CAR_Public/190411.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 73

                            Headlines

55 OIL: Lakshman Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Pump Attendants
ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Sues over Humira's Supra-competitive Prices
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Saksa Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AMERICAN WEB: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Solomon Suit
B10 LLC: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations

BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez, et al. Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir.
BP OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Lawsuits
BRUNSWICK, NC: D.R. Horton Sues in E.D. North Carolina
BULSON MANAGEMENT: Faces Broome Street Trust Suit in NY
C P GRILL: Koutlakis Seeks Earned Wages & Overtime for Servers

CALIFORNIA CCS: Underpays Nurses, Slaughter Suit Alleges
CAMACHO AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Zieley Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CAPITAL ONE: Dress Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Virginia
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Certification in Service Disconnection Suit Granted

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Friermor Sues over Channel Blackouts
CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Overtime Pay for Litigation Specialists Sought
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss CHF LIBOR Suit Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bond-Related Suit Pending

CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss SIBOR/SOR Litigation Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Suits over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds
CREDIT SUISSE: Litigation over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing
CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps
DEK ENTERPRISES: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York

DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California
DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Former Store Manager's Suit Underway
DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit Certified as State-Wide
DOLLAR TREE: Missouri Class Action Suit Dismissed

DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Illinois Class Action Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Ex-Store Staff in Florida Settled
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices
ENT CREDIT UNION: Unlawfully Charges Overdraft Fees, Nelson Says

ESTEE LAUDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Akana Suit Alleges
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Mendez Suit Claims
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Appeals Decision in Ziglar Suit to 9th Circuit
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velez Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Proposes $17MM Touch-Screen System Settlement

FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Compels Arbitration in Kernaghan
FORSTER & GARBUS: Dorman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FOSTERS FREEZE: Underpays Cooks & Food Preparers, Funkhouser Say
G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroofs Suit

GILL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Claims
GLOBAL CONTACT: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Petitions Judge to Vacate Arbitration Award
HAWAIIAN ISLES: Dearmey Sues over Mislabeled Kona Coffee Products
HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California

INDIANA: Class Action Demands Lawyers for Foster Care Children
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Deceptive Hotel Reservations
LITTLE CAESAR: Removes Lenoir Suit to N.D. Illinois
LL BEAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shirley Consumer Suit
LOGITECH INC: Cal. App. Affirms Parker Class Certification Denial

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Discovery Underway in Gathmann-Landini Suit
MARKEL CORPORATION: Cohen Files Securities Class Action
MASSACHUSETTS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Rosie D. Class Suit
MDL 2887: Navarette, et al. Seek Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings
MERRICK UNITED: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York

MESKO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grijalva Alleges
MONSANTO CO: Missouri Judge Tosses Several Dicamba Claims
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused California Man's Cancer, Jury Finds
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Bumgardner Appeals Decision in Boothe Suit
NOVAN INC: Securities Suit over SB204 Clinical Trials Concluded

NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending
OCWEN LOAN: Makoni Suit Transferred to Worcester, Mass. Division
OMNI RECYCLING: Underpays Laborers, Bonilla Suit Alleges
ORACLE AMERICA: Loses Bid to Duck Arbitration in Sales Staff Suit
ORANGE CO, CA: Probe Reveals Widespread Homeless Shelter Abuse

ORG RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCrumb Suit Says
OS RESTAURANT: Court Dismisses C. Chavira's FLSA Suit
PACIFIC ETHANOL: Faces Ragsdale Labor Suit in Sacramento
PARTNER COMMS: 012 Smile Still Defends Excessive Charge Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Pending

PARTNER COMMS: Call Recordings-Related Suit Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Ruling in 012 Smile Suit Appealed
PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Ruling in Customers' Suit Appealed
PARTNER COMMS: Continues to Defend Roaming Services-Related Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed Suit vs. 012 Smile Ongoing

PARTNER COMMS: Location Data-Related Suit Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Overcharging-Related Suit Still Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit Okayed
PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Customers' Discrimination-Related Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telecom Packages for Use Abroad Ongoing

PARTNER COMMS: Suit v 012 Smile on License Breach Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Overcharged Fees Okayed
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Lucien Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers
PRICE TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fiedler Alleges
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Alleges

PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Crowder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SAINT ALPHONSUS: King & Spalding Discusses Class Action Ruling
SARDONIC SENTIMENTS: Laibe Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Assistants
SCCG INC: Landaverde Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SELECT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yapura-Weiler Alleges

SERVICE KING: Underpays Service Advisors, Gutierrez et al. Claim
ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads to City Plating
STANFORD PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintana Suit Alleges
STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
SUNSHINE USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Zhang FLSA Suit

TABER COMPANY: Scoggins Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
TDT CONSULTING: Christy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
TEXAS: Problems in Foster Care System Similar to Immigrant Housing
TITAN CONSTRUCTION: Arana Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
TOOTSIE ROLL: Must Face Junior Mints Slack-Fill Class Action

TORO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdovinos Suit Alleges
TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Kern County
TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT: Faces McCrumb Labor Suit in Kern County
TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TRU-FLEX METAL: Ct. Junks Third-Party Claims in Adams Pointe Suit

UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Suit Set for Trial This Year
UQM TECH: Carter Seeks to Halt Danfoss Merger Deal
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Carter Suit Over Danfoss Merger
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Danfoss Merger
USHEALTH GROUP: Jacobi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mays Class Suit
WALMART INC: Awaits Court OK on Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit
WITTMAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Clark Labor Suit in Sacramento
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Property Owners File Class Action
YOGAWORKS INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT to Lead Suit

YOGAWORKS INC: Settlement Reached in Cal. Instructors' Class Suit
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Kruk Fraud Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct.
[*] Australian Law Reform Commission Releases Class Action Report

                            *********

55 OIL: Lakshman Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Pump Attendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIYANA P. LAKSHMAN, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 55 OIL CORP and DAVID M.
RISHTY, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01647 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019), seeks unpaid or underpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a pump attendant. The
Plaintiff worked 72 hours per week and was paid $7.50-9.00. The
Defendants willfully failed to pay the the Plaintiff and similar
workers, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours each workweek, yet the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the the Plaintiff and similar
workers overtime compensation of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Sues over Humira's Supra-competitive Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., and AMGEN INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02015 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2019), challenges the company's
sale and pricing of Humira.

