZ; ALICE CARTER; KEYRA BORDEN; BONNIE EVANS; SADIE GRIMES;
NANCY MARTINEZ; JACOBY BRIGHT; JOSHUA ROBERT; NANCY MIRANDA; ELIJAH
JONES; and GEORGE REED are represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

Defendants-Appellants E.M.S.P., L.L.C., EDWIN A. MIRANDA and SADIA
ESTHER PALACIO are represented by:

          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS, L.L.P.
          1 Galleria Boulevard
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 217-2006
          Facsimile: (504) 833-5600
          E-mail: plh@chehardy.com


ENSIGN GROUP: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------
The case captioned as, VICTORIA HARRIS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b),
Plaintiffs, v. THE ENSIGN GROUP, INC., KEYSTONE CARE, LLC, and TREE
CITY HEALTHCARE, INC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00713-C (N.D.
Tex., March 22, 2019), alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members
routinely work in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. However, the
defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members at
one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. Plaintiff Harris
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Ensign Group, Inc., Keystone Care, LLC., and Tree City
Healthcare, Inc. provide post-acute care services including
independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing,
rehabilitative care, home health, home care and hospice. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
     Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
     HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
     801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Telephone: 817-479-9229
     Facsimile: 817-887-1878
     E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
             pamela@herrmannlaw.com


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Ibrahim Sues over Hostile Work Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------
A civil action has been filed against Fidelity Investments, Inc.
for human rights violations. The case is captioned MAIE IBRAHIM,
Plaintiff, against FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
152689/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 13, 2019). Plaintiff Maie Ibrahim
brings a civil action to remedy Fidelity Investments' unlawful and
discriminatory employment actions taken against her, including
hostile work environment, harassment based upon sex, discrimination
based upon sex resulting in constructive discharge, and retaliation
resulting in constructive discharge in violation of the New York
City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff seeks equitable and legal relief in the form of
declaratory relief; injunctive relief; monetary damages for past
and future economic losses; compensatory damages, including, but
not limited to, emotional distress, mental anguish, and
humiliation; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees; costs of
this action; and any such other and further relief deemed just and
equitable.

Fidelity is a multinational financial services corporation duly
organized and existing in the State of Massachusetts conducting
business in the State of New York, County of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Justin S. Clark, Esq.
    LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020
    New York, NY 10118
    Telephone:  (212) 967-3000
    E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com


FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Parshall Sues over Securities Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over alleged violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 has been filed against Fidelity Southern
Corporation. The case is captioned PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY
SOUTHERN CORPORATION, JAMES B. MILLER JR., H. PALMER PROCTOR JR.,
DAVID R. BOCKEL SR., RODNEY D. BULLARD, WILLIAM MILLARD CHOATE,
DONALD A. HARP JR., KEVIN S. KING, WILLIAM C. LANKFORD JR., GLORIA
A. O'NEAL, W. CLYDE SHEPHERD III, RANKIN M. SMITH JR., and AMERIS
BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01098-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 8,
2019).

Parshall claims that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by
the defendant on February 12, 2019, omits material information with
respect to a proposed transaction. The action stems from the
transaction announced on Dec. 17, 2018, pursuant to which Fidelity
Southern Corporation will be acquired by Ameris Bancorp. On the
same day, Fidelity’s Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Ameris. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Fidelity will
receive 0.80 shares of Ameris common stock for each share of
Fidelity common stock they own. However, defendants filed a Form
S-4 Registration Statement with an omission that renders it false
and misleading.

Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement.

Fidelity is a Georgia corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 1550, Atlant,
Georgia 30305. Its common stock is traded on NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the ticker symbol LION. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     
     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     Marshall P. Dees
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC.
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Telephone: (770) 392-0090  
     Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
     
       - and -

     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     Gina M. Serra
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone(302) 295-5310

       - and -

     RM LAW, P.C.
     Richard A. Maniskas
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone:(484) 324-6800



FIRST INTERSTATE: Parshall Suit Dropped
---------------------------------------
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 18,
2019, that the plaintiff in the putative class action suit
entitled, Parshall v. Community 1st Bank, et al., has agreed to
dismiss the case.

On or about February 8, 2019, a purported individual stockholder of
Community 1st Bank ("CMYF") filed a lawsuit in the Court for the
First Judicial District of The State of Idaho, Kootenai County (the
"Court"), under the caption Parshall v. Community 1st Bank, et.
al., Case No. CV28-19-1063 (the "Action").

The complaint, which was filed as a putative class action and
derivative action on behalf of the individual plaintiff and the
public stockholders of CMYF, alleges that the proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forming a
part of the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by First
Interstate BancSystem, Inc. ("First Interstate") in connection with
the proposed merger of CMYF with First Interstate Bank, the
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Interstate, does not contain
certain information alleged to be material to the CMYF stockholders
concerning the proposed merger.

The complaint asserts claims against CMYF's directors for breach of
fiduciary duty, and against First Interstate for aiding and
abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief against consummation of the
merger and additional, allegedly corrective disclosures as well as
attorneys' and expert fees.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and to allow the CMYF stockholders to vote
on the proposals required in connection with the proposed merger
with First Interstate Bank at the CMYF special meeting of
stockholders to be held on March 27, 2019 (the "Special Meeting'),
CMYF hereby supplements the disclosures contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional Disclosures"). The Additional
Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

In light of the Additional Disclosures, plaintiff has agreed to
dismiss the Action with prejudice as to his individual claims and
without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative
class. In dismissing the Action, plaintiff has reserved the right
to seek an award of attorneys' fees from the Court.

The agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid to CMYF's stockholders or the
timing of the Special Meeting.

CMYF and the other defendants, including First Interstate,
vigorously deny that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus is deficient in
any respect and that the Additional Disclosures are material or
required. CMYF and First Interstate believe that the claims
asserted in the Action are without merit, and that the Additional
Disclosures do not provide information required by the federal
securities laws or Idaho law or that is material to the decision of
the CMYF stockholders as to how to vote their shares at the Special
Meeting. The Additional Disclosures are being made solely to
eliminate the burden, expense, and nuisance of further litigation,
and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the merger that
might arise from further litigation.

A copy of the additional disclosures is available at
https://bit.ly/2TP8Y2Q.

First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. operates as the bank holding
company for First Interstate Bank that provides range of banking
products and services in the United States. First Interstate
BancSystem, Inc. was incorporated in 1971 and is headquartered in
Billings, Montana.


FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Daniel Herrera Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
FPI Management, Inc.  The case is captioned Daniel Herrera vs. FPI
Management Inc, Case No. 34-2019-00252461-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento County, March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Tami R. Bogert.

FPI Management, Inc. is a privately owned, third-party, multifamily
property manager. Headquartered in Folsom, California, FPI
currently manages 110,000 units in 14 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     
     Larry W Lee, Esq.
     Diversity Law Group
     515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
     Telephone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
     E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


FTD COMPANIES: Bid for Review in EasySaver Rewards Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, 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 objector's petition
seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's denial of a
motion to stay the issuance of mandate in the case entitled, In re
EasySaver Rewards Litigation, is still pending.  

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of putative
consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide
Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore
Marketing International ("EMI").

These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three
years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California under the title In re
EasySaver Rewards Litigation.

Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in
subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards,
RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the
"Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered
items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were
presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership
Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers
allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or
otherwise allegedly improper transferring of billing information to
EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit
or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership
Programs.

In the operative fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted ten
claims against Provide Commerce and EMI: (1) breach of contract
(against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against
EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of
privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

After motion practice regarding the claims asserted and numerous
settlement conferences and mediations in an effort to informally
resolve the matter the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement on April 9, 2012, conditioned on the
parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement.

In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a
formal written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which the
court preliminarily approved on June 13, 2012. After notice to the
purported class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a
final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on
January 28, 2013, but did not rule.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
the Settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a
single objector. The court entered judgment on the Settlement on
February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013.

After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral
argument for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth
Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the
appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned
Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Frank v. Netflix
issued on February 27, 2015. The district court ordered
supplemental briefing on the issue of final Settlement approval May
21, 2015. After briefing, the district court conducted a hearing on
July 27, 2016 and took the matter under submission.

On August 9, 2016, the district court entered an order reapproving
the Settlement without any changes, and accordingly entered
judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. On September 6,
2016, the objector filed a notice of appeal.

On November 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
affirmance of the district court's judgment, to which the objector
responded and filed a cross-motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs’
motion for summary affirmance temporarily stayed briefing on the
appeal. On March 2, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’
motion for summary affirmance and objector's cross-motion for
sanctions, and reset the briefing schedule. The objector filed his
opening brief on May 1, 2017.

Thirteen state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support
of the objector on May 8, 2017. The parties filed their answering
briefs on June 30, 2017. Various legal aid organizations filed an
amicus brief in support of no party regarding cy pres relief also
on June 30, 2017.

The objector's optional reply brief was filed on August 14, 2017.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 17, 2018. On October
3, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district
court's award of attorney's fees, but otherwise affirmed the
district court’s approval of the class action settlement.

On October 10, 2018, the objector filed a motion to stay the
issuance of mandate, which would return jurisdiction to the
district court, and for an extension of time to file a petition for
panel rehearing. The Ninth Circuit denied the objector's motion on
November 21, 2018, and issued the mandate on November 29, 2018.

In March 2019, the parties completed submission of supplemental
briefings to the district court regarding the amount of Plaintiffs'
counsel’s attorneys' fees and costs award. As of the date of this
filing, the district court has not issued a decision on the matter.


On February 13, 2019, the objector filed a petition seeking Supreme
Court review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

As of the date of this filing, the Supreme Court has not reviewed
the objector's petition. The negotiated settlement amount has been
fully reserved.

FTD Companies said, "There can be no assurances that other legal
actions or governmental investigations will not be instituted in
connection with the Company's current or former business practices.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of governmental
investigations or other legal actions or their potential
implications for its business."

FTD Companies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
floral and gifting company primarily in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. It operates
through four segments: Provide Commerce, Consumer, Florist, and
International. The company was formerly known as UNOL Intermediate,
Inc. FTD Companies, Inc. was founded in 1910 and is headquartered
in Downers Grove, Illinois.


G WILLI FOOD: Bid to Withdraw Class Suit v. Gold Frost Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company is
awaiting the court's decision on plaintiff's motion to withdraw the
class action suit against Gold Frost Ltd.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on
July 22, 2018, against Gold Frost Ltd. (through the company)
(hereafter – "Gold Frost") and eight other companies to the
Jerusalem District Court for allegedly not complying with the food
labelling regulations in connection with one of its products and
thereby misleading consumers.

At this stage, the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 4 million, since
the plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of
the damage.

On November 16 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the
lawsuit, including payment compensation and attorneys' fees at
amounts that are immaterial to the Company.

As of the date of this report, the Court has not yet issued a
ruling approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.


G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Customer Protection Breach Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that a preliminary
hearing was held in the class action suit related to customer
protection breach.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on
March 26, 2018 against the Company to the Tel Aviv District Court
for allegedly breaching some of its consumer protection duties in
connection with one of its products, thereby misleading its
customers.

At this stage, the amount of the lawsuit is NIS 2.7 million, since
the plaintiff does not have sufficient data regarding the amount of
the damage. A preliminary hearing was held on December 19, 2018.

In view of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is not yet
possible to assess the result of the lawsuit.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.


GATEWAY TRANS: Wooldridge Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
Billy Ray Wooldridge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the ePlaintiff, vs. Gateway Transportation of Georgia,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00053-HLM (N.D. Ga., March
19, 2019), seeks damages for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum
wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated long-haul over-the-road
truck driver employees of Defendant as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.

Wooldridge was an employee of Defendant who worked as a long-haul
over-the-road truck driver, transporting goods in a large container
truck belonging to Defendant with an attached bunk cab. His work
required that he sleep in the cab of his truck while away from home
working for Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Wooldridge for his
work on a per-mile basis. At times, Wooldridge was paid 33 cents
per mile, and at other times he was paid up to 42 cents per mile.
However, the Defendant failed to ensure that the weekly wages
Wooldridge received on this per-mile basis equaled at least the
FLSA minimum hourly wage for all weekly hours that Wooldridge
worked. In many instances, Wooldridge did not receive the federal
minimum wage for all of his hours of work per seven-day workweek
because the weekly mileage pay he received, when divided by the
weekly hours considered worked under the FLSA, was less than the
FLSA mandated minimum hourly wage rate of $7.25.

The Defendant's conduct was not limited to its treatment of
Wooldridge. It paid all of its employee long-haul over-the-road
truck drivers on a per-mile basis without ensuring that its workers
were paid minimum wage for all hours of work in each seven-day
workweek. As the result of this pay practice, Defendant frequently
failed to pay its employee long-haul over-the-road truck drivers
FLSA mandated minimum wages for all hours that they worked.

Gateway Transportation provides long-haul trucking services to its
customers, with locations in Georgia and Florida. In connection
with these services, Gateway employs truck drivers like Plaintiff
to drive its trucks.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK &
             BENJAMIN, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  marbuckl@baronbudd.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Dawson Sues Over Faulty CP4 Fuel Injection Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE DAWSON and JOHN TAMBURINI individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-08680 (D.N.J., March 15, 2019), concerns diesel vehicles
sold in New Jersey with defective CP4 fuel injection pumps.

The vehicles at issue refer to GM manufactured vehicles, including:
the 2011-2016 model year Chevrolet Silverado 2500 and 3500 and the
2011-2016 model year GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500, which are equipped
with the 6.6 liter, V-8, turbocharged, Duramax engine.  The
Plaintiffs allege that GM failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and
other buyers/lessees that the Bosch CP4 high pressure fuel
injection pumps installed in the Class Vehicles are defective when
used in the United States.  Such pumps, which require a certain
amount of lubricity, are incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel, which
does not have the required lubricity.

Based in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company doing business throughout the United
States and in various other countries.

GM, through its various entities, manufactures, distributes,
designs, sells, leases and warranties the Class Vehicles in this
District and other locations in the United States.  The Company's
core automobile brands include GMC and Chevrolet.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net
                  stsavett@bm.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Martinez Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07432 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's motor
vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2011 GMC
Terrain, contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in
their engines that cause them to be unable to properly utilize
engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume
abnormally high amounts of oil.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the vehicles equipped
with the 2.4L engine had one or more defects that can result in
various problems, including, but not limited to, excessive oil
consumption; improper burning or consumption of abnormally high
amounts of oil; premature failure of the engine balance chains;
premature failure of the fuel pump plunger seal; fuel leaks into
the crankcase; rough running of the engine; engine run-on
conditions; loss of power; rough idle; and stalling. These
conditions present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous
to consumers because they can suddenly and unexpectedly cause
engine failure while the vehicle is in operation at any time and
under any driving condition or speed. The unexpected engine
failure, thereby, expose the Plaintiff and her passengers to a
serious risk of accident and injury.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
            A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com


GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson May File Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Glen E. Conrad grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned WILLIE
HENDERSON, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated
v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 7:17-cv-00292-GEC
(W.D. Va.).

The second amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of
the order and docketed separately by the Clerk, according to the
order.  The Plaintiff will file an amended motion for class
certification reflecting Navient Portfolio Management, LLC as an
additional defendant within five days.

The parties will confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule on
the amended motion for class certification within 10 days.  Upon
receipt of the proposed briefing schedule, the Court will finalize
the hearing date for the amended motion for class certification.
The original motion for class certification will be
administratively terminated by the Clerk.[CC]



GLOBAL FIXTURE: Tillis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MONIQUE TILLIS, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL FIXTURE
SERVICES, INC. and DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01059 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees owed to Plaintiff Monique Tillis and all other similarly
situated employees employed by, or formerly employed by the
Defendants, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. is one of a
number of corporations formed for the purpose of operating Dollar
General stores around the country. Global Fixture Services, Inc. is
a company that performs services, solely at Dollar General stores.
Global hires crews of approximately individuals to "re-set" Dollar
General stores. A re-set involves removing all merchandise from a
Dollar General store and putting it in a storage container brought
on site for that purpose, removing all shelving, coolers and other
fixtures.

One crew member is called the "lead contractor," and is the point
person for dealing with the Dollar General representative and
generally in charge of the crew and their work. Each crew spends a
week or so on each re-set, beginning on Saturday and finishing the
following Thursday, Friday, or occasionally Saturday. The crew then
rebuilds and rearranges shelving, coolers and fixtures according to
the new Dollar General -- determined arrangement, and then puts the
merchandise back on the shelves.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate
Plaintiff and Members of the Class for work performed in the employ
of the Defendants. They have suffered damages as a direct result of
Defendants' illegal actions, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com

GLOBAL LOCKSMITH: Armstrong et al. Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, New Covenant Church, Inc., Carlos L. Williams, Felicia
Williams, and Catherine Armstrong, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Jeanine R.
Armstrong, Carla Futch, Yvette D. Clayborne, S. Ferguson, and One
Unknown Officer, in their individual and official capacities as
Police Officers for the City of Brunswick, Georgia; Global
Locksmith Pros, LLC; Primesouth Bank, the Defendants, Case No.
CE19-00333, was transferred from the Superior Court of Glynn
County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia (Brunswick) on March 21, 2019. The Southern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00040-LGW-BWC to the proceeding. The suit demands
$1,600,000 alleging civil rights related violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Lisa G. Wood.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Emily Rose Hancock, Esq.
          Richard K. Strickland, Esq.
          BROWN, READDICK & BUMGARTNER
          P.O. Box 220
          Brunswick, GA 31521
          Telephone: (912) 264-8544
          Facsimile: (912) 264-9667
          E-mail: ehancock@brbcsw.com
                  rstrickland@brbcsw.com

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss Transient Tax Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted
a joint motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit.