Humira (adalimumab) is a biologic injectable therapy indicated to
treat a variety of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid
arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque
psoriasis, Crohn's disease (adult and pediatric), and ulcerative
colitis. Humira is sold primarily in the United States and Europe.

AbbVie has sold adalimumab under the brand name "Humira" in the
United States since 2002. Humira is a blockbuster drug -- the
single largest revenue source for AbbVie, with sales reaping nearly
$20 billion in 2018 -- nearly 61% of its global revenues. More than
$13.6 billion of those revenues were from 2018 sales in the U.S.,
alone.

Because Humira generates approximately half of AbbVie's revenues,
the company's profitability is highly dependent on its Humira
sales. The original patent on Humira, a biologic drug approved in
the U.S. in 2002, would expire in late 2016, leading to competition
for Humira prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs.

AbbVie has other drugs in the pipeline, but sales (and
corresponding revenues) of those drugs would not begin until many
years after the Humira patent expired. AbbVie knew that a challenge
to Humira's market from biosimilar versions of Humira, in the wake
of the 2016 patent expiry, would cause Humira brand sales to fall,
leading to revenue losses for AbbVie's Humira.

Certainly, such a loss in revenues would have significant
repercussions for the profitability of the company if competition
for Humira began in late 2016. AbbVie developed a scheme to avoid
its potential loss of its market share.

In order to combat this sizable threat, AbbVie, in a scheme to
thwart competition, erected a patent thicket sure to repel any
potential competitor. The more patents – valid or not -- a
competitor had to wade past, the longer AbbVie could keep
competition for Humira at bay and, thus, the longer Humira could
command supra-competitive prices. AbbVie has filed more than 240
patent applications and obtained over 100 patents purportedly
covering Humira.

AbbVie scheme also involved paying its would-be competitor to
further delay entry. At least nine companies have indicated an
intent to market biosimilars to compete with Humira. At least three
currently have approval from the FDA. But none have launched.
Instead, AbbVie has entered into deals with at least two
manufacturers to delay their entry until various dates in 2023.

Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and the delay it bought from
Amgen, Humira's sales have not yet faced competition and may not
face competition until 2023. Under this scheme, AbbVie and Amgen
win. Humira purchasers lose. The City of Baltimore and class
members are end-payers for Humira. They are the last links in the
pharmaceutical distribution chain, and they paid overcharges for
Humira as a result of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct and Amgen's
agreement not to compete with AbbVie.

But for AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct, biosimilars who have BLA
approvals for their products would have launched those products and
competed with AbbVie's Humira as early as December 31, 2016.
Because of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct, AbbVie has continued
to reap the benefits of being the exclusive seller of Humira on the
U.S. market, even though the primary patent on Humira expired at
the end of 2016 and the FDA has approved several biosimilars to
compete with Humira.

AbbVie Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution
of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc.
is the holder of Biologic License Application No. 125057 for
Humira, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody
adalimumab.[BN]

Counsel for the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          Donna M. Evans, Esq.
          Royce Zeisler, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 S LaSalle St. No. 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 629-3737
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
                  devans@cohenmilstein.com
                  rzeisler@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
          jnb@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Andre M. Davis, Esq.
          Suzanne Sangree, Esq.
          CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          City Hall, Room 109
          100 N. Holiday Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (443) 388-2190
          E-mail: Andre.Davis@baltimorecity.gov
                  Suzanne.Sangree2@baltimorecity.gov

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Saksa Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SAKSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTESTATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1119-0719 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., March 5, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of
automated information processing, long-distance data transmission,
massive data collection and storage, automated high-speed
telecommunications, and contributions to the management
professionalism in credit and collection. The company was founded
in 1954 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As of September
1998, Allied Interstate, LLC operates as a subsidiary of iQor, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


AMERICAN WEB: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Solomon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc. and MacFarlane Group,
Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Royce Solomon, et al. v. American Web Loan, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-00145-HCM-RJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Newport News.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Royce Solomon, et al. v.
American Web Loan, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1258, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Defendants-Appellants AMERICAN WEB LOAN, INC., AWL, INC. and
MACFARLANE GROUP, INC., are represented by:

          Saba Bazzazieh, Esq.
          Robert Rosette, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          1100 H Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 652-0579
          E-mail: sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com
                  rosette@rosettelaw.com

               - and -

          Molly Maureen Jennings, Esq.
          Jonathan Edward Paikin, Esq.
          Thomas L. Strickland, Esq.
          Daniel Stephen Volchok, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 663-6947
          E-mail: Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
                  jonathan.paikin@wilmerhale.com
                  thomas.strickland@wilmerhale.com
                  daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC
          411 East Franklin Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7132
          E-mail: eturner@ohaganmeyer.com


B10 LLC: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Roque Alvarez, Gonzalo Garcia Toribio, Rolando Ponciano, and
Luciano Ponciano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. B10 LLC dba Bareburger, and George Dellis,
Georgios Tzanidakis, and George Rodas, Case No. 1:19-cv-01333 (E.D.
N.Y., March 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not pay time and a
half for hours worked over 40, a violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff Roque Alvarez worked for the Defendants as a
dishwasher, porter, food preparer, and line cook, and performed
other miscellaneous duties from October 2014 until July 2018.