On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported
class action complaint against the company in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals
and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging
Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges
for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through
the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.

All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit.

The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on February
21, 2019.

Golden Entertainment aid, "At this time this matter is closed. The
plaintiffs have the right to appeal."

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a final fairness
hearing to consider approval of the settlement in a class action
lawsuit in Nevada is scheduled for June 2019.

In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two
separate purported class action lawsuits against the company in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals employed by the company in the State of
Nevada.

The lawsuits allege that the company violated certain Nevada labor
laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The
complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

The company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth
quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter
of 2018. In February 2019, the court approved the settlement for
the first case for $0.5 million.

The remaining case remains subject to final court approval, with
the final fairness hearing scheduled for June 2019. Both were
included in the company's recorded reserves of $1.7 million at
December 31, 2018.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GS FIRE: Violates FLSA by Misclassifying Workers, Guzman Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUZMAN, ANGEL GAMERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GS FIRE PROTECTION, LLC, and BRENT A. EAKINS,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00214-ALM (E.D. Tex., March 19, 2019), alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
improperly classifying the Plaintiffs and Class Members as
independent contractors to evade legal obligations to pay overtime
wages.

GSFP is a Texas limited-liability company with its principal
offices located in in Allen, Texas.  Brent A. Eakins is a part
owner and Manager of GSFP.

GSFP installs and repairs fire-protection systems in residential
and commercial construction projects, including single-family
houses, multi-unit dwellings, and retail spaces, throughout North
Texas and across the state. Eakins is GSFP's owner, President, and
Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James D. Sanford, Esq.
          GILLESPIE SANFORD LLP
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 800-5112
          Facsimile: (214) 838-0001
          E-mail: jim@gillespiesanford.com


HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Erica Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hall Management Corp., et al, Case No.
1:19-cv-00343-DAD-BAM (Filed March 12, 2019) was transferred from
the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.  The
Defendants removed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441
and 1446, and stated that this Court has jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332 and/or alternatively, the
Court has original removal jurisdiction pursuant to Class Action
Fairness Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Plaintiff Martinez sues Hall Management for its failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period
violations, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition. Martinez seeks unpaid wages, penalties,
liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest.

Defendants Hall Management Corp. and Hall Management Group, Inc.,
employ seasonal farm labor employees to process and pack produce.
[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
     Matthew Kevin Moen, Esq.
     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Haines Law Group, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (424) 292-2350
     Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
     mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
     phaines@haineslawgroup.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hall Management Corp. and Hall Management
Group, Inc.:

     Michael C. Saqui, Esq.,
     Jennifer M. Schermerhorn, Esq.,
     Anthony C. Oceguera, Esq.
     Rebecca A. Hause-Schultz, Esq.
     DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
     1410 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 330
     Roseville, CA 95661
     Telephone: (916) 782-8555
     Facsimile: (916) 782-8565
     E-mail: Jschermerhorn@laborcounselors.com
             RHause-Schultz@laborcounselors.com


HANJIN INT'L: Brimhall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled SABRINA BRIMHALL,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
HANJIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION dba INTERCONTINENTAL LOS ANGELES
DOWNTOWN, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
19STCV02379, was removed on March 18, 2019, from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02014 to the
proceeding.

Defendant Hanjin International Corporation, erroneously sued as
Hanjin International Corporation dba Intercontinental Los Angeles
Downtown, and Real Party Defendant in Interest IHG Management
(Maryland) LLC dba Intercontinental Los Angeles Downtown, removed
the action.

On January 28, 2019, Sabrina Brimhall filed a civil complaint in
the Superior Court.  The Plaintiff alleges claims for, among other
things, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages.[BN]

Defendants Hanjin International Corporation and IHG Management
(Maryland) LLC are represented by:

          Michael J. Burns, Esq.
          Eric E. Hill, Esq.
          Michelle M. Scannell, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com
                  ehill@seyfarth.com
                  mscannell@seyfarth.com


HELIOS AND MATHESON: Arbitration Bid in Tabas Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
parties are awaiting a court ruling on a motion to compel
arbitration in the Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl v.
MoviePass Inc., et al.

On November 21, 2018, Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl,
acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against MoviePass, the Company and
three of their executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth, Stuart
Benson and J. Mitchell Lowe (the "November 21, 2018 Complaint").
Jackie Tabas and Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl v. MoviePass Inc., et.
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-7087.


The November 21, 2018 Complaint alleges, among other things, breach
of contract by MoviePass, failure to disclose certain terms of
service under Section 17602 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California
Unfair Competition Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The November 21, 2018 Complaint also alleges
claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment and inducement to
breach contracts.

Plaintiffs amended the November 21, 2018 Complaint on February 15,
2019 (the "First Amended Complaint"), dropping the claims of
Plaintiff Rosenberg-Wohl following an individual settlement, and
asserting the same claims made by Plaintiff Tabas in the November
21, 2018 Complaint on behalf of five new Plaintiffs: Linda Hobbs,
Tim Samartino, Barbara Sjodahl, Patricia Dawn Walker, and Cheryl
Whelan.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties tolling the running of
the statutes of limitation on Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs also
dropped the claims that had been previously asserted against
Messrs. Farnsworth, Benson and Lowe. On March 8, 2019, MoviePass
and the Company moved to compel arbitration of all the claims
asserted in the First Amended Complaint on an individual basis.

That motion is currently being briefed by the parties, and all
further proceedings have been stayed while the motion is pending.

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information
technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other
organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known
as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its
name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and
Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


HELIOS AND MATHESON: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
defendants in the consolidated class action suit are seeking
dismissal of an consolidated complaint with prejudice.

On August 2, 2018, Jeffrey Chang, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26, 2018,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its
executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson (the
"August 2, 2018 Complaint"). Jeffrey Chang v. Helios and Matheson
Analytics Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-6965.

On August 13, 2018, Jeffrey Braxton, acting on behalf of himself
and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock between August 15, 2017, and July 26,
2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of
its executive officers, Theodore Farnsworth and Stuart Benson.
Jeffrey Braxton v. Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-07242-UA.

On November 16, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed a group as lead plaintiffs and appointed Levi & Korsinsky
as lead counsel for the putative class.

On January 4, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint against the Company, Theodore Farnsworth, Stuart
Benson, and Mitchell Lowe (the "Consolidated Complaint").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's statements to the market were materially false or
misleading because the Company allegedly represented that it would
continue to experience substantial growth, and that its business
model was sustainable. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

On February 25, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint with prejudice.

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information
technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other
organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known
as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its
name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and
Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


HELIOS AND MATHESON: MoviePass Faces Weinberger Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
MoviePass Inc. has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled, Lawrence Weinberger and Laurie Weinberger v.
MoviePass Inc.

On February 1, 2019, Lawrence Weinberger and his wife, Laurie
Weinberger, acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against MoviePass (the
"February 1, 2019 Complaint"). Lawrence Weinberger and Laurie
Weinberger v. MoviePass Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01039.

The February 1, 2019 Complaint alleges, among other things, breach
of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing by MoviePass, and violations of Sections 349(b) and 350 of
the New York General Business Law, prohibiting deceptive and
misleading conduct and false advertising in consumer transactions.

Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. provides a range of information
technology (IT) solutions to Fortune 1000 companies and other
organizations in the United States. The company was formerly known
as Helios and Matheson Information Technology Inc. and changed its
name to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. in May 2013. Helios and
Matheson Analytics Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


HERSHEY CO: Court Narrows Claims in Brookside Mislabeling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned HOWARD CLARK,
TODD HALL, ANGELA PIRRONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant. No. C 18-06113 WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

The Hershey Company has a product line of Brookside Dark Chocolate
candy balls filled with fruit-flavored gel. These chocolate balls
are sold in bag-shaped packaging, with photos of the predominant
fruit flavors on the front. Some of the packages have banners
across the top of the front stating NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, NO
ARTIFICIAL COLORS. Other packages do not have that banner but do
say with other Natural Flavors, underneath the named fruit flavors.
The Plaintiffs allege that Brookside Dark Chocolate candy products
violate California, New York, and federal statutes.

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege twelve
separate claims, including: (1) fraud by omission (2) negligent
misrepresentation (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) (4) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, unfair and unlawful prongs (5) violation of
California's False Advertising Law (6) breach of express and
implied warranties (7) violations of Section 349 and 350 of New
York General Business Laws, and (8) claims for breach of express
and implied warranties under New York U.C.C. Section 2-313 and
2-314.

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(B)(1)

Hershey argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing and lack a
justiciable injury, contending that the plaintiffs' counsel
recruited clients through a fishing website,
www.classactionrebates.com, which promises people that they can
cash in on class settlements.  

Hershey has had previous interactions with counsel's use of the
website to solicit clients. In 2015, plaintiffs' counsel responded
to Hershey: "I agree that the email blast was a one time event and
I (sic) no further email blasts or advertising is forthcoming from
my office or classactionrebates.com." Hershey alleges that
plaintiffs decided to purchase the products at some point after
publication of counsel's Brookside advertisements on August 1,
2018.

Here, Hershey only offers speculation of a direct connection
between an email solicitation and the supposed enrollment of
plaintiffs in this case. Hershey submits evidence in counsel's
declaration and in exhibits requesting judicial notice. These
questions are more appropriate for a summary judgment motion, after
discovery on the way in which plaintiffs came to counsel. This
motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal of the issue on a
motion for summary judgment.

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)

In the context of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
district court cannot consider extrinsic evidence (such as the
declarations offered by Hershey in support of the motion under Rule
12(b)(1)).
  
The standard for the California statutes claimed here is the
reasonable consumer test, which requires a plaintiff to show that
members of the public are likely to be deceived by the business
practice or advertising at issue.  

In the presence of labeling banners that state NO ARTIFICIAL
FLAVORING, NO ARTIFICIAL COLORING, it is at least plausible that a
reasonable consumer seeing the Acai & Blueberry Flavor or
Pomegranate packages at issue would believe that the candy was made
with flavoring from the fruits shown and that there would be no
artificial flavoring.

Rule 56(d), which authorizes a court to allow time for discovery
during a motion for summary judgment when facts are unavailable to
the nonmovant, parties must be given reasonable opportunity to
present all material pertinent to the motion.  

Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 9(b)

While the plaintiffs' claims are not so implausible as to warrant
granting Hershey's motion to dismiss on that basis, a number of the
plaintiffs' claims lack sufficient particularity.

The Plaintiffs' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and plaintiffs'
common law claims for fraud by omission and negligent
misrepresentation (collectively, Claims (1)-(8)) should be analyzed
within the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), as plaintiffs
allege deception and fraud throughout their complaint.
  
The first amended complaint states where plaintiffs purchased their
products, but the dates and products purchased are not specific nor
is the why of plaintiffs' reliance on alleged advertising on
products whose labels are shown changing in plaintiffs' own
pleadings. The first amended complaint does state which Brookside
products are at issue in this case, but not specifically which
products were purchased by plaintiffs, nor what was present on the
allegedly offending packaging chosen by plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs argue, without reference to any well-pled factual
allegations in the complaint, that the violations and
misrepresentations are similar across product labels.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims do not give notice to Hershey of
which labels and which packages upon which plaintiffs allegedly
relied when making their purchases. Thus, plaintiffs do not give
defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to
constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the
charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.

The Plaintiffs here have failed to meet the heightened pleading
standard of Rule 9(b).

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 9(b), Hershey's motion to dismiss,
without prejudice, plaintiffs' claims (1) through (8) based on
violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the common law claims for fraud of
omission and negligent misrepresentation which do not meet the
heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) is granted.

Express Warranties

To plead a claim for breach of express warranty, plaintiffs must
allege the terms of the warranty, reasonable reliance, and that the
breach of that warranty proximately caused their injury. Any
description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the
bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to
the description.

The Plaintiffs allege that the packaging's banner NO ARTIFICIAL
FLAVORS was part of the basis of the bargain between the parties.
However, as stated above, plaintiffs have failed to differentiate
which fruit flavors made this assertion and also which products
they purchased based on those assertions. Brookside products that
do not carry the banner affirmatively representing NO ARTIFICIAL
FLAVORS do not make the warranty that plaintiffs claim. These other
Brookside products state only also with other Natural Flavors,
which is not an express warranty of no artificial flavors.

Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of express warranty
for the products that do not warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is
GRANTED. Hershey's motion to dismiss the claim of breach of express
warranty for the products that do warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is
denied.

Implied Warranties

The Plaintiffs bring their claim for breach of implied warranty
under Cal. Com. Code Section 2314. Hershey relies on the ordinary
use definition in that statute, Goods to be merchantable must be at
least such as are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
goods are used but that is only Section 2314(2)(a). Hershey ignores
Section 2314(2)(f), which also must be met and upon which
plaintiffs rely: Goods to be merchantable must conform to the
promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if
any.

Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the claim of breach
of implied warranty for the products that do not warrant NO
ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is granted.  Hershey's motion to dismiss the
claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do
warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is denied.

New York General Business Law Claims.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of New York General Business Laws
Section 349, Unfair Trade Practices, and Section 350, False
Advertising.

General Business Law Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce, or in
the furnishing of any service in the state of New York. To assert a
claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant
has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially
misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of
the allegedly deceptive act or practice.

General Business Law Section 350 governs deceptive advertisements
and product labels. The elements of a claim for relief under this
section are that the advertisement: (1) had an impact on consumers
at large (2) was deceptive or misleading in a material way and (3)
resulted in an injury.

Claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 and Section
350 are not subject to the pleading-with-particularity requirements
of FRCP 9(b), and thus are subject to the notice-pleading
requirements of FRCP 8(a). Plaintiffs must plead with requisite
plausibility that any of the defendant's claims were materially
misleading.  

Hershey's motion to dismiss New York General Business Laws Section
349 and Section 350 causes of action is denied.

New York Claims for Breach of Express And Implied Warranties

Express warranty exists under New York Law when a plaintiff shows
that the statement falls within the definition of a warranty, that
she relied on it, and that it became the basis of the bargain.
Plaintiffs allege that the packaging's banner NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS
was part of the basis of the bargain between the parties.  

Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the New York claim
of breach of express warranty for the products that do not warrant
NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is GRANTED.Hershey's motion to dismiss the
claim of breach of express warranty for the products that do
warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORSis DENIED.

Under New York U.C.C. Section 2-314, a warranty that goods are
merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller
is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Hershey relies on
the ordinary use definition in that statute, Goods to be
merchantable must be at least such as are fit for the ordinary
purposes for which such goods are used, but that is only one part
of the N.Y. U.C.C., Section 2314(2)(c). Hershey ignores Section
2314(2)(f), which also must be met and upon which plaintiffs rely:
Goods to be merchantable must conform to the promises or
affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

Hershey's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the claim of breach
of implied warranty for the products that do not warrant NO
ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is GRANTED. Hershey's motion to dismiss the
claim of breach of implied warranty for the products that do
warrant NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS is denied.

Tolling of Statute of Limitations

Plaintiffs Pirrone and Hall allege claims for purchases dating back
to 2012 and 2014, respectively Plaintiffs' claims, however, are
subject to a three-or four-year statute of limitations
significantly shorter than the approximately seven and five years,
respectively, that have passed since their alleged purchases.

Delayed discovery

The Plaintiffs allege that they did not discover that the labeling
was false and misleading until November. Plaintiffs have provided
no allegations detailing how they discovered the alleged unlawful
labeling. Thus, plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that the
delayed discovery rule applies.

Fraudulent concealment

In order to establish fraudulent concealment, the complaint must
show: (1) when the fraud was discovered (2) the circumstances under
which it was discovered and (3) that the plaintiff was not at fault
for failing to discover it or had no actual or presumptive
knowledge of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry. Claims relying
on fraudulent concealment must meet the heightened pleading
requirements of Rule] 9(b). Plaintiffs have provided no facts as to
the circumstances under which the fraud was discovered. This order
finds plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden to plead
fraudulent concealment with particularity and, thus, have not
adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of
limitations.

Continuing Violation

The Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient grounds for tolling the
statute of limitations, so therefore their claims are dismissed,
without prejudice, to the extent that they are based on conduct
that took place prior to the applicable limitations period.
Additionally, California and New York statute of limitations and
tolling rules apply to plaintiffs' claims brought under each
state's respective laws. A claim under New York General Business
Law Section 349 or Section 350 is subject to a three-year statute
of limitations and runs from the time when the plaintiff was
injured, not from when plaintiff learns they have been deceived. In
addition, a claim for relief for breach of express or implied
warranty is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. The
beginning of the limitation period does not depend on a plaintiff's
knowledge of a defect.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y28j9a4tfrom Leagle.com.