The Plaintiff Gonzalo Garcia Toribio worked for the Defendants as a
cleaner, food preparer, griller, and kitchen worker, and performed
other miscellaneous duties from July 2013 until March 2018.

The Plaintiff Rolando Ponciano worked for the Defendants as a cook,
and performed other miscellaneous duties from December 2012 until
April 2013.

The Plaintiff Luciano Ponciano worked for the Defendants as a food
preparer and cook, and performed other miscellaneous duties from
June 2012 until December 2013.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant B10 LLC dba Bareburger,
located at 45-38 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, New York 11361. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez, et al. Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joshua Boswell, Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuits styled Jose Fernandez,
et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case Nos. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JC and
2:17-cv-06120-MWF-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jose Fernandez, et al v. Bank of
America, N.A., Case No. 19-55326, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
appealed a ruling in their lawsuits.  That appellate case is titled
Jose Fernandez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
18-80187.

Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong initiated this action on
August 17, 2017.  On April 6, 2018, this action was consolidated
with Boswell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-6120-MWF
(RAOx).  The Putative Lead Plaintiffs were previously employed by
Bank of America: Plaintiff Boswell as a mortgage loan officer from
September 2015 to March 2017, Plaintiff Yong as a mortgage lending
officer from October 2013 to September 2014, and Plaintiff
Fernandez as a mortgage originator from September 2013 to October
2014.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 22, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019;

   -- Appellants Joshua Boswell, Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong's
      opening brief is due on July 1, 2019;

   -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      August 1, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE FERNANDEZ, ALEX YONG and JOSHUA BOSWELL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Eileen Goldsmith, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com
                  mrubin@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa St., Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 597-5107
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Apalla Chopra, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: achopra@omm.com

               - and -

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com


BP OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that nearly a decade after BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill fouled
the Gulf of Mexico, the company asked a Fifth Circuit panel to
dismiss claims of hundreds of litigants for noncompliance with a
pretrial order.

BP's oil spill was monstrous. The federal government estimates 4.9
million barrels spewed from the London-based multinational's well
41 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the spring of 2010 before
the well was capped, the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history.

The litigation in its wake is also a monstrosity. Though BP has
paid more than $20 billion in settlements to hundreds of thousands
of claimants, the docket is far from closed as hundreds of
single-plaintiff lawsuits have been stayed with no trial date set.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is managing the litigation in New
Orleans. To whittle down the caseload, Barbier issued pretrial
order 63 in February 2017.

PTO 63 pertains to all claims for oil spill cleanup work, and
claims for personal injury and medical monitoring due to exposure
to the oil that was still washing up daily on beaches in Alabama
and the Florida panhandle in 2013.

The order barred remaining litigants from bringing class actions
and required them to file individual lawsuits with one plaintiff by
April 12, 2017.

Attorneys representing 817 people whose cases Barbier dismissed
with prejudice for noncompliance with his order asked a Fifth
Circuit panel at the Houston federal courthouse on Feb. 7 to revive
their claims.

The wood-paneled courtroom and three judges sitting in black robes
on the bench hearing esoteric legal arguments insulated the 30
onlookers in the gallery from memories of April 20, 2010 when BP's
well blew out, causing an explosion that killed 11 people.

The ensuing spill covered seabirds in oil and, when combined with
the chemicals used to disburse the oil slick, contaminated fish,
shrimp and crabs, damaging their reproductive systems so they gave
birth to mutated offspring -- fish with scales marred by oozing
sores, and shrimp with no eyes.

William Gibbens told the panel that his 17 clients, who claim they
were exposed to hazardous chemicals responding to the spill, made
an honest mistake in failing to comply with Barbier's pretrial
order.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Elrod asked Gibbens why they had
trouble with the order when another 960 plaintiffs complied with
it.

"It was a misreading of the order," Gibbens said. "We thought by
filing lawsuits that were not class actions, that we were okay."

He said he did not know that by individual lawsuits, Barbier meant
one plaintiff per lawsuit.

Gibbens said his clients followed the advice of the Plaintiffs
Steering Committee, a group of 15 lawyers Barbier appointed to help
manage the litigation, and filed sworn statements in which they
laid out their claims before the deadline, but did not file
individual lawsuits.

Heather Lindsay represents 800 people who say they were hired by BP
contractors Plant Performance Services LLC and Fluor Corporation
Inc. to help clean up oil that washed onto Florida beaches.

They claimed in two lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida
that they were wrongly terminated from the cleanup jobs in
September 2010 after they were exposed to toxic chemicals. The
cases were transferred to Barbier's docket.

Lindsay told the panel that Barbier did not permit her clients
discovery needed to find out if they even have valid breach of
contract claims against BP.

She said she filed a motion for relief from Barbier's pretrial
order in April 2017 stating that it would cost her clients more
than $300,000 in filing fees to bring individual lawsuits, and
asking if they could have their filing fees waived.

Barbier gave them a break. He extended the filing cutoff date by
three weeks. But they did not file individual complaints, leading
Barbier to dismiss their claims with prejudice in July 2017.

Judge Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, asked Lindsay why she did
not heed Barbier's warning her clients' claims would be barred.

"I only got one warning," Lindsay said. "I asked that plaintiffs
could fire me and proceed in forma pauperis [with no payment of
filing fees]. This ruling punishes indigent people. It does not
prejudice BP."