Howard Clark, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Todd Hall, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public &
Angela Pirrone, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by Lilach
Halperin -- lilach@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald
A Marron, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald A. Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC.

The Hershey Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Amit Rana, Braunhagey & Borden LLP, David Howard Kwasniewski,
BraunHagey & Borden, LLP, Jonas Noah Hagey, BraunHagey & Borden LLP
& Matthew Brooks Borden, BraunHagey & Borden LLP.


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY HILL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01031-GCS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, March 19, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure
to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

Hillstone is a domestic for-profit corporation.  According to its
Web site, Hillstone provides long-term care, hospice services,
memory care, rehabilitation, therapy, and related healthcare
services throughout the State of Ohio at various care centers,
including Hudson Elms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 957-7515
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


HOME DEPOT USA: Hartley Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Home Depot USA for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned DAVID HARTLEY, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. HOME DEPOT USA INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00573 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019).
According to the lawsuit, the Defendant unlawfully deprived the
Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated, of overtime
compensation during the course of his employment.

Home Depot USA is an American home improvement supplies retailing
company that sells tools, construction products, and services. Its
principal location of business operations is at 2455 Paces Ferry
Road, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
     5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
     Davie, FL
     Telephone: (954) 889-3359
     E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
             Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com


IC SYSTEM: Faces Moody Suit over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, files a class action complaint against IC System, Inc.
for an alleged violation of Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is
captioned Moody v. IC System Inc, Case No. 3:19-cv-00618-N (N.D.
Tex., March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David C
Godbey.

IC System, Inc. is an accounts receivable company that was founded
in 1938 by Ruth and Jack Erickson. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yitzchak Zelman
     Marcus & Zelman LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (845) 367-7146
     Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
     E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Moves to Certify Employees Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANDRES GARCIA, TUGSBILEGT
GONGOR and DMITRO MIKHAYLOVSKY, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. IDAVM GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., IDAVM
MULTI GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., MARINOV IM EMPIRE, INC., MARINOV IM
POWER, INC., d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and IVAN MARINOV, Case No.
1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), move pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying an FLSA Collective, defined as:

       All current and former hourly employees who worked for
       Defendants at any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants
       at any time from May 17, 2015 through the date of judgment
       (the proposed "Collective");

   (2) requiring the Defendants to identify all putative members
       of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their
       names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone
       numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable
       format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14
       days of the entry of the order;

   (3) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved
       Notice of this action (Exhibit 1) to putative members of
       the proposed Collective via U.S. Mail and e-mail;

   (4) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send the shortened
       reminder Notice (Exhibit 2) to putative members of the
       Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in
       period; and

   (5) approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the
       Court-approved Notice is sent during which putative
       members of the Collective may join this case by returning
       their written consents.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


IDAVM GROUP: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under Damasco Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ANDRES GARCIA, TUGSBILEGT
GONGOR, and DMITRO MIKHAYLOVSKY, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. IDAVM GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., IDAVM
MULTI GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., MARINOV IM EMPIRE, INC., MARINOV IM
POWER, INC., d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and IVAN MARINOV, Case No.
1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), seek certification of this class:

     All current and former hourly employees who worked for
     Defendants at any of their Sarpino's Pizzeria restaurants in
     Illinois at any time from May 17, 2008 through the date of
     judgment.

Andres Garcia, Tugsbilegt Gongor and Dmitro Mikhaylovsky seek an
order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
certifying for class action treatment their overtime, minimum wage
and breach of contract claims under Illinois law.  They also seek a
reasonable period of time to conduct discovery in connection with
Rule 23 class certification and will proceed under whatever
schedule the Court directs.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay briefing on this
Motion pending discovery as to Rule 23 class issues.  They contend
that they are filing this Motion now in conformance with the
Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891 (7th Cir. 2011), in order to avoid a "buy-off" settlement offer
to the named Plaintiffs only, which could potentially moot the
claims for class-wide relief set forth in their Complaint.

Accordingly, after class discovery is completed, Plaintiffs say
they would file a Memorandum in Support of this Motion, and other
briefing could follow on whatever schedule the Court directs.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Moves to Certify Hourly Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY FOTH, and AARON LUCUS
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. INEOS STYROLUTION AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-00460 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order allowing
notice of this action to be sent to the Defendant's current and
former employees, specifically those hourly employees working in
operations, maintenance, logistics, and the lab (collectively,
"Hourly Employees") to inform them of their right to opt-in to this
case under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of hourly employees, who have
worked for the Defendant for its failure to pay compensation for
all time worked, and as a result, failed to pay compensation at the
overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per work week.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act, in particular by not paying the Plaintiffs for
all compensable work time, including time spent donning and doffing
required safety equipment and work clothes, and not paying overtime
hours.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          James D. Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                  bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  jrogers@msiegellaw.com



INNERWORKINGS INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, 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 decision on the
motion to dismiss the case, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings,
Inc., et al. suit, is pending.

In May 2018, shortly following the Company's announcement of its
intention to restate certain historical financial statements, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

The action, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The complaint alleges claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the
complaint include that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of
material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the
fiscal years ending December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as well as
all interim periods.

The putative class seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages
as well as reimbursement of fees and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On July
27, 2018, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
the case. Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on
September 25, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on November 26, 2018, and a decision on the motion is
pending.

InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America, and South
America. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


JEH ENTERPRISES: Kwong Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------
TERRY KWONG, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JEH ENTERPRISES,
INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-574649 (Cal. Super., March 20,
2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide required meal
periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay
minimum wages, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses,
and failed to timely pay wages when due in violation of California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California and paid
on a draw versus commission compensation scheme from January of
2016 to January of2017 and was at all times during his employment
with the Defendant entitled to be paid minimum wages and entitled
to the legally required off-duty meal periods.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was also required to be
paid for his rest periods as the Defendant paid the Plaintiff only
commission wages for certain pay periods. The Defendant did not
separately compensate the Plaintiff for his rest periods. To date,
the Defendant has yet to pay the Plaintiff all of his wages due to
him and all premiums due to him for missed meal and rest breaks and
the Defendant has failed to pay any penalty wages owed to him.

The Defendant owns and operates car dealerships and service centers
in San Francisco County.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG
            BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          Website: www.bamlawca.com
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232

JONES SCAFFOLD: Accused by Ross of Not Paying Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL ROSS, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v.
JONES SCAFFOLD CO., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
250, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08898 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 15, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the
California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages.

Jones Scaffold Co. is a California corporation, with a principal
place of business in the state of California.  The Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Jones provides scaffold erection and dismantling services.  The
Plaintiff worked as a scaffold builder for the Defendants, in a
non-exempt and/or hourly position, beginning on August 22, 2017,
until in or about July 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Heather K. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


KEARNY BANK: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Hawkins Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. KEARNY BANK, Case No. 2:19-cv-08712 (D.N.J., March 18,
2019), seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated all
overtime wages owed to them.

Kearny Bank is a bank operating a branch at 216 Main Street, in
West Orange, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


KIA MOTORS: Faces Palmberg over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC PALMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV007734 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 5, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle and its
2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective and
susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew
since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima,
2011-2016 KIA Sportage, 2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai
Sonata, and 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0
or 2.4L engine, including the 2011 Kia Optima contained one or more
design and manufacturing defects in their engines that results in
the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to
experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation
and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all
due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often
causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a
knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a
fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -


          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Amy E. Boyle , Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: boyle@halunenlaw.com
                  Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          PO Box 7
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com


KND PARTNERS: Website Not Accessible, Kennedy Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KND PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a WEST BANK
INN, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60546-KMW (S.D. Fla., March 1,
2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in
the major life activity of walking more than a few steps without
assistive devices. The Plaintiff is bound to ambulate in a
wheelchair or with a cane or other support and has limited use of
her hands. She is unable to tightly grasp, pinch and twist of the
wrist to operate. When ambulating beyond the comfort of her own
home, the Plaintiff must primarily rely on a wheelchair.

The Plaintiff visited the website http://www.westbankinn.netto
book accommodations, and review information pertaining to the
goods, services, features, facilities and benefits of the
Defendant's property. However, the Defendant failed to comply with
the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was deprived of the same goods, services, features,
facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the
Property available to the general public. Specifically, the website
indicates that the hotel offers various kinds of sleeping
accommodations, but no information as to whether any of the rooms
are accessible. No information was given as to whether or where it
offers compliant or accessible roll-in showers, tubs, built in
seating, commodes, grab bars, sinks, wrapped pipes, sink and door
hardware, properly located amenities, sufficient maneuvering
spaces, compliant doors, furniture, controls and operating
mechanisms.

KND Partners, LLC d/b/a West Bank Inn owns and operates a boarding
and lodging facility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Corkill, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          7 N. Coyle Street
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 375-3475
          Facsimile: (877) 828-4446
          E-mail: kimberlyatlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
          THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
          644 North Mc Donald St.
          Mt. Dora, FL 32757
          Telephone:  (850)375-3475
          E-mail: kimberlyatlaw@gmail.com


KNOLLMEYER BUILDING: Condo Unit Owners Sue over Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knollmeyer Building
Corporation and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company for
negligence and breach contract. The case is captioned IMPERIAL
TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION through its BOARD OF MANAGERS and
CAROLE ARONSON, behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and JEANNE GOLDBERG, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. KNOLLMEYER BUILDING CORP., and
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
19-813 (Mass. Cmmw., Middlesex County, March 22, 2019).

The plaintiffs seek to recover costs to evaluate and repair window
and door glass damaged by the defendant contractor Knollmeyer while
performing concrete repairs in the nearby area.  Plaintiffs seek
payment for damages to their units.  They also claim that the
Condominium Association is entitled to damages and performance
under a performance bond issued by the surety since Knollmeyer has
not performed under the contract and has not fully addressed its
default under the contract.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a surety company
licensed to issue surety bonds in Massachusetts, with a principal
place of business at One Bala Plaza. Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA.
The company issued performance bond no. PB00181800234 naming
Knollmeyer as the contractor and Imperial Towers Condominium
Association as the owner with respect to Knollmeyer's work for the
Imperial Towers Condominium Association described as Balcony
Repairs and Waterproofing.

Knollmeyer is a Massachusetts company with a principal place of
business at 60 Jonspin Road, Wilmington, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott C. Gladstone, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     822 Boylston Street, #300
     Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
     Telephone: (617) 730-4525
     E-mail: sg@sgladslonclaw.com


LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Brooks Seeks Certification of RICO Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES BROOKS, KYSER WILSON,
and ROBERT JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-04609-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seek to certify this class:

    "All individuals who have been or will be put on LCA's
     Electronic Monitoring program by the Alameda County Court
     system from July 31, 2014, until this litigation is
     complete, who were threatened with jail by LCA or any of its
     employees, agents, or representatives."

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this case as a class action
to vindicate the rights of all individuals harmed by LCA's
extortionate business practices.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant's widespread extortion scheme targeted at individuals in
its electronic monitoring program is in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Hobbs Act and the
California Penal Code.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 9, 2019, 8:00 a.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          Marissa Hatton, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  mhatton@equaljusticeunderlaw.org


LENDING CLUB: Plouffe Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUY A. PLOUFFE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60715-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
March 19, 2019), challenges the actions of Lending Club with regard
to Lending Club's unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiry.

According to the complaint, Lending Club is or was engaged in
arranging for consumer credit to persons in the State of Florida,
more particularly in Palm Beach County, Florida. Any violation by
Defendant was knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did
not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such
violation.

In or about July 2014, Mr. Plouffe obtained an unsecured personal
loan through the Lending Club. On July 24, 2015, Mr. Plouffe filed
for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15-23328-PGH.
The Debt was scheduled in the Bankruptcy and Defendant received
notice of the Bankruptcy.

On or about November 6, 2015, Mr. Plouffe received a bankruptcy
discharge in the Bankruptcy. Lending Club did not file any
proceedings to declare the Debt "non-dischargeable". Lending Club
did not request relief from the "automatic stay" codified at 11
U.S.C. section 362 et seq. while the Bankruptcy was pending to
pursue Mr. Plouffe on any personal liability for any of the
underlying Debt.

Accordingly, the Debt that was serviced by Lending Club was
discharged through the Bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Discharge
extinguished any relationship between Mr. Plouffe and Lending
Club.

Mr. Plouffe did not conduct any business, nor incur any additional
financial obligations, to Lending Club since the date of the
Bankruptcy Discharge. Upon discovering the unauthorized access to
his credit reports by the Lending Club, Mr. Plouffe contacted the
Lending Club by telephone to report the unauthorized credit report
inquiry. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of the
Lending Club apologized to Mr. Plouffe and represented to Mr.
Plouffe that the inquiries would immediately stop.

Despite the promise by the Lending Club's representative that
Lending Club would cease reviewing the credit reports of Mr.
Plouffe, upon review of his TransUnion credit report dated January
25, 2019, Mr. Plouffe discovered that Lending Club submitted
unauthorized credit report inquiries to TransUnion on a monthly
basis since September 2018, including October 8, 2018, November 8,
2018, December 8, 2018, and January 9, 2019.

To his greater surprise, Mr. Plouffe also observed that the Lending
Club had started a second account review cycle which resulted in
Lending Club also accessing the TransUnion credit report on
December 23, 2018 and January 13, 2019, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com
                  rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
                  legalassistant@lawfirmmurphy.com

LESAINT LOGISTICS: Diller Challenges Collection of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DILLER, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. LESAINT LOGISTICS, LLC and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-5, Case No. 2019CH03410 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March
15, 2019), seeks relief from LeSaint's alleged practice of
collecting "biometric identifiers" or "biometric information" from
people working in its Illinois facilities, in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

LeSaint Logistics, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability company
headquartered in Romeoville, Illinois.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are not yet known to the Plaintiff.

LeSaint Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, provides
integrated supply chain solutions.  The Company offers supply
chain, inventory, and warehouse management; and transportation,
fulfillment, engineering consulting, and operational conversion
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  tod@bockhatchllc.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  mara@classlawyers.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Accord in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 two
individuals have filed an appeal from the order approving the
settlement in the Formaldehyde and Abrasion multi-district
litigation proceedings and the Appeals Court consolidated both
appeals.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and
state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions
from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products.
The purported classes consisted of all U.S. consumers that
purchased the relevant products during certain time periods.

Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its
products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board
Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various
state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought various
forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified
damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory,
consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as
interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and
other purported class members in connection with the alleged
claims.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court
is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured
Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL").

Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California and other district courts located in the place of
residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of U.S.
consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring products challenging certain representations about the
durability and abrasion class ratings of such products.

These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach
of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection
statutes.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases;
however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an
order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting
the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs
are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as
class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the
Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring
products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing
restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs
and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory
and consequential), as well as punitive damages.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the
abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case
is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured
Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL").

On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to
fund $22 million (the "Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36
million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of
Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January
1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement
amount was accrued in 2017.

On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among
other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Company, in June, paid $0.5
million for settlement administration costs, which is part of the
Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account.
Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on
October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9,
2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into
the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. To date, insurers have
denied coverage with respect to the Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion
MDL.

On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Appeals
Court") challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another
individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court.

Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals and
entered a briefing schedule.

Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be
distributed by the administrator upon order of the Court. At
December 31, 2018, the Company's obligations related to
Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable
of $35.5 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the
issuance of vouchers.

If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside,
the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent.
Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5
million as a deposit in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements. The Company has no liability accrued related to the
appeals.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood,
laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and
porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products;
and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including
moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools
under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Certify Class in Mason Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion
for conditional certification of the purported class action suit
initiated by Ashleigh Mason is pending.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store
managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly
situated current and former employees holding comparable positions
but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees")
alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the
Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees
for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three
years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the
disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees
nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering
the period beginning six years and 115 days prior to the filing of
the complaint through the disposition of this action for members of
the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in
New York in connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all Putative Class Employees who
worked within the federal statute of limitations period. The
Company filed its opposition to this motion, which is now pending
before the court.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood,
laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and
porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products;
and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including
moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools
under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Kramer Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 filed by Robert J. Kramer.

On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
"Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all
current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay
wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices.

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a
class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for
the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California
(the "California SM Class").

The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek
unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated
and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood,
laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and
porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products;
and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including
moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools
under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Dana Gold Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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
has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Dana Gold and
certain other lead plaintiffs.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective (the "Gold
Litigation").

Plaintiffs have narrowed the complaint to the Company's Morning
Star Strand Bamboo flooring (the "Strand Bamboo Product") sold to
residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia for personal, family or household use.  

The Gold Litigation plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged
in deceptive trade practice acts in conjunction with the sale of
the Strand Bamboo Products. The plaintiffs did not quantify any
alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the
Company's actions violate the law and that it is financially
responsible for notifying all purported class members, injunctive
relief requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the
Strand Bamboo Product installed in structures owned by the
purported class members and a declaration that the Company must
disgorge, for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of
the profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective
Strand Bamboo Product and/or to make full restitution to the
plaintiffs and the purported class members.

In November 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification with respect to the six states. The Company
appealed the decision, but the petition for appeal was denied. On
January 2, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment.