BP's attorney George Hicks disagreed. He works for the Washington,
D.C firm Kirkland and Ellis.

He said Barbier acted within his discretion in dismissing the
lawsuits with prejudice because PTO 63 came three months after a
similar pretrial order that pared down the litigation, so all
claimants subject to PTO 63 were aware of how the process worked.

"Don't the rules require notice before the ultimate sanction of
dismissal with prejudice?" Elrod said.

Hicks said Barbier gave four different warnings about the filing
deadline in the order.

"Judge Barbier is trying to keep the trains running on time," Hicks
said.

He said it took Barbier a year to figure out which single-plaintiff
lawsuits filed under PTO 63 were legitimate and not fraudulent, and
it would "gum up the works" if the Fifth Circuit reinstated the
claims of the 800-plus litigants involved in the appeal.

In closing arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Donald
Trump appointee, asked Gibbens why the ship has not sailed on his
17 clients' claims given that Barbier has moved on to another
pretrial order that requires PTO 63 litigants to "provide more
particularized information regarding their claims."

Gibbens did not hesitate.

"The individual complaints have been stayed for eight years.
They're still stayed and no trial date's been set," he said. "This
is only 17 cases. So adding them to hundreds of cases would not be
hard."

For Lindsay's 800 clients, she asked the panel to revive their
cases and send them back to the Northern District of Florida, so
they can pursue breach of contract claims against BP's oil spill
cleanup contractors.

Another Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett filled out
the panel.

The judges took the arguments under submission and did not say when
they would rule.

Despite the drawn-out litigation, BP has largely recovered from the
oil spill. It sold $60 billion in assets to cover liabilities from
the disaster and its shares were trading at $42.54 on Feb. 7, up
from a low point of $29.35 in the months after its well ruptured.


BRUNSWICK, NC: D.R. Horton Sues in E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the County of
Brunswick. The case is captioned as D.R. HORTON, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY
OF BRUNSWICK, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00044-FL (E.D.N.C., March
5, 2019). The case is assigned to District Judge Louise Wood
Flanagan.

Brunswick County is the southernmost county in the U.S. state of
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762-1990
          Facsimile: (910) 762-6752
          E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com

               - and –

          William Grainger Wright, Sr., Esq.
          SHIPMAN and WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762-1990
          Facsimile: (910) 762-6752
          E-mail: wwright@shipmanlaw.com


BULSON MANAGEMENT: Faces Broome Street Trust Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bulson Management
LLC. The case is captioned as THE BROOME STREET TRUST, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULSON
MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 651357/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., March 6, 2019).

Bulson Management LLC is an acknowledged leader in high-end
residential and commercial construction concentrating in the
greater New York City area. [BN]


C P GRILL: Koutlakis Seeks Earned Wages & Overtime for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Koutlakis, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. C P Grill Corp.
d/b/a CP Grill, Patricia Bohman, and Christo Ioannides, jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01669 (E.D.N.Y., March
24, 2019), seeks to remedy wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's
earned wages and overtime compensation by Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a
corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants'
conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly
situated employees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired as a server.
However, her job duties were variable and included setting up and
cleaning the restaurant, cleaning silverwear, answering phones, and
working at the cash register. Because of these, the Plaintiff spent
at least 20% of her time per shift performing non-tipped
occupations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 213-8511
          Facsimile: (718) 777-0599

CALIFORNIA CCS: Underpays Nurses, Slaughter Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SLAUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CCS, P.C. d/b/a
WELLPATH; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00012302-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 6,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Slaughter was employed by the Defendants as nurse.

California CCS, P.C. d/b/a Wellpath provides healthcare services.
The Company offers medical, dental, mental, and behavioral health
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  mmorphew@markham-law.com


CAMACHO AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMACHO AUTO SALES, INC.; GGC AUTO GROUP 1,
INC.; CAMACHO MITSUBISHI, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07189 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Lee was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Camacho Auto Sales, Inc. is a California corporation, sells
automobiles and provides automobile repair and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Zieley Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIY ZIELEY a/k/a VICKY PLEVRITIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01259-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y.,
March 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt
collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client
contractual expectations. The company was formerly known as Ventus
Capital Services, LP and changed its name to Capital Management
Services L.P. in October 2006. Capital Management Services L.P. was
incorporated in 2004 and is based in Buffalo, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


CAPITAL ONE: Dress Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Susan Dress, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-40064, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria) on March 22, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00343-LO-IDD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Liam O'Grady.

The Plaintiff asserts damages and other relief arising from Capital
One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts
on transactions that are fully paid by the billing period due
date.

Capital One, like other major credit card companies, provides
consumers a grace pperioderiod to pay their credit card balances.
This grace-period is promised to consumers in both their Capital
One Credit Card Agreement and in the disclosures on the back of
their monthly statements. But unlike other major credit card
companies, Capital One fails to tell consumers they can lose their
grace period on all future transactions by failing to pay off their
balance in full in a prior month, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 2009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Andrew Soukup, Esq.
          Michael M. Maya, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 778-5066
          E-mail: asoukup@cov.com
                   mmaya@cov.com

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Certification in Service Disconnection Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 court in a class
action suit related to disconnections services has approved the
request for certification.

In April 2018, the district court approved a request to certify a
lawsuit filed against the company in December 2014 as a class
action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully
charged its subscribers who disconnected from its services during a
certain billing cycle for a full monthly payment.

The total amount claimed was not estimated by the plaintiff.