The Company has participated in court-ordered mediation sessions.
Trial, which was previously scheduled for February 25, 2019, has
been postponed.

Following settlement discussions with the respect to the Gold
Litigation, on March 15, 2019, the Company entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with Gold and certain other lead
plaintiffs in the Gold Litigation (the "MOU"), which would resolve
all disputes on a nationwide basis.

Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $14 million
in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a
potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on
obtaining a claim's percentage of more than 7 percent, for an
aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The MOU is subject to
certain contingencies, including the execution of a definitive
settlement agreement, board approval of the definitive settlement
agreement, and court approvals.

The entry into the MOU or any subsequent execution of a definitive
settlement agreement does not constitute an admission by the
Company of any fault or liability and the Company does not admit
any fault or liability. There can be no assurance that a settlement
will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.

If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company
will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are
meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, success on the merits. The Company has notified
its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage. As the
insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized
any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation.

As a result of these developments, the Company has determined that
a probable loss has been incurred and has recognized a charge to
earnings of $28 million within selling general and administrative
expense during the fourth quarter of 2018 with the offset in the
caption "Accrual for Legal Matters – Current" on its balance
sheet related to this potential settlement as of December 31, 2018.


If the Company does not execute a definitive settlement agreement
consistent with the MOU or incurs losses with the respect to the
Bamboo Flooring Litigation, the actual losses that may result from
these actions may exceed this amount. Any such losses could,
potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood,
laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and
porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products;
and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including
moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools
under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Suit in Canada Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 Canada initiated by
Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.

Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a further
loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company offers hardwood species, engineered hardwood,
laminates, resilient vinyl flooring, waterproof vinyl plank, and
porcelain tile; renewable flooring, and bamboo and cork products;
and a selection of flooring enhancements and accessories, including
moldings, noise-reducing underlay, adhesives, and flooring tools
under the Bellawood brand. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LYFT INC: Faces McGee Suit over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Lyft,
Inc. for an alleged breach of contract. The case is captioned
Allyson McGee, an individual, on behalf or herself and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. LYFT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-57442U
(Cal. Super., San Francisco County, March 11, 2019).

Allyson McGee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, complains that Lyft has engaged in practices that violate
laws regarding the pay and working conditions of its drivers, as
well as unfair business practices.

Lyft Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
and primary place of business in San Francisco, California, and
operations in at least 33 other states in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
     Andrew H. Haas, Esq.
     George A. Aloupas, Esq.
     QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
     22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
     Lake Forest, CA 92630
     Telephone: (949) 458-9675
     Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
     E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
             ahh@quintlaw.com
             gaa@quintlaw.com
     
          - and -

     Roger Carter, Esq.
     Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
     THE CARTER LAW FIRM
     23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 245-7500
     E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net
             bianca@carterlawfirm.net


MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), continues to defend a purported
antitrust class action suit entitled, Iowa Public Employees'
Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of
America Corporation et al.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number
of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust
laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged
efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based
platforms for securities lending.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble
damages.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.

Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P is private fund launched by
Ceres Managed Futures LLC. It is managed by Graham Capital
Management, L.P. The fund engages in the speculative trading of
futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and
forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity
interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies,
financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products.
It was formerly known as Managed Futures Charter Graham LP. Managed
Futures Premier Graham L.P was formed on July 15, 1998 and is
domiciled in the United States.


MARYSVILLE, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Avondale Homeless Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant City of Maryville's motion to dismiss most of the
Plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned BRIGITTE RAELYNN BUTCHER,
BILLY JOHN REID, JOLENE ANN REID, SUSAN EXTEIN, STANLEY EXTEIN,
MICHAEL ELLIOT, CRYSTAL MOTLEY, DICK VEIT, DENNIS OWENS, DERECK
DEMPSEY, CARRIE ANTRAPP, WILBUR BARTHOLOMEW, ANNETTE SKEEN,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; MARYSVILLE HOMELESS UNION, CALIFORNIA HOMELESS
UNION/STATEWIDE ORGANIZING COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
MARYSVILLE, a municipal entity; MAYOR RICKY SAMAYOA, CITY
COUNCILMEMBER DALE WHITMORE, CITY COUNCILMEMBER DON PETTIGO, CITY
ATTORNEY BRENT BORSDEN, CHIEF OF POLICE CHRIS SACHS; COUNTY OF
YUBA; YUBA COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; YUBA COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION MANAGER JEREMY STRANG; YUBA COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TRACEY CLARK; CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CHRIS
MONACO, individually and in their official capacities; H&H
TRENCHING CO.; DOES 1-100, Defendants. No. 2:18-cv-02765-JAM-CKD
(E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are homeless individuals who previously lived in one
of the many homeless encampments that once existed on the banks of
the Yuba and Feather Rivers. They bring federal and state law
claims on behalf of themselves and approximately 300-500 persons
who were forcibly removed from the homeless encampments known as
Avondale.

Plaintiff's Untimely Opposition

To determine whether the Court should excuse a party's failure to
meet a court-imposed deadline, it considers four factors: (1) the
danger of prejudice to the opposing party (2) the length of the
delay and its potential impact upon the proceedings (3) the reason
for the delay and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.  

Statute of Limitations

The City argues that the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiffs
Elliot and Motley's claims as time-barred. The Court grants the
City's motion to dismiss Elliot and Motley's Section 1985(3), ADA,
and state law claims as time-barred. The Court denies the City's
motion to dismiss Elliot and Motley's Section 1983 claims as
time-barred, because those claims fall under the continuing
violations doctrine.

Neither Section 1983 nor ADA has its own statute of limitations.
Rather, federal courts apply the forum state's statute of
limitations for personal injury actions. California's statute of
limitations for personal injury claims is two years. This two-year
statute of limitations also governs Elliot and Motley's state tort
claims.

The Plaintiffs concede that, when viewed in isolation, Elliot and
Motley's claims accrued outside the limitations period. They argue
that this Court should nonetheless allow the claims to go forward
under the continuing violations doctrine. By the Plaintiffs'
account, this doctrine allows claims that would ordinarily be
time-barred to proceed if the plaintiff can show those claims arose
out of a systematic policy or practice of discrimination that
operated, in part, within the limitations period.  

Likewise, Elliot and Motley's Section 1983 claims against the City
necessarily arise out of a series of acts. To sustain a Section
1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show that a
constitutional deprivation arose out of a custom, policy, or
practice. Like a hostile work environment claim, a claim of
municipal liability necessarily requires a series of improper acts.
If the destruction of Elliot and Motley's property was pursuant to
the City's custom, policy, or practice, the continuing violations
doctrine applies.

Elliot and Motley contend that the City helped destroy their
property in February 2016, a month before the City and County
allegedly adopted a 13-step plan to displace homeless individuals
from the encampments outside. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct
although occurring before the existence of a written plan -- was
nonetheless part of the City's broader policy to violate their
constitutional rights. Because challenging a City's policy
necessarily implicates a series of acts, this Court finds that the
continuing violations doctrine applies to Elliot and Motley's
Section 1983 claims. The Court does not dismiss these claims as
time-barred.

There is not, however, a custom, policy, or practice requirement
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3), ADA, or state tort law. The Court,
therefore, views each of those claims as discrete. The continuing
violations doctrine does not apply to these claims. The Court,
therefore, dismisses those claims as time-barred.

42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3)

The City argues that the Court should dismiss all the Plaintiffs'
Section 1985(3) claims.

Section 1985(3) prohibits conspiring for the purpose of depriving,
either directly or indirectly, any person or class or persons of
the equal protection of the laws.

As the City argues in its Reply, Plaintiffs concede that the
federal courts have not identified homelessness as a suspect
classification. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that a Section 1985(3)
claim lies because homeless persons could make out an Equal
Protection Clause claim on other grounds.  

Because, as the Plaintiffs concede, the courts have not designated
homelessness as a suspect classification, this Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Further, the Plaintiffs cannot cure this deficiency by
amendment.

The Court dismisses all the Plaintiffs' Section 1985(3) claims with
prejudice.

ADA

The Plaintiffs did not oppose the City's motion to dismiss their
ADA claim. Further, by citing only to the Findings and Purpose
section of the statute in their complaint, the Plaintiffs fail to
apprise either the City or this Court of the statutory basis of the
claim.  Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' ADA claim
without prejudice.

First Amendment

The Plaintiffs do not clearly explain what theory they rely on for
their First Amendment claims.

The Plaintiffs appear to be making a Retaliation claim, arguing
that the City destroyed their paper, cardboard, paint, pens,
pencils, brushes, writing implements and other materials used to
create protest signs in direct response to the protest Butcher
helped organize a few days earlier.
  
To state a claim for Retaliation, the Plaintiffs needs to assert
that the City's actions deterred or chilled [the plaintiffs'
political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or
motivating factor in the defendant's conduct.

The Plaintiffs' Retaliation claim suffers from at least two
deficiencies. First, the alleged destruction of Thorntree in
February 2016 occurred before the October 2016 protest. Therefore,
the City could not have intended to retaliate against Elliot and
Motley for protesting in front of City Hall. The Court dismisses
Elliot and Motley's First Amendment Retaliation claims with
prejudice.

Secondly, the complaint simply does not contain any allegations
that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the
City's conduct. The Plaintiffs rest their Retaliation claims on the
fact that the City helped destroy Hollywood Trailer Park two days
after Butcher helped organize a protest in Washington Square Park.


The Plaintiffs fail to set forth a prima facie case for Retaliation
under the First Amendment. The Court dismisses the remaining
Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims without prejudice.

Fourth Amendment

The City argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amendment claims. But the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a
Fourth Amendment claim against the City for unreasonably seizing
their personal property.

The City argues that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under
the Fourth Amendment because any warrantless seizure that occurred
was justified by either probable cause or exigent circumstances.

As an initial matter, Lavan makes clear that a violation of a City
ordinance does not vitiate the Fourth Amendment's protection of
one's property. Indeed, the Court found that by seizing and
destroying Appellees' unabandoned legal papers, shelters, and
personal effects, the City meaningfully interfered with Appellees'
possessory interests in that property. No more is necessary to
trigger the Fourth Amendment's reasonable requirement.

Taken as true, the Plaintiffs' allegations set out a prima facie
case under the Fourth Amendment. The Court denies the City's motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims.

Eighth Amendment

The City argues that the Plaintiffs have not properly pled claims
under the Eighth Amendment.

This Court agrees.

As the City argues, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction
of cruel and unusual punishment in three ways: it limits the type
of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; it
proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of
the crime; and it imposes substantive limits on what can be made
criminal.
  
The Plaintiffs' allegations fall short. Looking to the face of the
complaint, only Stanley and Susan Extein appear to have standing.
They are the only plaintiffs who allege that the City blocked them
from entering their encampments at threat of arrest. Accordingly,
none of the other plaintiffs have standing to challenge the City's
enforcement of this ordinance, because they have not alleged that
arrest was imminent.

The Plaintiffs do not allege an Eighth Amendment violation. This
court dismisses this claim without prejudice.

Fourteenth Amendment

The City summarily argues that, because homelessness is not a
suspect classification and housing is not a fundamental right, the
Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim fails. The Plaintiffs counter
that their Equal Protection claim survives under the
danger-creation doctrine.  

The Plaintiffs' legal argument in support of this claim is also
incorrect. The danger-creation doctrine does not support a claim
under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it is a theory of
liability under Substantive Due Process. Although the Plaintiffs'
Opposition is misguided in its analysis, the City is the moving
party here and it simply has not shown that Plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead a cause of action under the Equal Protection
Clause. The Court denies the City's motion to dismiss this claim.

State Law Claims

The City's motion argues that the Court should dismiss all of the
Plaintiffs' state law claims because the Plaintiffs failed to
comply with the Government Tort Claims Act (TCA). Under California
law, a claim relating to a cause of action for injury to person or
to personal property shall be presented not later than six months
after the accrual of the cause of action. A plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to demonstrate compliance with the TCA's claim
presentation requirement or an excuse for noncompliance.  

The Plaintiffs argue in their Opposition that they are excused from
compliance. Their failure to allege this excuse in the Complaint is
reason enough to dismiss the state law claims. The Court
nonetheless discusses each of Plaintiffs' proposed excuses to
explain why it is dismissing these claims with prejudice.

Here, the Plaintiffs' state law claims have fallen within the TCA
since their inception. The Holt and Minsky exceptions do not
apply.

The Court, accordingly, grants in part and denies in part the
City's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y462bwk6from Leagle.com.

Brigitte Raelynn Butcher, Billy John Reid, Jolene Ann Reid, Susan
Extein, Stanley Extein, Michael Elliot, Crystal Motley, Dick Veit,
Dennis Owens, Dereck Dempsey, Carrie Antrapp, Wilbur Bartholomew,
Annette Skeen, Marysville Homeless Union & California Homeless
Union/Statewide Organizing Council, Plaintiffs, represented by
Anthony David Prince -- aprince@sfbar.org -- Law Offices of Anthony
D. Prince.

City of Marysville, Defendant, represented by Kristin A. Blocher --
kblocher@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP, Bruce Alan
Kilday -- bkilday@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP &
Sean D. O'Dowd -- sodowd@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff,
LLP.

County of Yuba, Yuba County Code Enforcement Division, Jeremy
Strang, Chris Monaco & Tracey Clark, Defendants, represented by
John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, APC.


MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. removed case styled, MATTHEW WHEATLEY,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC.,
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1820484 (Filed Aug. 7, 2018), from the
San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 21, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00513
to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts Defendants'violation of the California Labor
Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages
not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements,
failure to keep requisite payroll records, and unreimbursed
business expenses.

MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. manufactures cabinets for kitchen, bath,
and other-rooms. It serves consumers and channel partners through
dealers and a national-to-local supply chain in the United States
and Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
          David Rosenberg, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  thix@seyfarth.com
                  drosenberg@seyfarth.com

MDL 2548: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gold Futures MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs American Precious Metals, Ltd., Norman Bailey, Patricia
Benvenuto, Compania Minera Dayton, Edward Derksen, Edward R.
Derksen, Frank Flanagan, Thomas Galligher, KPFF Investment, Inc.,
Duane Lewis, Larry Dean Lewis, Robert Marechal, David Markun,
Blanche McKennon, Kelly McKennon, Thomas Moran, Steve E. Summer,
Richard White, White Oak Fund LP, David Windmiller and Michel de
Chabert-Ostland filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
multidistrict litigation styled In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc.,
Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, MDL No. 14-md-2548, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege a conspiracy to fix the price of physical gold and
gold-denominated financial instruments from 2004 to 2012.  Until
November 2014, the price of physical gold was set twice daily
through a private auction involving some of the largest bullion
banks in London.

The Plaintiffs allege that the afternoon "Gold Fixing"--also known
as the "PM Fixing"--was a cover for a price-fixing conspiracy among
the entity charged with operating the Gold Fixing, Defendant London
Gold Market Fixing Ltd., and the participant banks: The Bank of
Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank plc, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc,
and SociÃ(C)tÃ(C) GÃ(C)nÃ(C)rale SA ("Fixing Banks").

The Plaintiffs are individuals and entities that sold physical
gold, gold futures traded on the Commodity Exchange, Inc. market,
shares in gold exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"), or options on gold
ETFs during the Class Period.  Seeking to recover alleged losses
suffered as a result of the Defendants' alleged manipulation and
suppression of the price of gold through the gold "fixing" process,
the Plaintiffs bring putative class action claims for (1) unlawful
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;
(2) market manipulation in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act
("CEA"); (3) employment of a manipulative or deceptive device and
false reporting in violation of the CEA; (4) principal-agent
liability under the CEA; (5) aiding and abetting manipulation in
violation of the CEA; and (6) unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc.,
Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation, Case No. 19-651, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Kevin Maher, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; Edward Derksen; Richard White, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; Eric Nalven,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; White
Oak Fund LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; American Precious Metals, Ltd., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Steve E. Summer, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Thomas Moran, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Patricia
Benvenuto, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Thomas Galligher, on behalf of themeselves and all others
similarly situated; Larry Dean Lewis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; Duane Lewis, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Edward R. Derksen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; David Markun, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; Nando, Inc.; KPFF
Investment, Inc.; Norman Bailey; Michel de Chabert-Ostland; David
Windmiller; Frank Flanagan; Robert Marechal; Albert Semrau; Kelly
McKennon; Blanche McKennon; and Compania Minera Dayton are
represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

Defendants-Respondents Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotiamocatta are
represented by:

          Kenneth Mark Raisler, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4675
          E-mail: raislerk@sullcrom.com

Defendants-Respondents Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital PLC,
Barclays Capital Inc. and Barclays PLC are represented by:

          Michael Feldberg, Esq.
          ALLEN & OVERY LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 610-6360
          E-mail: michael.feldberg@allenovery.com

Defendants-Respondents HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC USA,
Inc. and HSBC Holdings PLC, a United Kingdom Corporation, are
represented by:

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

Defendants-Respondent Societe Generale is represented by:

          Benjamin Fleming, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          E-mail: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com

Defendant-Respondent The London Gold Market Fixing Limited is
represented by:

          James V. Masella, III, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 885-5562
          E-mail: jmasella@blankrome.com

Defendants-Respondents Societe Generale S.A. and SG Americas
Securities, LLC, are represented by:

          Dennis Henry Tracey, III, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3524
          E-mail: dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com

Defendants-Respondents The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital
(USA) Inc. are represented by:

          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3269
          E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com


MDL 2709: Court Certifies Classes in 16 States
----------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary A. Fenner granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the multidistrict
litigation captioned IN RE: DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2709 and Master
Case No. 16-02709-MD-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.).

Judge Fenner opines that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with
regard to the 16 statewide unjust enrichment classes and the 16
statewide consumer protection classes.  Judge Fenner adds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that common issues of fact or
law predominate over individual issues for the proposed nationwide
unjust enrichment class, the multistate implied warranties class,
and the statewide implied warranties classes.

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Kanner & Whiteley, LLC is appointed as lead
counsel for all classes.

A summary of certified classes and the appointed representatives is
as follows:

   -- California:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of California
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 8, 2012.

      * Named Representative: Roberto Vega

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Milstein Adelman Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) False Advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
           17500)

        3) Consumer Legal Remedies (Cal. Civ. Code. Section 1750)

        4) Songs Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code
           Sections 1791, 1792)

        5) Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
           Section 17200)

   -- Colorado:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Colorado
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 15, 2013.

      * Named Representative: Allen Brown

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Colo. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Colo.
           Rev. Stat. Section 5-1-105)

   -- Florida:

      * Class Definition: All natural persons residing in the
        State of Florida who, after December 18, 2011, purchased
        Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE 10W-30 and/or DG
        SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988,
        and/or DG SAE 30 for use in vehicles manufactured after
        1930, for personal use and not for re-sale.

      * Named Representative: Bradford Barfoot

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Ku &
        Mussman, P.A.

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla.
           Stat. Section 501.201)

        3) Misleading Advertising Law (Fla. Stat. Section 817.41)

   -- Illinois:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Illinois
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 15, 2013.

      * Named Representative: Gerardo Solis

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
           Practices Act (815 Ill Comp. Stat. 510/1)

   -- Kansas:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Kansas who
        purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG
        SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 2013.

      * Named Representative: Nicholas Meyer

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Kansas Consumer Protection Act (Kan. Stat. Ann.
           Section 50.623)

   -- Kentucky:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the Commonwealth of
        Kentucky who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil,
        DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 15, 2014.

      * Named Representative: John Foppe

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Futscher Law PLLC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
           Section 367.220)

   -- Maryland:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Maryland
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since December 2011.

      * Named Representative: John McCormick, III

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Law
        Offices of Stephen J. Nolan

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Md. Code Ann., Com.
           Law Section 13-101)

   -- Michigan:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Michigan
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 2010.

      * Named Representative: Bruce Gooel

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Law
        Offices of John P. Zuccarini

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Mich. Comp. Laws
           Section 445.901)

   -- Minnesota:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Minnesota
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 15, 2010.

      * Named Representative: Scott Sheehy

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Maschka, Riedy, Ries & Frentz Law Firm

      * Claims

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn.
           Stat. Section 325D.43)

        3) Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn.
           Stat. Section 324F.68)

   -- Missouri:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Missouri
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 15, 2011.

      * Named Representatives: Robert Oren, James Taschner

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC

      * Claims

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Mo. Rev. Stat.
           Section 407.010)

   -- Nebraska:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Nebraska
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 2012.

      * Named Representative: Janine Harvey

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat.
           Section 59-1601)

        3) Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Neb.
           Rev. Stat. Section 87-301)

   -- New Jersey:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of New Jersey
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since December 2009.

      * Named Representative: William Flinn

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Clark
        Law Firm

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
           56:8-1)

   -- New York:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of New York
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since December 2009.

      * Named Representatives: Kevin Gadson, Robert Barrows,
        Jason Wood

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Clark
        Law Firm; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349

        3) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350

   -- North Carolina:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of North
        Carolina who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil,
        DG SAE 10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since on or before 2010.

      * Named Representative: Brandon Raab

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Daniels Law Firm, PC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) North Carolina Consumer Protection Act (N.C. Gen.
           Stat. Section 75-1.1)

   -- Ohio:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Ohio who
        purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, since February 2011.

      * Named Representative: Miriam Fruhling

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
        Futscher Law PLLC

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Ohio Rev. Code
           Section 1345.01)

   -- Wisconsin:

      * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Wisconsin
        who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
        10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
        manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
        vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
        not for resale, from May 8, 2011, to the present.

      * Named Representative: Seit Alla

      * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC; Ademi
        & O'Reilly, LLP

      * Claims:

        1) Unjust Enrichment

        2) Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Wis. Stat.
           Section 100.18)

        3) Wisconsin Unfair Methods of Competition and Trade
           Practices (Wis. Stat. Section 100.20).[CC]


MDL 2804: Stracener Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Ronald D. Stracener, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Insys
Therapeutics Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Cephalon
Inc. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health
Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis plc, Actavis
Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc.,
McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., AmerisourceBergen
Corporation, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00086, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 19,
2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-op-45144-DAP to the proceeding.  The lawsuit alleges Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violation.

The Stracener case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi district
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding The Plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or
potential tag-along actions support centralization. The Plaintiffs
in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to
opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML
Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of
West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court.
Third party payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third participatory actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
The Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of
Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until
document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In 2007
it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a
pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and
three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Stephen M. Tunstall, Esq.
          P.O. Box 152
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Telephone: (251) 432-2221
          Facsimile: (251) 432-2218
          E-mail: stephen@smtlawyer.com

MEDEQUITIES REALTY: Bushansky Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Omega
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. MEDEQUITIES REALTY TRUST, INC., JOHN W. MCROBERTS,
RANDALL L. CHURCHEY, JOHN N. FOY, STEVEN I. GERINGER, STEPHEN L.
GUILLARD, WILLIAM C. HARLAN, ELLIOTT MANDELBAUM, and TODD W.
MANSFIELD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00231 (M.D. Tenn., March 17, 2019),
seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which MedEquities will be acquired by Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc.

On January 2, 2019, MedEquities and Omega issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated January 2, 2019.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each share of MedEquities common stock will be converted
into the right to receive (i) 0.235 of a share of Omega common
stock, and (ii) $2.00 in cash, plus a special cash dividend of
$0.21 per share of MedEquities common stock to be paid at closing
of the transaction (the "Merger Consideration").  The Proposed
Transaction represents an enterprise value of approximately $600
million.

Mr. Bushansky alleges that the registration statement filed in
connection with the Proposed Transaction omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the actual
intrinsic standalone value of the Company and Omega; (ii) the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; (iii) the background of the Proposed
Transaction; and (iv) Citi's potential conflicts of interest.  He
contends that the failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as MedEquities stockholders
need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

MedEquities, a Maryland chartered corporation, is a self-managed
and self-administered real estate investment trust that invests in
a diversified mix of healthcare properties and healthcare-related
real estate debt investments.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 248-2828
          Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
          E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                  Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kmoran@weisslawllp.com


MEGAN BRENNEN: Faces Robinson Suit over Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth L. Robinson filed an employment-related lawsuit against
Megan J. Brennen for alleged discriminatory practices. The case is
captioned Robinson v. Brennen, Case No. 1:19-cv-00559-CAB (N.D.
Ohio, March 13, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Christopher A. Boyko.

Megan J. Brennan is the 74th and the first female Postmaster
General of the United States and the Chief Executive Officer of the
world's largest postal organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David G. Phillips, Esq.
     4403 St. Clair Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Telephone: (216) 531-0123
     Facsimile: (216) 881-3928
     E-mail: d.g.phillips@sbcglobal.net


MICHIGAN: Seeks Court of Appeals Review of Ruling in Bell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Civil Service Commission filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 17-003861-CZ, in the Wayne Circuit
Court.

The appellate case is captioned as CARLOS BELL v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 347929, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BELL CARLOS/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Leonard Mungo, Esq.
          THE MUNGO LAW FIRM, PLC
          333 West Fort Street, Suite 1500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-0407
          Facsimile: (313) 963-0200
          E-mail: lmungo@mungoatlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION is represented by:

          Christopher W. Braverman, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MICHIGAN
          G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
          525 W. Ottawa St.
          P.O. Box 30212
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 335-7622
          E-mail: adam.braverman@usdoj.gov


MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN WRIGHT; and CAMESE BEDFORD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY SUPPORT
DIVISION of the Missouri Department of Social Services; MICHAEL
PARSON, in his official capacity as Governor of Missouri; STEVE
CORSI, in his official capacity as Director of the Missouri
Department of Social Services; PATRICK LUEBBERING, in his official
capacity as Director of the Family Support Division; JOEL WALTER,
in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue;
and JACKIE BEMBOOM, in her official capacity as Director of the
Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00398-RLW (E.D. Mo., March 4, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants unconstitutionally suspend the driver's licenses of
parents who are unable to pay child support.

According to the complaint, the Defendants enforce license
suspensions as penalties for nonpayment with no indigence
exception. Such suspensions amount to wealth-based discrimination
in violation of substantive due process and equal protection
rights. Because the Defendants enforce a complete deprivation
against parents who are completely unable to satisfy their child
support requirements, affected parents are a suspect class, and the
Defendants' violates equal protection rights, as it is not narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest.

The Defendants deprived parents of their property interest in their
driver's licenses without a meaningful hearing -- that is, a
pre-deprivation ability-to-pay hearing determining whether
nonpayment was willful -- or notice of such a hearing. The
suspensions violate procedural due process rights.

Missouri is a state in the Midwestern United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: rramaswamy@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

               - and -

          Stephanie Lummus, Esq.
          ATTORNEY, ST. FRANCIS COMMUNITY SERVICES
          100 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 726
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 977-5452
          E-mail: stephanie.lummus@slu.edu


MONSANTO CO: Faces Heisch Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT A. HEISCH AND TRICIA HEISCH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00517 (E.D. Mo., March 18, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiffs' Roundup(R)-related injuries, like those striking
thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were
avoidable.

The lawsuit is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the
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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.  The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) 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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.  The Company
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
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bellangers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BELLANGER and BERNADETTE BELLANGER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00547-JMB (E.D.
Mo., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bruinsmas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
SJOERD BRUINSMA and BROOK BRUINSMA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00217 (W.D. Mich., March
21, 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:

          Adam J. Brody, Esq.
          Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
          Seth B. Arthur, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          E-mail: ajbrody@varnumlaw.com
                  bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com
                  sbarthur@varnumlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Cashdollar Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI CASHDOLLAR, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00551 (E.D. Mo., March 22, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MORTON BUILDINGS: Helms Seeks to Certify Construction Workers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled, CYREL HELMS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MORTON BUILDINGS, INC., the Defendant Case No. 3:18-cv-128 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a
class consisting of:

     "each individual who performed construction work for Morton
Buildings, Inc., any time since November 12, 2015, as a
Construction Crew Member or Construction Crew Lead".

The suit seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff moves the Court to
conditionally certify the lawsuit as a collective action for the
purpose of providing notice of the action to members of the
collective action class.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

MSD ENTERPRISES: Palapa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GUTIERREZ PALAPA and GERMAN IGNACIO REYES MEJIA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MSD ENTERPRISES, INC.
(D/B/A BAR VIRAGE), DAVID GELGARD (A.K.A. DAVID GELBARD), MIKE
SHLEV (A.K.A. MICHAEL), JACOB COHEN (A.K.A. YAKOV), and MARCELO
SININ, Case No. 1:19-cv-02412 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2019), alleges
that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

MSD Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Bar Virage, was a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners,
managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a restaurant, located
at 118 2nd Ave., in New York City under the name "Bar Virage."  The
restaurant was located in the NoHo section of Manhattan in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR: Ali Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mirza Hyder Ali; and All Others Similarly Situated v. Muhammad
Muzaffar Ahmed, Muhammad Laique Ahmed and Muhammad F. Ahmed, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01004 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages from the Defendants.

The Defendants are brothers.  Together, they own, operate and
control several gasoline stations and convenience stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES: Nikrothanond Sues over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANOK NIKROTHANOND, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MYPIZZA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,Case No. 1:19-cv-02548
(E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2019), seeks to stop Slice from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making prerecorded
solicitation calls to consumers without their consent, and to
otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by Slice's conduct.

Slice provides an app-based online platform that allows consumers
to order pizza and related items from local pizzerias. Slice
solicits local pizzerias to join their network and provides them
with a landing page on Slice's website, a VOIP phone number, and
marketing services for the local pizzeria. In return, Slice
receives $1.95 for each order that is placed through the Slice
platform to local pizzeria, the lawsuit states.

Slice drives traffic to the pizzerias using a number of different
methods, including telemarketing. Slice places prerecorded
telemarketing solicitation calls to consumers from the VOIP phone
numbers Slice provides to the local pizzerias in its network,
encouraging consumers to use Slice to place pizza orders from the
local pizzerias for Slice's and the local pizzerias' joint
benefit.

According ot the complaint, Slice maintains exclusive control of
the VOIP phone numbers it provides to the local pizzerias in its
network that Slice uses to place pre-recorded calls to consumers.
Slice does not obtain the required prior express written consent
before making these pre-recorded calls to consumers as is required
by the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Class:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN  P.A.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.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

NATIONAL VISION: Removes Mendoza Labor Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision, Inc. removed the case captioned as, JAVIER MENDOZA
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL VISION, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV004327 (Filed Nov. 13,
2018), from Monterey County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 21, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-01485 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleged that Defendants failed to provide meal
periods or compensation, rest periods or compensation; failed to
pay hourly and overtime wages; failed to comply with itemized
employee wage statement requirements; failed and refused to pay
agreed wages; and failed to pay all wages upon termination under
the California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Julie G. Yap, Esq.
          Tiffany T. Tran, Esq.
          Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com
                  ttran@seyfarth.com
                  pebsworth@seyfarth.com

NB BAKER: Cal. App. Affirms PAGA Arbitration Denial in Correia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's judgment denying
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on PAGA Claims in the case
captioned  MARK CORREIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. NB
BAKER ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No. D073798. (Cal.
App.).

The Defendant appeals the trial court's judgment granting the
arbitration petition on all causes of action except for the PAGA
claim.

Plaintiffs Mark Correia and Richard Stow sued their former
employer, NB Baker Electric, Inc., alleging wage and hour
violations and seeking civil penalties under the Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 (PAGA).  

On the PAGA claim, the court followed the California Supreme Court
decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)
59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held unenforceable agreements to
waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum,
and the California Court of Appeal decision in Tanguilig v.
Bloomingdale's, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 665 (Tanguilig), which
held a PAGA claim cannot be compelled to arbitration without the
state's consent. The trial court stayed the PAGA claim pending the
conclusion of the arbitration.

Baker contends the court erred because: (1) plaintiffs' response to
its arbitration petition was untimely; (2) Iskanian is no longer
binding as it is inconsistent with a recent United States Supreme
Court decision, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) U.S. 138 S.Ct.
1612 (Epic) and (3) the parties' arbitration agreement should be
interpreted to mean that if the representative-action waiver is
unenforceable, the PAGA claim for statutory penalties remains
subject to arbitration.

Timeliness of Plaintiffs' Opposition Papers

Before reaching plaintiffs' substantive arguments, the Court
considers consider Baker's contention the court erred in
considering plaintiffs' response to the arbitration petition
because plaintiffs did not file the opposition by the statutory
deadline date.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290 authorizes a party to seek to
compel arbitration by filing a petition in court, and states the
petition allegations are deemed to be admitted unless a response is
duly served and filed. Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6
provides: A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after
service of the petition with an exception not applicable here.  

Baker filed its petition to compel arbitration on September 7,
2017. The motion identified the hearing date as January 12, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on December 29, 2017. The
opposition was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section
1290.6's deadline.  

Baker contends the court had no jurisdiction to consider this
untimely response.

The Court disagrees. First, it is not clear that the arbitration
petition statute rather than the general motions statute governs
the timing requirements when a complaint has been filed in court.
  
Even if the petition timeline applied here, Code of Civil Procedure
section 1290.6 specifically allows a court to extend the time for
filing an opposition for good cause, and reviewing courts have long
held trial courts are authorized to consider late-filed opposition
papers for good cause if there is no undue prejudice to the moving
party.  

Iskanian Remains Good Law on Nonenforceability of Blanket PAGA
Waivers

In the Arbitration Agreement, plaintiffs agreed to waive their
rights to maintain any representative action in arbitration or any
court concerning any dispute specified in Section 5.

In the court below, the parties agreed a representative action
included a PAGA claim and that the Arbitration Agreement purported
to ban these claims in any forum arbitration or court. Baker
conceded that this complete ban was unenforceable under Iskanian.
On appeal, it has changed its position. Baker now asserts that the
ban is enforceable because Iskanian is no longer good law after the
United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Epic. Baker argues
Epic'sinterpretation of the FAA preemption clause undermines
Iskanian's reasoning and requires that California courts enforce
PAGA representative-action waivers.

The Court reject these arguments. Because Epic did not rule on the
precise issue before Iskanian, the Court remains bound by
Iskanian'sholding. Moreover, Iskanian's holding and reasoning are
not necessarily incompatible with Epic.