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.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Friermor Sues over Channel Blackouts
------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE FRIERMOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07447 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 5, 2019) is an action arises out of the Defendants' blackout
of numerous channels on their cable subscription network in Los
Angeles, California, and other major metropolitan areas nationwide,
with no compensation provided to the millions of affected
subscribers of the Defendants' pay television services.

According to the complaint, on January 2, 2019, nearly three dozen
television channels, including KTLA Channel 5, among others, went
dark on the Plaintiff's pay television service, which was provided
to the Plaintiff by the Defendants under its Spectrum brand. The
blackout of all those channels on the Plaintiff's pay television
service lasted until January 11, 2019. Other subscribers of the
Defendants' pay television services in major metropolitan areas
around the country including Denver, Houston, New York, and St.
Louis, among other areas, also suffered blackouts to numerous
television channels on their own pay television services during
that time period. However, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the class any monetary compensation for the duration
of the period of the channel blackout.

Charter Communications, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
cable services to residential and commercial customers in the
United States. Charter Communications, Inc. was founded in 1999 and
is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jf@kirtlandpackard.com


CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 5, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class
action against Cigna and several of its officers.  Minohor Singh v.
Cigna Corporation, et al., No. 17-CV-3484 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2019).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making a series of materially misleading
statements concerning Cigna's compliance with regulatory
requirements.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  Judge Vanessa
L. Bryant of the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs did not
adequately allege material misstatements and scienter.  Plaintiffs
appealed.  The Second Circuit affirmed, emphatically, agreeing that
plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable material
misrepresentations.

In 2012, Cigna acquired a regional Medicare insurer with the
objective of entering the Medicare insurance market.  As a result
of the acquisition, Cigna was required to comply with regulations
relating to its participation in the Medicare insurance market.
Plaintiffs alleged that Cigna made misleading statements about its
compliance efforts in its SEC filings and in another publication.
Specifically, plaintiffs focused on statements in the company's
2013 Form 10-K that it had policies in place to comply with
pertinent Medicare regulations, and Cigna's statement in its 2014
Form 10-K that it would continue to "allocate significant
resources" towards compliance.  Plaintiffs also alleged there were
materially misleading statements in a pamphlet published in
December 2014 discussing Cigna's dedication to integrity and
regulatory compliance.

The Second Circuit first considered whether the alleged
misstatements were material.  Finding that a reasonable investor
would not view the allegedly misleading statements as "important"
or influential in their decision to purchase or sell stock, the
Court concluded that these statements were immaterial.  In so
holding, the Court found that: the language in Cigna's Form 10-K
filings were generic statements about its compliance efforts; the
language in the pamphlet constituted mere puffery regarding Cigna's
"reputation, integrity and compliance with ethical norms"; and such
statements were too vague with respect to Cigna's compliance with
regulatory requirements to cause reasonable reliance or an
inference that Cigna was in "satisfactory compliance."  The Court
contrasted the statements at issue with statements in prior cases
where the Court "found that descriptions of compliance efforts
amounted to actionable assurances of actual compliance."  The Court
noted that in those cases "the descriptions of such efforts were
far more detailed" and that "[s]uch detailed descriptions stand in
sharp contrast to Cigna's simple and generic assertions about
having ‘policies and procedures' and allocating ‘significant
resources.'"  The Court further noted that the manner in which the
allegedly misleading statements were presented—including to the
extent they were framed by acknowledgements of the complexity and
numerosity of applicable regulations—indicated Cigna was actually
cautious about the adequacy of its compliance efforts and was
focused on strengthening them.

Having found that no material misstatements were alleged, the Court
declined to address the issue of scienter.  Accordingly, the Court
held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that defendants
made materially misleading statements and affirmed the judgment of
the District Court.  The Court noted:  "This case presents us with
a creative attempt to recast corporate mismanagement as securities
fraud.  The attempt relies on a simple equation: first, point to
banal and vague corporate statements affirming the importance of
regulatory compliance; next, point to significant regulatory
violations; and voila, you have alleged a prima facie case of
securities fraud!  The problem with this equation, however, is that
such generic statements do not invite reasonable reliance.  They
are not, therefore, materially misleading, and so cannot form the
basis of a fraud case."

This case should be an important precedent for securities
litigants.  An increasing number of securities class actions in
recent years have been geared toward allegations that companies
failed to disclose shortcomings in legal and regulatory compliance,
many of them falling within the much talked about "event-driven"
trend in securities litigation.  Against that backdrop, Cigna
reflects an important reminder to district courts from a critical
appellate court for securities class actions.  Regulatory
compliance issues or other alleged "events" allegedly evidencing
failures by management to manage legal or compliance risks are not
themselves disclosure frauds actionable under the securities law.
[GN]


CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Overtime Pay for Litigation Specialists Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALVAMEL LENNON and CYNTHIA AURELIO on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CLAIMS QUESTIONS,
LLC, d/b/a ROL INSURANCE CONSULTING, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00342 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019),
seeks payment from Defendants for overtime work pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Citizens and CQ jointly employ "Litigation Specialists" to provide
adjusting services on Citizens' accounts through a contract between
Citizens and CQ. These Litigation Specialists, and other similarly
situated workers, are classified as "independent contractors" and
paid a day rate for all hours worked with no additional overtime
compensation paid, the lawsuit says.

The workers work long hours to perform their work, and operate
under very tight direction, control and supervision of both CQ and
Citizens. The workers have been misclassified as independent
contractors under the FLSA and should have been classified as
employees. As such, they are entitled to overtime compensation for
overtime hours worked.

CQ provides specialized claim handling services via an adjusting
team consisting of highly trained individuals whose experience
includes working for major insurance carriers as managers, staff
adjusters, and reinspectors.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  MGunter@forthepeople.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss CHF LIBOR Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
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's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in CHF LIBOR litigation in the
Southern District of New York remains pending.

In February 2015, various banks that served on the Swiss franc
LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG, were named in a
civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District
of New York (SDNY), alleging manipulation of Swiss franc LIBOR to
benefit defendants' trading positions.

On September 25, 2017, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims, but permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 7, 2018.

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: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bond-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 motion seeking
dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to the issuance of
Mexican government bond is still pending.

Credit Suisse AG and affiliates have been named in multiple
putative class actions in US federal court alleging a conspiracy
among Credit Suisse entities and other dealer banks to manipulate
the Mexican government bond market.

These actions have been consolidated in the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) and on July 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint.

On September 17, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

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: Bid to Dismiss SIBOR/SOR Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
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 motion to dismiss
filed in the SIBOR/SOR litigation is pending.

In July 2016, various banks that served on the Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR) panels,
including Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, were named in a
civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging
manipulation of SIBOR and SOR to benefit defendants' trading
positions.

On August 18, 2017, the SDNY dismissed all claims against Credit
Suisse Group AG and affiliates (and various other defendants) but
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

On October 4, 2018, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
upholding antitrust claims against Credit Suisse AG and other panel
bank defendants, but narrowing the claims to those related to
Singapore Dollar SIBOR and dismissing all but one plaintiff from
the action.

The court also dismissed the RICO claims without leave to amend. On
October 25, 2018, the remaining plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss on November
15, 2018.

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: Faces Suits over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 since February 22, 2019,
Credit Suisse AG and CSS LLC, together with other financial
institutions, have been named in multiple putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging a conspiracy among the financial
institutions to fix prices for unsecured bonds issued by Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae.

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: Litigation over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 lawsuits related to  alleged manipulation of
foreign exchange rates.

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates as well as other financial
institutions are named in five pending civil lawsuits in the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) relating to the alleged
manipulation of foreign exchange rates.

The first pending matter is a putative consolidated class action.
On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the original consolidated complaint brought by US-based investors
and foreign plaintiffs who transacted in the US, but granted their
motion to dismiss the claims of foreign-based investors for
transactions outside of the US.

In July 2015, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, adding additional defendants and asserting additional
claims on behalf of a second putative class of exchange investors.
On September 20, 2016, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss filed by the Group and affiliates, along with
other financial institutions, which reduced the size of the
putative class, but allowed the primary antitrust and Commodity
Exchange Act claims to survive.

On May 31, 2018, plaintiffs served a motion for class
certification, which the Group and affiliates opposed on October
25, 2018.

The second pending matter names Credit Suisse AG and affiliates, as
well as other financial institutions in a putative class action
filed in the SDNY on June 3, 2015.

This action is based on the same alleged conduct as the
consolidated class action and alleges violations of the US Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On August 23, 2016, the SDNY granted a motion to dismiss filed by
affiliates of Credit Suisse AG, along with other financial
institutions. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on July 10,
2018, the Second Circuit issued an order affirming in full the
SDNY's decision to dismiss the putative ERISA class action against
Credit Suisse AG and affiliates as well as other defendant
financial institutions and denying plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend their complaint.

The third pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and
affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a
consolidated putative class action filed in the SDNY, alleging
manipulation of the foreign exchange market on behalf of indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

On March 15, 2018, the court issued a decision granting
defendants’ joint motion to dismiss and dismissing the
consolidated complaint in its entirety. On October 25, 2018, the
SDNY granted in substantial part plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a proposed second consolidated class action complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on November 28, 2018.

On December 20, 2018, the Group, together with other financial
institutions, filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of personal
jurisdiction.

The fourth pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and
affiliates in a putative class action filed in the SDNY on July 12,
2017, alleging improper practices in connection with electronic
foreign exchange trading. On April 12, 2018, the SDNY granted
defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

The fifth pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and
affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a civil
action filed in the SDNY on November 13, 2018. This action is based
on the same alleged conduct as the consolidated class action. On
March 1, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

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.

Further, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates,
together with other financial institutions, have also been named in
two putative class actions in Israel, which makes 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: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 interest rate swaps.

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions, have been named in one consolidated putative civil
class action complaint and one consolidated complaint filed by
individual plaintiffs relating to interest rate swaps, alleging
that dealer defendants conspired with trading platforms to prevent
the development of interest rate swap exchanges.

The individual lawsuits were brought by TeraExchange LLC, a swap
execution facility, and affiliates, and Javelin Capital Markets
LLC, a swap execution facility, and an affiliate, which claim to
have suffered lost profits as a result of defendants' alleged
conspiracy. All interest rate swap actions have been consolidated
in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New York
SDNY().

Both class and individual plaintiffs filed second amended
consolidated complaints on December 9, 2016, which defendants moved
to dismiss on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the SDNY granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On
February 21, 2018, class plaintiffs moved for leave to amend and
file a proposed third amended consolidated class action complaint.


On May 10, 2018, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and
denying in part class plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and
file a third amended consolidated class action complaint. The SDNY
granted plaintiffs' motion to add a new plaintiff and factual
allegations relating to the claims that survived the motion to
dismiss, but denied plaintiffs' attempt to revive the dismissed
claims. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint.

On June 14, 2018, a new direct action complaint was filed by swap
execution facility trueEX LLC. On June 20, 2018, the trueEX LLC
complaint was added to the existing multi-district litigation. On
August 9, 2018, trueEX LLC filed an amended complaint against
Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions, which defendants moved to dismiss on August 28, 2018.