Applicable Law

Congress enacted the FAA in response to judicial hostility to
arbitration and to ensure that private arbitration agreements are
enforced according to their terms.  Under section 2 of the FAA,
state laws inconsistent with the federal act's provisions and
objectives are preempted.

In Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court held the FAA
preempted a California Supreme Court decision (Discover Bank v.
Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148) holding that class action
waivers are unenforceable in consumer contracts as against public
policy. (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. 333.) The Concepcion court
found the California Supreme Court's holding interfered with the
fundamental attributes of arbitration because arbitration is poorly
suited to resolve class actions, emphasizing a class action's
strict procedural formalities, complex notice requirements, and
potential severe consequences to a defendant.

In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court considered Concepcion's
impact on arbitration agreements in the employment context.
(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 362-363.) The Iskanian
plaintiffs (who had signed arbitration agreements with class action
and representative action waivers as part of their employment)
asserted wage-and-hour class action claims and PAGA claims seeking
statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. The Iskaniancourt
first addressed the issue whether the FAA preempts the state law
rule, embodied in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443,
providing class-action waivers in employment contracts generally
violate public policy.

The Iskanian court determined Concepcion's holding and reasoning
applied to class action waivers in employment contracts and
overruled Gentry. The Iskanian court specifically recognized that
as in Concepcion, the refusal to enforce the employment arbitration
agreement class action waivers interfered with the fundamental
attributes of arbitration. In so ruling, the Iskanian court
rejected the employees' arguments that the class action waiver was
unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), finding the
NLRA did not override FAA's preemption provision.  

The Iskanian court, however, reached a different conclusion on the
waiver of the employee's PAGA cause of action, holding a complete
ban on PAGA actions is unenforceable. The court's conclusion was
predicated on its view that a PAGA claim functions as a law
enforcement mechanism to implement state labor laws.  

Relying on Epic's reiteration of the FAA's broad preemptive scope
barring state laws interfering with arbitration provisions
requiring individual arbitrations, Baker urges us to disavow
Iskanian's continuing validity on PAGA claims. We decline to do
so.

On federal questions, intermediate appellate courts in California
must follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless
the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question
differently.  

Iskanian held a ban on bringing PAGA actions in any forum violates
public policy and that this rule is not preempted by the FAA
because the claim is a governmental claim. Epic did not consider
this issue and thus did not decide the same question differently.
Epic addressed a different issue pertaining to the enforceability
of an individualized arbitration requirement against challenges
that such enforcement violated the NRLA.  

Moreover, the cause of action at issue in Epic differs
fundamentally from a PAGA claim. Epic held an employee who agrees
to individualized arbitration cannot avoid this agreement by
asserting claims on behalf of other employees under the FLSA or
federal class action procedures.  

Epic's interpretation of the FAA's preemptive scope does not defeat
Iskanian's holding or reasoning for purposes of an intermediate
appellate court applying the law. The Iskanian court reached a
different conclusion from Concepcion on the enforceability of the
contractual waiver not because the Iskanian court interpreted the
FAA differently from Concepcion on the preemption issue, but based
on the unique nature of a PAGA claim as a qui tam type action, and
the PAGA litigant's status as `the proxy or agent' of the state and
his or her substantive role in enforcing our labor laws on behalf
of state law enforcement agencies.

Because the California Supreme Court found a PAGA claim involved a
dispute not governed by the FAA, and the waiver would have
precluded the PAGA action in any forum, it held its PAGA-waiver
unenforceability determination was not preempted. Epic did not
reach the issue regarding whether a governmental claim of this
nature is governed by the FAA, or consider the implications of a
complete ban on a state law enforcement action. Because Epic did
not overrule Iskanian's holding, the Court remains bound by the
California Supreme Court's decision.

Did Court Err in Refusing to Order PAGA Claim to Arbitration

Baker contends that even if it cannot enforce the contractual
provision barring a representative action in any forum, the court
erred in refusing to order the PAGA action to arbitration, as a
representative action and/or an individual action.

Plaintiffs counter that they cannot be required to litigate the
PAGA claims in arbitration because the state is the real party in
interest in a PAGA claim and the state never consented or waived
its right to bring its claim to court.

The issue before us is whether the agreement to arbitrate a PAGA
representative action is enforceable in this case.

This precise issue was not addressed in Iskanian or Sakkab.
Iskanian held a waiver of an employee's right to bring a
representative action in any forum violated public policy and that
this rule was not preempted by the FAA.  It did not address the
question whether an employee's predispute agreement to arbitrate
PAGA actions is enforceable by requiring arbitration of the claim.
It noted only that the parties' particular arbitration agreement
appeared to read as requiring arbitration of individual claims but
not of representative PAGA claims and therefore the plaintiff must
proceed with bilateral arbitration on his individual damages
claims, and the employer must answer the representative PAGA claims
in some forum.

Relying on the rationale underlying Iskanian's PAGA
waiver-enforceability and FAA-preemption conclusions, these courts
reasoned that because the state is the real party in interest in a
PAGA action and a PAGA plaintiff asserts the claim solely on behalf
of, and as the proxy for, the state, the employee's predispute
arbitration agreement does not subject the claim to arbitration
because the state never agreed to arbitrate the claim.  

Under these decisions, predispute arbitration agreements generally
do not support the compelled arbitration of PAGA claims because the
state retains control of the right underlying the employee's PAGA
claim at least until the state has provided the employee with
implicit or explicit authority to bring the claim. At that point,
an employee's waiver of the trial right and an agreement to
arbitrate may be enforceable. But before that time, the employee
has no authority or authorization to waive the state's rights to
bring the state's claims in court.

In sum, the Court agrees with the California Courts of Appeal that
have held Iskanian's view of a PAGA representative action
necessarily means that this claim cannot be compelled to
arbitration based on an employee's predispute arbitration agreement
absent some evidence that the state consented to the waiver of the
right to bring the PAGA claim in court. There was no such evidence
produced in this case.

Finally, the Court reject Baker's claim that the court erred in
failing to order plaintiffs' individual PAGA claims to arbitration.
Generally, every PAGA action seeking penalties is a representative
action on behalf of the state. Thus, a single representative claim
cannot be split into an arbitrable individual claim and a
nonarbitrable representative claim.  

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

Finch, Thornton & Baird, Chad T. Wishchuk -- cwishchuk@ftblaw.com
-- Kathleen A. Donahue -- kdonahue@ftblaw.com -- and Marlene C.
Nowlin -- mnowlin@ftblaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Baker Law Group, Michelle Baker -- michelle@bakerllp.com -- Law
Office of Alan S. Yockelson and Alan S. Yockelson --
yockelson@appellatelaw.net -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


NEVADA GOLD: Settlement Entered in Maverick Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the Company has
entered into a settlement agreement with all of the plaintiffs in
full satisfaction of the claims upon payment of $ 250,000.

A proposed transaction announced on September 18, 2018, pursuant to
which Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. will be acquired by Maverick
Casinos LLC and Maverick Casinos
Merger Sub Inc.

Six putative class action complaints have been filed in connection
with the proposed Merger: (i) on December 4, 2018, Cindy Fuller
filed a lawsuit captioned Cindy Fuller, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against the Company and members
of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York; (ii) on December 6, 2018,
William Kikendall filed a lawsuit captioned William Kikendall, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold
& Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-2323 No., against the
Company and members of the Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada; (iii) on December 7,
2018, George Assad filed a lawsuit captioned George Assad, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold
& Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A-18-785749-C, against the
Company and members of the Board of Directors in the District Court
of the State of Nevada in Clark County, Nevada (the "Assad State
Action"); (iv) on December 13, 2018, Joseph Conlon filed a lawsuit
captioned Joseph Conlon v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al.,
Case No. A-18-785991-C, against the Company and members of the
Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada in
Clark County, Nevada; (v) on January 3, 2019, Peter D'Arcy filed a
lawsuit captioned Peter D'Arcy, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-00025-GMN-CWH, against the Company and members of the
Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada – Las Vegas Division; and (vi) on January 3,
2019, George Assad filed a lawsuit captioned George Assad,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A
2:19-cv-00026-JCM-CWH, against the Company and members of the Board
of Directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada.

In general, the complaints assert claims against the Company and
the Board of Directors alleging, among other things, that the
defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the preliminary
proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC on December 3,
2018, in connection with the proposed Merger, either in violation
of the Exchange Act or in violation of fiduciary duties owed by the
Company's directors and/or the Company to the Company’s
stockholders.

The Assad State Action also alleges that the members of the Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and
the other public stockholders of the Company in approving the
Merger Agreement and that the Company aided and abetted such
breaches of the fiduciary duties of the members of the Board of
Directors. All six actions seek, among other relief, to enjoin the
Merger (or, in the alternative, an award of rescissory damages in
the event that the Merger is completed), and an award for the costs
of the actions, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On February 14, 2019 the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with all of the plaintiffs in full satisfaction of the
claims upon payment of $ 250,000.

Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., a gaming company, finances, develops,
owns, and operates gaming properties and projects. It operates in
three segments: Washington, South Dakota, and Nevada. The company
was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Renton, Washington.


NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Moves to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SAINT SURIN EDUOARD, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. NIKODEMO OPERATING
CORP. d/b/a FLORIDIAN DINER, DIMITRIOS KALOIDIS, IOANIS
PARAPONIARIS and STEVE ZAHARAKIS, Case No. 18-cv-5554 (E.D.N.Y.),
moves the Court for an order certifying a class of all hourly
employees of the Defendants, who worked at their diner from
December 15, 2016, to present.

Mr. Eduoard accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime and
earned wages, and failing to provide accurate wage statements under
New York Labor Law.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Myers, Esq.
          FRANK & BOLAND, P.C.
          500 Bi-County Blvd, Suite 465
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756-0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
          E-mail: jmyers@laborlaws.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Suit by Inmates over Hep C Screening Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LLOYD BUFFKIN, KIM CALDWELL, and ROBERT
PARHAM, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ERIK HOOKS, ABHAY AGARWAL,
KENNETH LASSITER, PAULA SMITH, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00502-WO-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order March 20, 2019:

   1. adopting in part a Magistrate Judge's Recommendation;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of:

      "all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or
      will have chronic hepatitis C virus and have not been
      treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs";

   3. appointing Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham as class
      representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class
      counsel;

   4. granting in part and denying  in part Plaintiffs' motion for

      preliminary injunction, in that Plaintiffs' request for a
      preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to provide
      direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment to the Plaintiffs
      is granted;

   5. granting Plaintiffs' request for an injunction ordering
      Defendants to cease denying DAA treatment based on
      contraindications, other than patient refusal, and to cease
      denying DAA treatment based solely on a prisoner's
      FibroSure score, in that Policy No. CP-7 is enjoined in
      its entirety; and

   6. denying Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction
      ordering Defendants to institute universal opt-out
      screening and to treat all class members with DAAs
      regardless of fibrosis level.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' policy of screening only
those prisoners with certain risk factors, rather than screening
all prisoners under an opt-out system, is deliberately indifferent
to the risk that prisoners with Hep C virus will evade detection
and will not receive the necessary treatment, that Defendants'
policy of providing DAA drug treatment only to certain prisoners
based on FibroSure test scores and contraindications is
deliberately indifferent to the risk that individuals who do not
meet the policy criteria may still suffer serious health
consequences from Hepa C virus.  The Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by
discriminatorily withholding medical treatment from Plaintiffs
while providing treatment to prisoners with other health
issues.[CC]

NUNNO CORP: Faces Bradley Suit for Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Nunno
Corporation, Ltd. for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and California Labor Code. The
case is captioned GABRIEL BRADLEY, individually, and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, vs. NUNNO CORPORATION,
LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02106 (C.D. Cal., March 21,
2019).  Plaintiff also alleges that, during his employment,
Defendants wrongfully discriminated against him based on his
disclosed and known mental disability that was qualified for
protection under FEHA.

Plaintiff reported mistreatment, discrimination, bullying, and
battery that he had experienced by employees and supervisors of
Nunno to a supervisor.  Without conducting any investigation into
Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by that
same day (Jan. 31, 2019) in retaliation for making the complaints.

Nunno Corporation, Ltd. is a California corporation registered with
the California Secretary of State as having its principal place of
business in Paso Robles, California within San Luis Obispo County.
Nunno specializes in architectural steel buildings, structural
steel fabrication and steel building components. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
     Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
     CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
     865 Howe Avenue
     Sacramento, CA 95825
     Telephone: (916) 777-7777
     Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
     E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com


NUVASIVE INC: Goldstein Seeks Damages over Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related action has been filed against NuVASIVE, Inc.
The case is captioned PHILLIP GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUVASIVE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00012805-CU-WT-CTL (Cal. Super., March 8, 2019).  Goldstein
seeks all compensatory damages for wrongful termination.  He also
alleges the Defendant committed anti-kickback violations concerning
the cellular allograft freezer program.

On Dec. 21, 2017, Goldstein brought up to Albert Cornejo's
attention a possible Health Care Professional (HCP) compliance
violation related to the freezer program. However, on the same day,
Cornejo approved the shipment of the freezer to the HCP customer in
the absence of a signed agreement or the cellular allograft product
manufacturer's purchase order, ignoring Goldstein's concerns and
NuVasive's own internal policy and procedures. Goldstein believed
that Cornejo's decision was motivated by revenue over adherence to
the anti-kickback requirements of the freezer program and was
further motivated by the desire to obtain revenue credit prior to
the close of that fiscal year.

NuVasive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 7475 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, California. It is a
medical device company that focuses on developing
minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated
solutions for the spine surgery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michelle Baker, Esq.
     BAKER LAW GROUP LLP
     10945 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 100
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Telephone: (858) 452-0093
     Facsimile: (858) 750-1049
     E-mail: michelle@bakerllp.com

         - and -

     Oleg Cross, Esq.
     CROSS LAW APC
     6363 Greenwich Dr., Ste 140
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Telephone: (619) 781-1360
     Facsimile: (619) 819-7346
     E-mail: oleg@cplitigation.com

NY TEX CARE: Faces Francisco Labor Suit
---------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against NY TEX
CARE, INC, accusing the defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York
Labor Law. The case is captioned HERLINDA FRANCISCO, NY TEX CARE,
INC., d/b/a GREEN & WHITE DRY CLEANERS, and INSUN YUN, Case No.
1:19-cv-01649 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019). Plaintiff Francisco seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Corporate Defendant NY Tex Care, Inc. is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
an address for service of process and principal place of business
located at 47-46b 30th Street, Long Island City, NY 11101.
Individual defendant Insun Yun is an owner of the corporate
defendant. He exercises operational control as it relates to all
employees including Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class.  The Defendants operate a commercial cleaning company
offering dry cleaning services under the tradename Green & White
Dry Cleaners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Prelim. Nod of Miller Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled JOE MILLER, et al., each on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. O'REILLY
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00687-ODS (W.D. Mo.),
jointly move the Court for an order preliminary approving the
Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release.

On March 15, 2019, the Parties entered into the Settlement
Agreement and Release in this matter.  The Settlement Agreement
provides substantial relief to approximately 20,000 members of the
proposed settlement class comprised of persons who have purchased
O'Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in the state of Missouri
between July 20, 2013, and the present.

The Parties also ask the Court to enter an order:

   (a) conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only,
       the settlement class:

       "All persons and other entities who purchased O'Reilly 303
        Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri at any point in time
        from July 20, 2013 to present, excluding those who
        purchased for resale. Also excluded from the Settlement
        Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary,
        affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants'
        officers, directors, agents, employees and their
        immediate family members, as well as the judicial
        officers assigned to this litigation and members of their
        staffs and immediate families" (the "Settlement Class");

   (b) conditionally finding, for settlement purposes only and
       conditioned upon entry of the Final Order and Judgment,
       and the occurrence of the Effective Date (as defined in
       the attached Settlement Agreement), that the prerequisites
       for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in
       that: (a) the number of members of the Settlement Class is
       so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is
       impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact
       common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the
       Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement
       Class for purposes of settlement; (d) Plaintiffs have
       fairly and adequately represented the interests of the
       Settlement Class and will continue to do so, and
       Plaintiffs have retained experienced counsel to represent
       them; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the
       members of the Settlement Class predominate over any
       questions affecting any individual members of the
       Settlement Class; and (f) a class action is superior to
       the other available methods for the fair and efficient
       adjudication of the controversy;

   (c) appointing Tom Bender, Esq., and Dirk Hubbard, Esq., from
       the law firm Horn Alyward & Bandy, LLC; Gene Graham, Esq.,
       William Carr, Esq., and Bryan White, Esq., from the law
       firm of White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; and Clayton
       Jones, Esq., of the Clayton Jones Law Firm as counsel for
       the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel");

   (d) designating named Plaintiffs Joe Miller, Kenny Higgs,
       Raymond Bieri, and Don Sherwood as representatives of the
       Settlement Class;

   (e) appointing RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to serve as the
       Settlement Administrator;

   (f) setting a Final Fairness Hearing to be held before the
       Court to determine whether the terms and conditions forth
       in the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and
       adequate and should receive final approval;

   (g) staying, pending the Final Fairness Hearing, all
       proceedings in this action, other than proceedings
       necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions
       of the Settlement Agreement;

   (h) approving the Long Form Class Notice, Summary Class
       Notice, Claim Form and Instructions, Request for
       Correction Form and Instructions, and the notice and
       settlement administration process set forth in Settlement
       Agreement, including the exhibits thereto, finding that it
       is the best practicable notice under the circumstances, it
       provides individual notice to all Settlement Class Members
       who can be identified through a reasonable effort, and it
       is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
       apprise the members of the Settlement Class of the
       pendency of this action, the terms of the settlement, and
       their right to object to the settlement or exclude
       themselves from the Settlement Class;

   (i) approving the timetable and process for exclusion from the
       Settlement Class or objection to the Settlement by any
       Settlement Class Member; and

   (j) approving the timetable and process for Class Counsel to
       file their application for expenses and attorneys'
       fees.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
          William Carr, Esq.
          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C
          19049 East Valley View Parkway
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                  bcarr@wagblaw.com
                  bwhite@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand, Ste. 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com
                  dhubbard@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Clayton Jones, Esq.
          CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          405 Foxwood Dr.
          Raymore, MO 64083
          Telephone: (816) 318-4266
          Facsimile: (816) 318-4267
          E-mail: clayton@claytonjones.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas P. Berra, Jr., Esq.
          Oliver H. Thomas, Esq.
          R. Taylor Matthews III, Esq.
          Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-1352
          Facsimile: (314) 612-1352
          E-mail: tberra@lewisrice.com
                  othomas@lewisrice.com
                  tmatthews@lewisrice.com
                  epivin@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Tormohlen, Esq.
          Scott A. Wissel, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          1010 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 472-2507
          Facsimile: (816) 472-2500
          E-mail: rwtormohlen@lewisricekc.com
                  sawissel@lewisricekc.com


OCEANFIRST BANK: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NJWHL, Horner Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELYSSA HORNER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. OCEANFIRST BANK, N.A. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
3:19-cv-08711-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., March 18, 2019), alleges that in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated proper overtime compensation.

OceanFirst Bank is a company doing business in New Jersey at
various locations.  The Doe Defendants are presently unknown.

OceanFirst Bank operates as a federally chartered stock savings
bank.  OceanFirst provides personal banking services, including
checking accounts, savings accounts, online banking, mortgages,
home equity loans, certificates of deposit, individual retirement
accounts, investment services, and trust services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carley A. Doyle, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: cdoyle@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
MIKE FERGUSON, JASON SLAKTER, ORIN HIRSCHMAN, THOMAS M. RIEDHAMMER,
JUNE S. ALMENOFF, NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS, INC., and OHR ACQUISITION
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (D. Del., March
20, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January
3, 2019, pursuant to which Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. will merge with
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.

On January 2, 2019, Ohr's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NeuBase and Ohr
Acquisition Corp. On March 8 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

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

The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the "financial forecasts,
relating to the business, earnings, cash flow, assets, liabilities
and prospects of Ohr and NeuBase that were furnished to Roth by
management of Ohr and NeuBase, respectively."

With respect to Roth's Initial Public Offering Comparables Analysis
– NeuBase, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the individual
enterprise value of the issuer in each of the IPOs observed by Roth
in the analysis.

Ohr is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that develops novel
therapies for ophthalmic diseases.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

ORACLE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due April 19
-------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that defendants' response
to an amended complaint pending before the Northern District of
California is due by April 19, 2019.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company,
its Chief Technology Officer, its two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

On December 21, 2018, the court granted plaintiff's motion that it
be appointed lead plaintiff and approving its selection of lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and
misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff
further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider
trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a
class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

Defendants' response to the amended complaint is due by April 19,
2019.

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three primary layers of the cloud: Software as
a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
Oracle Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in
Redwood City, California.


PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
KANDICE NEALS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAR TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03701 (Ill. Cir., March
21, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class
members' sensitive biometric data.

PAR is a developer of cloud-based point of sale ("POS") systems for
the hospitality industry. It offers a range of POS systems that
enable businesses-primarily restaurants-to track their employees'
time by using a biometric finger scanner.

When employees first begin their jobs at a restaurant that uses
PAR's POS system, they are required to scan their fingerprint in
its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using key fobs or other identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in theworkplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, PAR
disregards restaurant employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric
data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  adescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com

PARTNER COMMS: Breach of License-Related Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's
breach of legal provisions and provisions of its license.

On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators and content providers.

The claim alleges that the cellular operators, including the
Company, breached legal provisions and provisions of their licenses
and thereby created a platform that led to the customers' damages
alleged in the claim.

The total amount claimed against all of the defendants is estimated
by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful SMS Charges Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's
unlawful charges to its customers for services of various content
providers, which are sent through text messages (SMS).

On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company unlawfully charges its customers for services of
various content providers, which are sent through text messages
(SMS).

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 405 million. The claim was
certified as a class action in December 2016. In January 2017, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, regarding the
definition of the group of customers.

Partner estimates that even if the claim will be decided in favor
of the approved group of customers (as defined by the District
Court), the damages that Partner will be required to pay for, will
be immaterial.

In November 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the
claim was reverted back to the District Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Cellular Plan Promo Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that an Israeli
court has approved the agreement among the parties to withdraw a
lawsuit over the Company's cellular plan promotional offers.

On April 25, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.   The claim alleges
that Partner misled its customers with respect to certain cellular
plans that were represented as including international call minutes
while in fact Partner charged its customers that joined these plans
for international calls.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

In February 2019, the parties filed an agreed upon remunerated
withdrawal request which was approved by the Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Robinson"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Shipping Inc. said in its Form 20-F 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
awaiting the court's order on the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated case, Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc.

Between October 23, 2017 and December 15, 2017, three largely
similar lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its
executive officers. On October 23, 2017, a complaint captioned
Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-6160, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ("Eastern District").  

The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common
shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017.


On October 25, 2017, a complaint captioned Logan Little v. Diana
Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6236, was filed in the
Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of common shares of the Company between January 26, 2017
and October 3, 2017.

On December 15, 2017, a complaint captioned Emmanuel S. Austin v.
Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-7329, was filed in the
Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of common shares of the Company between June 9, 2016 and
October 3, 2017.  

The complaints name as defendants, among others, the Company and
three of its executive officers.  The complaints assert claims
under Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. On April 30, 2018, the Court consolidated the three
lawsuits into the first-filed Robinson lawsuit, appointed lead
plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  

On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint (superseding the three initial complaints). On September
21, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Briefing on that motion was concluded on November 30, 2018.

Performance Shipping said, "The Company and its management believe
that the complaints are without merit and plan to vigorously defend
themselves against the claims."

Performance Shipping Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
shipping transportation services through its ownership of
containerships. The company was founded in 2010 and is based in
Athens, Greece.


PETRO RIVER: Appeal in in Donelson-Friend Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the appeal filed by
the plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John
Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP,
et al., is still pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint
styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of
America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(the "Proceeding").

The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically
named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12,
2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal
regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas
leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab
initio.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential
consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding
leases.
  
On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds.

Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016,
granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a
judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. On
April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion
seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending.


On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all
three of Plaintiffs' motions.

On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending as of the
filing date of these financial statements.

Petro River said, "There is no specific timeline by which the Court
of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to
vigorously defend its interest in this matter."

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

Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets.
It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in
Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The
company is based in New York, New York.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Advance Trust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Companysaid in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust &
Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.

The putative class action was filed on August 13, 2018 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

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

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.


QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the CenturyLink, Inc.
continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities
Litigation.

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

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

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

Beginning June 2017, CenturyLink received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics.

In August 2017, CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a special
litigation committee of outside directors to address the
allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative
demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed. Two of these
cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana
state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal
court in Louisiana and Minnesota.

These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company
and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

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

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

Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Polat Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics 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 lawsuit initiated by Baran
Polat.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently our President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In
general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and
June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our
business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the company's securities.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company’s Chief
Research and Development Officer.

The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr.
Polat. The actions have been related.

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions.

On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing
lead counsel for lead plaintiffs. On December 22, 2017, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, Dr.
Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael Huang (our former Vice President of
Clinical Development).

The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016
and June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101. The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response. No hearing date has been set.

Regulus said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

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

Regulus Therapeutics Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the discovery and development of medicines that
target microRNAs to treat a range of diseases in the United States
and Europe. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


RELIANCE FIRST: DeSantis Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEANN DESANTIS, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RELIANCE FIRST CAPITAL, LLC, HUGH MILLER, and
OBIORA EGBUNA, Case No. 2:19-cv-01566 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid earned overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Reliance First Capital, LLC, is a New York corporation with
locations in various regions throughout the United States,
including its corporate headquarters in Melville, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.

Reliance offers loan programs to homeowners in the United States.
It provides refinancing, HARP 2.0 program, purchase mortgages, FHA
loans, FHA 203(k) loans, FHA streamline refinance, VA loans,
portfolio programs, debt consolidation programs, adjustable rate
mortgages, jumbo loans, FHA and conventional mortgage loan programs
for manufactured homes, reverse mortgages, and USDA loan
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIK H. LANGELAND, PC
          733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354-6270
          Facsimile: (212) 898-9086
          E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buonopane Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BUONOPANE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00296-CRE (W.D. Pa., March 18, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Republic is an Arizona company doing business throughout the United
States.

Republic is a "waste remediation services company" and boasts that
"Operators in every major basin nationwide trust Republic Services
to handle their mission-critical oilfield waste treatment,
recovery, disposal and logistics."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          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


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Defends Consolidated Too and Spock Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Medical, 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 itself from a consolidated class action.

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and former officers,
Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema.

The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between
March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and
Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed reports
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained
purported inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the
potential for the Company's drug, Triferic, to quality for separate
reimbursement status by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema. The Spock complaint is a federal securities
class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8,
2017 and June 26, 2018.

This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and
Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was aware the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not pursue the
Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic;
misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for the first
quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal controls over
financial reporting, which rendered those controls ineffective; Mr.
Chioini withheld material information regarding Triferic from the
Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and independent directors of
the Board; and, as a result of these alleged issues, statements
about the Company's business were  materially false and
misleading.

On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to
appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah
Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v.
Rockwell securities class action.  

On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the
two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On
December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial
complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between
November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018.  

On February 18, 2019, the Company answered the consolidated amended
complaint. The lawsuits seek damages allegedly sustained by the
class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees.

The case is at an early stage with no significant pre-trial
proceedings (such as substantive motions, discovery, etc.) having
occurred. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims of
liability and damages and is responding accordingly.

The Company has tendered the class action to its D&O insurance
carrier(s) for defense and indemnity under its applicable insurance
policies. The Company maintains a $1.0 million self-insured
retention under the applicable insurance policies, which can be
exhausted by payment of expenses or indemnity.

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical
company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney
disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron
deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan.


RUBY HAND: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/IMWL, Cervantes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CORIA CERVANTES, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
other plaintiffs, similarly situated, known and unknown v. RUBY
HAND CAR WASH, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and JACK
YOUSEF, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-01815 (N.D. Ill., March 15,
2019), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Ruby Hand Car Wash, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability company
that operates the Ruby Hand Car Wash business located on North
California Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.  Jack Yousef is the manager
of the Ruby Hand Car Wash business.

The Company provides car wash and detailing services to the general
public and car dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322-1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Pocrass Suit over Layoffs Moved to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed case styled KATHERINE POCRASS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, OPPENHEIMER FUNDS INC., BRIGADE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, CARRIAGE HOUSE CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC,
MARBLEGATE SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUNDS LP, APOLLO CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, TRICADIA CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-573713 (Filed Feb. 11, 2019), currently pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-1476 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are owners of Gymboree Group,
Inc., Gymboree Intermediate Corporation, Gymboree Holding
Corporation, Gymboree Wholesale, Inc., Gym-Mark, Inc., Gymboree
Operations, Inc., Gymboree Distribution, Inc., Gymboree
Manufacturing, Inc., Gymboree Retail Stores, LLC, Gym-Card, LLC,
and Gymboree Island, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy protection in
the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of
Virginia on January 17, 2019. (Bankr. E.D. Va., Case No.
19-30258-KLP).

The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class
were former employees who worked at, reported to, or received
assignments from Gymboree's San Francisco headquarters, who were
terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass
layoff or plant closure ordered by Defendants and carried out
beginning on January 18, 2019 and within 30 days of that date, who
were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their
terminations by Defendants, as required by California Labor Code,
the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorney for Brigade Capital Management, LP; OppenheimerFunds,
Inc.; Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P.; and Tricadia Capital
Management, LLC:

          Christopher Harris, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: christopher.harris@lw.com

SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Abstral(R)-related
suit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

On February 13, 2017, putative shareholder securities class action
complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena’s
promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets)
were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and
criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered
Galena's statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
Court and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 21, 2018,
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
granted without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On
September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2019, the
Company filed a reply in support of its motion.

The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SEMPER BLUE: Springer Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JOSHUA SPRINGER, the Plaintiff, v.
SEMPER BLUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
18-00968-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered
an order on March 18, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification of:

      "all current and former SB Pro officers who have worked
      for Defendant at any time during the last three years";
      and

   2. granting a request for notice by U.S. Mail and email to
      all putative class members.

On December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Semper
Blue Professional Services, Inc. on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Court ruled as follows:

     -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that the case caption
should not be included at the top of the notice to potential class
members.

     -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that Section I,
subsection (1) shall be amended to read "to inform of a collective
action lawsuit against Semper Blue Professional Services, Inc.
("Semper Blue"), which you have the right to join, or decline to
join, "  The Plaintiff does not object.

     -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that a Court-approved
class definition should be used in the first sentence of Section
II. Plaintiff does not object. The Court approves the following
sentence: "Plaintiff brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself and
other current former compliance and security officers employed by
Semper Blue."  Similarly, the last sentence of the first paragraph
in Section II shall read, "Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and regular time pay owed to him individually and to other
similarly situated compliance and security officers." Further, the
reference to "public safety officer" in the first section marked
"TO:" shall be amended to read "Compliance or Security Officer."

     -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that it is entitled to
a specific denial of Plaintiff's allegations in Section II,
paragraph two. Plaintiff does not object. The Court approves the
following paragraph: "Semper Blue denies Plaintiff's allegations.
Semper Blue contends that at all times it paid its employees in
good faith and paid all wages due to its employees. Semper Blue
denies that it altered any time records or that it has committed
any violations of the FLSA.  Semper Blue denies that any current or
former employees are entitled to any additional compensation or
other relief."

     -- The Court agrees with the Defendant that the class have 45
days to return forms indicating an individual's consent to join the
class action. Plaintiff does not object.

     -- The Plaintiff requests notice be sent to individuals who
have worked for Semper Blue in the last three years.  The Defendant
argues that notice should be sent only to those individuals who
have worked for Semper Blue in the last two years.  The Court
agrees with Plaintiff.

     --  The Plaintiff requests the Defendant provide it with an
Excel spreadsheet of all hourly employees at Semper Blue which
includes putative class members' names, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, last known mailing addresses, email addresses,
and if known, job classifications. Defendant objects to providing
putative class members' phone numbers and Social Security numbers.
The Court agrees with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant shall
provide Plaintiff with an Excel spreadsheet including putative
class members' names, last known mailing addresses, email
addresses, and if known, job classifications.

Semper Blue provides security services in Kansas City, Missouri and
other metropolitan areas around the country. The Plaintiff was
previously employed at Semper Blue as a security officer in Kansas
City. In December 2018, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging
the Defendant violated provisions of the FLSA when it failed to pay
minimum wage and overtime pay to the Plaintiff and other security
or compliance officers at its various locations.[CC]

SEO'S CAFE: Trinidad Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL TRINIDAD and LUDWIN GABRIEL ARREAGA FUENTES, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
SEO'S CAFE CORP. (D/B/A 33 GOURMET DELI), IN HWA SEO, KEVIN SEO,
HANS SEO, and LUCY DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02433
(S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of
Seo's Cafe Corp. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli,
located at 157 W. 33rd Street, New York, NY 10001 under the name
"33 Gourmet Deli".

The Plaintiffs were employed as a cook and a delivery worker at the
deli. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.

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

Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

The Defendants ostensibly employed and accounted for Plaintiff
Arreaga as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his
duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the
non-tipped duties alleged above.  Plaintiff Arreaga and all other
tipped workers were paid above the tip-credit rate but below the
minimum wage rate by the Defendants.

The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiff Arreaga's actual duties in payroll records by designating
him as a delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This
allowed the Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Arreaga at the
minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him above the tip-credit
rate but below the minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL: Parshall Drops Suit over Reliance Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simmons First National Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 25,
2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class
action suit entitled, Parshall v. Brouster, et al.

On March 5, 2019, a purported shareholder of Reliance Bancshares,
Inc. ("Reliance") filed a putative derivative and class action
lawsuit against Reliance, the members of the Reliance board of
directors and Simmons First National Corporation ("Simmons") in the
St. Louis County Circuit Court, 21st Judicial Circuit of Missouri,
on behalf of himself and similarly situated Reliance shareholders,
and derivatively on behalf of Reliance, captioned Parshall v.
Brouster, et al., Case No. 19SL-CC00963 (the "Action").

The Action relates to the proposed merger of Reliance with and into
Simmons as described in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
March 4, 2019 and first mailed to Reliance shareholders on or about
March 6, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus").

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached fiduciary duties by agreeing to an allegedly
insufficient price for the sale of Reliance, and agreeing to
allegedly inappropriate deal protection devices. The plaintiff
further alleges that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted
material information that Reliance shareholders purportedly need in
order to evaluate the proposed merger. The plaintiff alleges that
Simmons aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches by
the individual defendants.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, Simmons and Reliance have agreed to make additional
disclosures to supplement the disclosure contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional Disclosures"). The Additional
Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

In exchange for the agreement to make the Additional Disclosures,
the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the Action, with prejudice to
his individual claims, and without prejudice to the claims of the
putative members of the proposed class. The parties believe that
the issuance of the Additional Disclosures will moot the claims set
forth in the Action.

A copy of the Additional Disclosures is available at
https://bit.ly/2Uq2MD8.

Simmons First National Corporation operates as the holding company
for Simmons Bank that provides financial products and services to
individuals and businesses. Simmons First National Corporation was
founded in 1903 and is headquartered in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.


SSC KERRVILLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Passmore FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace Operating Company, L.L.C.,
SSC Kerrville Edgewater Operating Company, L.L.C. and SSC Kerrville
Hilltop Village Operating Company, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC
Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 5:18-CV-782, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio.

The appellate case is captioned as Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC
Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 19-50225, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2019, the
Defendants filed an appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC
Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 19-50101.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney previously denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration.

Plaintiffs Passmore and Brenda L. Chafton, formerly known as Brenda
Agbeye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, originally filed the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, on July 28, 2018.  In addition
to asserting individual employment claims under the FLSA and Texas
state law, the Named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a putative
class of similarly-situated individuals regarding their claims
under the FLSA, including certain opt-in Plaintiffs who have
already filed consents to join in the action.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSARIO PASSMORE, Individually and On behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, and BRENDA L. CHAFTON,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
formerly known as Brenda Agbeye, are represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 W. Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          2901 Bee Cave Road
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants SSC KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING
COMPANY, L.L.C., SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C.,
and SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., are
represented by:

          Lara Cardin de Leon, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          112 E. Pecan Street
          Weston Centre
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 277-3611
          E-mail: lara.deleon@ogletreedeakins.com


SURE CHECK: Removes FDCPA Suit to Western District of Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Check Brokerage, Inc. removed case styled MONICA PORTER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SURE CHECK BROKERAGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1916-CV01183 (Filed Jan. 8, 2019) from the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on March 21, 2019. The Western District of
Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00216-BP to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

         Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
         Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq.
         SPENCER FANE LLP
         1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (816) 474-8100
         Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
         E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
                 kholzhueter@spencerfane.com

SWITCH INC: Stockholders Class Suits over IPO Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Switch, 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 stockholders' suit over the company's initial public
offering (IPO).

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").

Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court
Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court
Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were
brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common
stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and
other relief.

In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay
the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court
Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State
Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the stay order.

In December 2018, the Supreme Court of Nevada directed Switch and
other defendants to file an answer to the writ by February 2019. In
October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities
Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc.
and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim and a motion to strike.

Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. The company also
serves cloud and managed service providers, financial institutions,
IT and software providers, government agencies, network and
telecommunications providers, and others that conduct critical
business on the Internet. Switch, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


TEG STAFFING: Vaughn-Love Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY VAUGHN-LOVE, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEG
STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; and EASTRIDGE WORKFORCE
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California corporation, Case No. Case
3:19-cv-00519-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2019), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages due to the Defendants' willful or
grossly negligent conduct and its systematic and willful violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act, Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The case is class action arising from the acquisition and use of
consumer and/or investigative consumer reports by the Defendants to
conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective,
current, and former employees. The Defendants routinely obtain and
use information from background reports in connection with their
hiring processes without complying with state and federal mandates
for doing so. As part of this practice, the Defendants provide a
requisite disclosure form to applicants.

However, the disclosure form that the Defendants provided to
Plaintiff and each Class Member as part of its hiring process is
noncompliant with state and federal statutes. The Defendants have
violated the requirements under these statutes by failing to
provide proper "pre-authorization" disclosures. The procurement of
background reports for employment purposes is subject to strict
disclosure requirements under federal law pursuant to the FCRA and
under California law pursuant to the ICRAA and CCRAA. Among other
things, an employer may not procure a background report concerning
a job applicant unless a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure is made
in a stand-alone document that "consists solely of the disclosure"
informing the applicant that a report may be obtained for
employment purposes.

TEG Staffing, Inc. develops strategic workforce management
programs, technology platforms, and comprehensive staffing
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING: Speakman Alleges Workplace Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related lawsuit has been filed against Tigerpoly
Manufacturing, Inc. and David Whittaker, seeking redress and
injunctive relief over an alleged sexual harassment in the
workplace. The case is captioned DEBORAH SPEAKMAN, 1340 S. Pickaway
Street, Lot 18, TIGERPOLY MANUFACTURING, INC. 6231 Enterprise Pkwy,
Grove City, OH 43123 Circleville, OH 43113, Plaintiff, v. TIGERPOLY
MANUFACTURING, INC. 6231 Enterprise Pkwy, Grove City, OH 43123 and
DAVID WHITTAKER c/o Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc. 6231 Enterprise
Pkwy, Grove City, OH 43123, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00913-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2019).

Speakman accuses Tigerpoly for condoning, tolerating, and ratifying
David Whittaker's harassing conduct.  Whittaker's sexually
offensive and harassing conduct created a hostile and/or abusive
work environment for Speakman.  Subsequent to Speakman reporting of
sexual harassment to her supervisor, employer, and filing an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission complaint, Speakman's supervisor
has nitpicked every small thing she has done and harassed her at
work. Further, Whittaker continues to intimidate Speakman at work.
Defendants' actions were retaliatory in nature based on Speakman's
opposition to the sexual harassment.

Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc is an Ohio-incorporated business with
its principal place of business located at 6231 Enterprise Pkwy.,
Grove City, OH 43123. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan R. McFarland, Esq.
     Matthew G. Bruce, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25200 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 200
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Telephone: (513) 883-1147
     Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
     E-mail: Evan.McFarland@SpitzLawFirm.com
             Matthew.Bruce@SpitzLawFirm.com


TURTLE BEACH: Court Certifies Shareholders Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation 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 district court
has certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January
15, 2014.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into
the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company.

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case
denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their
action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada
action, which was granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014,
VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion
was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous
en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants'
petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to
dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon which
plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company,
as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group,
LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's
Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended
complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on
March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to
reverse this ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada
Supreme Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice.

The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set
trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court
certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15,
2014.

Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces Kent Securities Suit Over Hellman Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, INC., SCOTT SCHERR, MARC
D. SCHERR, JAMES A. FITZPATRICK, JR., RICK A. WILBER, AL LEITER,
JONATHAN MARINER, and JASON DORSEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00540-UNA (D.
Del., March 19, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which the Company will be acquired by Unite Parent Corp. and
Unite Merger Sub, which are affiliates of Hellman & Friedman.

On February 3, 2019, Ultimate Software's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ultimate Software's
stockholders will receive $331.50 in cash for each share of
Ultimate Software common stock they hold.

The Plaintiff alleges that with respect to the Company's financial
projections, the Proxy Statement filed in connection with the
Merger fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line
items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA; (ii) all line items to
calculate unlevered free cash flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of
all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.  Hence, the Plaintiff contends, the
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Ultimate Software is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Weston, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Ultimate Software is a provider of cloud-based human capital
management solutions ("HCM") and employee experience solutions.
Ultimate Software's UltiPro product suite is a comprehensive,
engaging solution that has human resources ("HR") and payroll at
its core and includes benefits management, talent acquisition,
talent management, time management, and global people management
functionality available in 14 languages with 61 country-specific
localizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Failed to Pay Final Wages at Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA SECADA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09589 (Cal. Super., March
21, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to timely pay final wages
at termination pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings the action individually and as a class action
on behalf of herself and certain former employees of Defendants.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a systematic, company-wide
policy and practice of willfully failing to pay employees all
wages, including accrued vacation time and/or paid time off wages
due within time period specified by California law when employment
terminates, the lawsuit states.

The Regents of the University of California is the governing board
of the University of California. The board has 26 voting members.
The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy,
with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com

VIVID SEATS: Derdiger Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Ticket Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD DERDIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VIVID SEATS LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill.,
March 19, 2019), arises out of the Defendant's alleged deceptive
pricing and advertising scheme whereby it misrepresented the price
of tickets sold on its Web site and/or app.

The Defendant's pricing is essentially a bait-and-switch scheme: it
lures consumers to purchase tickets to concerts and sporting events
by offering them a percentage discount but then charges them the
original price, making such purchases no bargain at all, the
Plaintiff alleges.  Put simply, he contends, the Defendant fleeces
consumers with a not-bargained-for price each time a consumer buys
an event ticket using its purported discounts.

Vivid Seats LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Defendant operates an independent secondary ticket
marketplace, http://www.vividseats.com/,for live events, such as
sports, concerts, and theater.  The Defendant is engaged in the
sale and marketing of event tickets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          Natasha Singh, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com
                  ns@sweetnamllc.com


WEST HILLS SURGICAL: Braun Sues over Hospital Surprise Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA BRAUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEST HILLS SURGICAL CENTER, and Does
1-100, Case No. 19STCV09SSI (Cal Super., March 21, 2019), alleges
that West Hills has violated numerous provisions of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff says West Hills
Hospital issued a surprise bill to Plaintiff in the amount of $500,
despite the fact Plaintiff never even entered the Hospital.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons
residing in the State of California who were provided medical
services at West Hills Surgical and thereafter received a surprise
bill from West Hills Hospital despite the fact that they never went
to West Hills Hospital for treatment.

According to the complaint, Californians are being ambushed by
"surprise billing," from the West Hills Defendants. The scheme
occurs when a patient goes to a West Hills Surgical for out-patient
services only to find out weeks or months later that West Hills
Surgical authorizes West Hills Hospital to bill patients, hundreds,
if not thousands of dollars, despite the fact that the patients
never enter West Hills Hospital for any treatment whatsoever.

Further, even if West Hills Hospital performed some sort of nominal
service for West Hills Surgical patients, West Hills Hospital bills
patients at rates far in excess of any reasonable rate for the
nominal services which may have been performed by West Hills
Hospital.  The result is financially burdensome for consumers who
reasonably thought they had nothing to worry about since they had
obtained health insurance coverage and went to an in-network
facility, namely West Hills Surgical, for pre­-approved medical
treatment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Mitch Kalcheim , Esq.
          LEGAL GP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 508
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-7142
          E-mail: MHK@LEGALGP.COM

WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over State's Parole
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston,
issued a Findings and Recommendation granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint in the case captioned DENNIS BURCH and The
Class of Similarly Situated Persons Being Those State of West
Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with the Possibility
of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10, 1997, Plaintiffs,
v. BENITA MURPHY, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, MICHAEL
TRUPO, CAROLE B. GREENE, and PEGGY POPE, Members, West Virginia
Parole Board, all in their official capacities, Defendants. Case
No. 2:17-cv-03311. (S.D.W.V.).

The West Virginia parole review statute, which was then codified in
West Virginia Code Section 62-12-13(a)(5), provided that the Parole
Board shall at least once a year reconsider and review the case of
every prisoner so eligible. Burch contends that, as applied to him,
and all other prisoners sentenced to serve life with mercy
sentences prior to July 10, 1997, the change in the set-off period
created a sufficient risk of increased punishment.  

In Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), the
Supreme Court observed that a case should be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, viewing the
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, and in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint does not
contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. While the complaint need not assert detailed factual
allegations, it must contain more than labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.

The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a colorable
constitutional claim.

The defendants' motion to dismiss asserts that the Complaint should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Specifically, the defendants contend that Burch's ex post
facto claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decisions in
Morales and Garner because Burch cannot demonstrate that the
amended statute at issue presents a sufficient risk of increasing
the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes. Garner,
529 U.S. at 250 (quoting Morales, 514 U.S. at 509).

In Morales, the Supreme Court reviewed a California statute that
changed the frequency of parole hearings for prisoners convicted of
more than one homicide from every year to up to every three years.
The Court found that the amendment did not modify the statutory
punishment imposed for any particular offense, nor did it alter the
standards for determining an inmate's initial parole eligibility
date or his suitability for parole.

In Garner, the Supreme Court applied this same rationale in finding
that the retroactive application of a rule changing the frequency
of parole reconsideration hearings from every three years to up to
eight years did not, on its face, violate ex post facto principles.


The defendants further contend that the amended West Virginia law
mirrors the statutes at issue in Morales and Garner in respect to
the discretion afforded to the Parole Board and the opportunity for
reconsideration for expedited review.

In essence, Burch asserts that simply because these prisoners will
not be seen by the parole board as often, there is an increased
risk that they will not be granted parole as quickly as they would
have under the old law. Burch contends that discovery will be
necessary to develop evidence to support his contentions, and that
the appointment of counsel will facilitate this discovery process,
which will include sensitive parole files of past and present
life-with-mercy inmates to compare the periods of incarceration
that those inmates served before parole was granted.

However, in order to succeed with his ex post facto claim, Burch
must demonstrate a significant risk that application of the amended
statute will, in effect, result in a longer period of
incarceration. He has not made such a showing. There is no federal
constitutional right to parole. While the WVSCA has recognized that
inmates have a reasonable expectation of release on parole where
objective criteria are met, the Parole Board retains discretion to
determine when it is in the state's best interest for such
release.

Consequently, Burch has not shown that the amended West Virginia
statute will have the effect of prolonging his punishment either on
the face of the statute or as applied to his specific
circumstances. Accordingly, the undersigned proposes that the
presiding District Judge FIND that Burch has failed to state a
plausible violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Article I,
Section 10 of the United States Constitution and his Complaint
should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for
relief.

Therefore, the Magistrate recommends that the presiding District
Judge grant the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this
civil action from the docket of the court.
    
A full-text copy of the Magitsrate's February 25, 2019 Findings and
Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5mgeyqtfrom
Leagle.com.

Dennis Burch, The Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Being Those
State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with
the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10,
1997, Plaintiff, pro se.

Benita Murphy, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Michael
Trupo, Carole B. Greene & Peggy Pope, Members, West Virginia Parole
Board, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by
Keith D. Fisher , OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


WILLIAM SINGER: Faces Bendis Suit Over College Admission Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BENDIS, JULIA BENDIS, NICHOLAS JAMES JOHNSON, and JAMES
JOHNSON v. WILLIAM "RICK" SINGER, THE KEY WORLDWIDE FOUNDATION, THE
EDGE COLLEGE & CAREER NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a "THE KEY," THE UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE UNIVERSITY
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, and
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:19-cv-01405 (N.D. Cal., March 15,
2019), is brought by the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated arising from two fraudulent college-admission schemes, the
"Test Cheating" scam and "Student-Athlete Recruitment" scam.

The putative class action lawsuit revolves around the two
fraudulent schemes coordinated between three distinct groups: (1)
parents whose college-age children had insufficient test scores and
other credentials to gain admission to highly selective
universities, but who nevertheless believed that they could bribe
their child's way through the college admissions door; (2) a
California con-man, William "Rick" Singer, who, through the use of
a fraudulent college-admissions-mentoring company and a bogus
California charitable foundation, saw an opportunity to enrich
himself to the tune of millions of dollars through fraud and
bribery; and (3) individuals involved in the college admission
pipeline who were supposed to keep the college admission process
honest (including standardized test administrators and
representatives of at least seven highly selective Universities)
who were willing to accept bribes and thereby taint the college
admission process.

William "Rick" Singer is a resident of Newport Beach, California,
in Orange County California, but also does business in Sacramento,
California.  Singer owned The Key and served as Chief Executive
Officer of KWF.

The Edge College & Career Network, LLC d/b/a "The Key," is a
limited liability corporation with its principal place of business
located in Sacramento, California.  The Key was a for-profit
college counseling and preparation business that Singer founded in
or about 2007 and incorporated in the state of California in or
about 2012.

The Key Worldwide Foundation ("KWF") is a purported charitable
organization with its principal place of business located in
Sacramento.  KWF was a non-profit corporation in Newport Beach,
California, that Singer established as a purported charity in or
about 2012.

University of Southern California ("USC") is a private, highly
selective university located in or near Los Angeles County,
California.  Stanford University is a private, highly selective
university located in or near Palo Alto, California, in Santa Clara
County.  University of San Diego ("USD") is a private, highly
selective university located in or near San Diego County,
California.

The University of Texas at Austin ("U-Texas") is a public, highly
selective university located in or near Travis County, Texas.  Wake
Forest University is a private, highly selective university located
in or near Forsyth County, North Carolina.

Yale University is a private, highly selective university located
in or near New Haven County, Connecticut.  Georgetown University is
a private, highly selective university located in or near the
District of Columbia.

University of California, Los Angeles ("UCLA") is a public, highly
selective university located in or near Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, APC
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4940
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4944
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com



                            *********

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 ***