On November 20, 2018, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the trueEX LLC
amended complaint. The SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss
trueEX LLC's state law claims, but denied the motion as to trueEX
LLC's antitrust claims. On October 25, 2018, class plaintiffs moved
for leave to file a fourth amended consolidated complaint.

On February 20, 2019, class plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification. On March 13, 2019, the SDNY issued an order granting
in part and denying in part class plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend and file a fourth amended consolidated class action
complaint.

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.


DEK ENTERPRISES: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York
-----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SOFIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEK ENTERPRISES INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01302-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred to Magistrate Judge Anne Y.
Shields.

Dek Enterprises was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business
includes renting and leasing consumer goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (646) 290-8258
          Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
          E-mail: James@civilrightsNY.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 agreements
made in the class action suits related to alleged manipulation of
gold and silver prices remains subject to final court approval.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in two consolidated class action
lawsuits pending in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The suits allege violations of US antitrust law, the US Commodity
Exchange Act and related state law arising out of the alleged
manipulation of gold and silver prices through participation in the
Gold and Silver Fixes, but do not specify the damages sought.
Deutsche Bank has reached agreements to settle the gold action for
US$60 million and the silver action for US$38 million. The
agreements remain subject to final court approval.

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.


DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; and VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DICKS
SPORTING GOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01589-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2019) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Christina A. Synder and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael
R. Wilner.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. operates as a sporting goods retailer
primarily in the eastern United States. It provides hardlines,
including sporting goods equipment, fitness equipment, golf
equipment, and hunting and fishing gear products; apparel; and
footwear and accessories. The company also owns and operates Golf
Galaxy, Field & Stream, and other specialty concept stores; and
e-commerce Websites, as well as Dick's Team Sports HQ, a youth
sports digital platform that offers free league management
services, mobile apps, free league management services,
communications and live scorekeeping, custom uniforms and fan wear,
and access to donations and sponsorships. As of February 2, 2019,
it operated approximately 858 stores in 47 states. The company was
formerly known as Dick's Clothing and Sporting Goods, Inc. and
changed its name to Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. in April 1999.
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. was founded in 1948 and is
headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Former Store Manager's Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiff has taken
an appeal from the jury's verdict in the class action suit
initiated by a former store manager in California.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in
California federal court alleging, among other things, that the
Company failed to make wage statements readily available to
employees who did not receive paper checks.

On November 7, 2017, the jury found in favor of the Company. The
plaintiff has filed an appeal from the verdict.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit Certified as State-Wide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has certified
the class action suit initiated by a distribution center employee,
as a state-wide class action.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.

The employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his
attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution
center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime
compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court.

The court certified the case as a state-wide class action.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Missouri Class Action Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit
pending before the Missouri State Court has been dismissed.

In February 2018, a current store manager filed a statewide class
action in Missouri state court alleging the Company's store
managers are improperly classified as exempt employees thereby
entitling them to overtime pay, liquidated damages and damages for
unjust enrichment.

The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit filed by a former employee that alleges
that the company failed to provide all non-exempt California store
employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation,
accurate wage statements and final pay upon termination of
employment.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide
all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final
pay upon termination of employment.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Illinois Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit by a customer in federal court in
Illinois.

In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court
in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer
fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a
product that purported to contain aloe when it did not.

The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois.

The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities
that supplied it with the product.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Ex-Store Staff in Florida Settled
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the
putative class action in Florida state court have agreed to settle
the case.   

In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
in Florida state court brought by a former store employee asserting
the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it
handled background checks. The parties have settled the case for an
amount which is not material.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE O'BOYLE; and JENNIFER TORRES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00326-DEJ (E.D. Wis.,
March 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC was formerly known
as Enhanced Recovery Corporation. The company was founded in 1999
and is based in Jacksonville, Florida with locations in the United
States, the Dominican Republic, Belize, and India. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


ENT CREDIT UNION: Unlawfully Charges Overdraft Fees, Nelson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE NELSON; and ASHLEY BRYMER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENT CREDIT UNION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00634-KMT (D. Colo., March 4, 2019) is
an action against the Defendant for assessing overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw the account, and
charging two or three non-sufficient funds fees on a single
transaction.

According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully charged
overdraft fees. When a debit card transactions are authorized on an
account with positive funds to cover the transaction, the Defendant
immediately reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of
the purchase, sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that
transaction, and as a result, the consumer's displayed "available
balance" reflects that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these
transactions because the Defendant has already sequestered these
funds for payment. However, the Defendant still assesses a
crippling $25 overdraft fees on many of these transactions and
misrepresents its practices in its account documents. Despite
putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the
Defendant later assesses overdraft fees on those same transactions
when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance.

Ent Credit Union operates as a not-for-profit financial cooperative
that offers credit and banking services to its members. The union
was formerly known as Ent Federal Credit Union and changed its name
to Ent Credit Union in January 2016. Ent Credit Union was founded
in 1957 and is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It has more
than 30 locations along Colorado's Front Range. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly Hyman, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: hymank@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 250-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


ESTEE LAUDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Akana Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHLOE AKANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER INC.; ELC BEAUTY LLC; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07566 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Akana was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Estee Lauder Inc. produces and distributes skincare, makeup, and
fragrance products for clients worldwide. It sells its products
through department stores and specialty stores in the United
States; and online. The company was founded in 1946 and is based in
New York, New York. Estee Lauder Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Mendez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07422 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Mr. Mendez was employed by the Defendants as truck driver.

Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company
offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing, inventory
management, and other related services. Estenson Logistics serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIANII
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818)609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Appeals Decision in Ziglar Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Express Messenger Systems, Inc., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v.
Express Messenger Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02726-SRB, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v.
Express Messenger Systems, Inc., Case No. 19-15510, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant previously
filed an appeal from a District Court ruling.  That appellate case
is styled Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems,
Inc., Case No. 17-16920.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act for alleged failure to pay overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides package and
parcel delivery services to businesses and individuals.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 19, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019;

   -- Appellant Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s opening brief
      is due on June 28, 2019;

   -- Appellees Leah Candelaria, Maurice Meintzer and
      Christerphor Ziglar's answering brief is due on July 29,
      2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHRISTERPHOR ZIGLAR, LEAH CANDELARIA, and
MAURICE MEINTZER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
          1850 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
          4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DBA Ontrac, is represented by:

          Robert G. Hulteng, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com

               - and -

          Peter Prynkiewicz, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3650
          E-mail: pprynkiewicz@rubinfortunato.com

               - and -

          Damon M. Ott, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: dott@littler.com


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANI VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00251979 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 6, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Velez was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC, doing business as
Fuelman, provides fuel cards and other payment products and
services. The company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses
and government entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to
oil and leasing companies, and fuel marketers. The company was
founded in 2004 and is based in Norcross, Georgia. Fleetcor
Technologies Operating Company, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


FORD MOTOR: Proposes $17MM Touch-Screen System Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Ford
and a class of 360,000 vehicle owners proposed a $17 million class
action settlement on Feb. 7 over Ford's defective touch-screen
systems in its vehicles, after a previous settlement proposal was
deemed inadequate.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Unopposed Renewed
Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law for Preliminary Approval
of the February Class Action Settlement is available at:

          https://is.gd/kFovOs



FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Compels Arbitration in Kernaghan
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in
the case captioned AMY KERNAGHAN, behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, MARK A. GARBUS, and RONALD FORSTER, Defendants. No.
18-CV-0204 (SJF)(AKT). (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Amy Kernaghan commenced this action against defendants
Forster & Garbus (F&G), LLP, Mark A. Garbus, and Ronald Forster
(F&G Defendants), and Midland Funding LLC (Midland) alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Kernaghan incurred a debt through an account with Synchrony Bank/PC
Richard, which debt was sold to Midland.

The Plaintiff alleges that she is a consumer and that both Midland
and F&G defendants are debt collectors within the meaning of the
FDCPA.   

Midland now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
provision in the credit card Agreement in effect for the account
held by Kernaghan.

Valid Agreement to Arbitrate

In opposition to the motion, Kernaghan does not challenge the
existence or scope of the arbitration clause contained in the
Agreement. Her lone argument is that Midland has failed to make a
prima facie showing that the Agreement was provided to her by mail.
She claims that the declaration submitted by Nayman, a Synchrony
Litigation Analyst, does not satisfy Midland's burden of proof
because Nayman did not personally mail the Agreement, did not have
personal knowledge of Synchrony's mailing procedures in place at
the time of the mailing, and sets forth insufficient details of the
bank's mailing procedures.  

Nayman's relevant statements regarding Synchrony's general mailing
procedures are that (1) upon opening an account, it mailed the
cardholder both the credit card and a copy of the appropriate
credit card agreement via the United States Postal Service; and (2)
that a contemporaneous record is created documenting the mailing.


The Plaintiff claims that there can be no prima facie showing of
mailing absent an affidavit establishing that the affiant had
personal knowledge of Synchrony Bank's mailing procedures at the
time of the alleged mailing of the agreement. Plaintiff's
examination of what may constitute personal knowledge is cursory.


Typically, establishing that a mailing was completed creates a
rebuttable presumption that the mailing was received. Kernaghan
provides no reason to overcome the presumption of receipt. Indeed,
she does not claim that she did not receive a copy of the
Agreement, perhaps understanding that any such affirmative
statement would be belied by her use of the credit card mailed with
the Agreement. Midland has established that it mailed the Agreement
containing the arbitration provision to Kernaghan and that mailing
is presumed to have been received by her.

Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a written provision in a
contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising
out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.
The FAA mirrors the strong federal policy favoring arbitration as
an alternative means of dispute resolution. The FAA leaves no place
for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead
mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed
to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has
been signed. The rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements
holds true for claims that allege a violation of a federal statute,
unless the FAA's mandate has been "overridden by a contrary
congressional command."

It has been established that Kernaghan was sent a written copy of
the Agreement containing the arbitration provision. The agreements
contained instructions for opting out of that provision, but
Kernaghan did not do so. Based on this record, the Court finds that
Kernaghan agreed to the arbitration provision.

Are Defendants Valid Assignees of the Agreement?

The Plaintiff does not challenge that Midland is the valid assignee
of the Agreement or that it is otherwise precluded from exercising
the arbitration provision. To the contrary, the Plaintiff has
acknowledged that Midland is the assignee of the original creditor.
Accordingly, as Midland is a valid assignee of the Agreement and
that Agreement contains an enforceable arbitration provision,
Midland's motion to compel arbitration is granted.

The F&G Defendants also seek to compel argument by way of filing a
one-page, post-briefing Notice to Join Motion to Compel Arbitration
purporting to join in Midland's motion. Plaintiff objected,
claiming that under Utah law, an agent such as F&G cannot enforce
the terms of the Agreement for its own benefit. The F&G Defendants
did not respond to Plaintiff's objection.

The issue of whether the F&G Defendants have standing to compel
arbitration has not been adequately briefed or presented to the
Court. Thus, to the extent the F&G defendants Notice can be
construed as a motion to dismiss, it is denied.

Accordingly, Defendant Midland's motion to compel arbitration is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yywmbcr8
from Leagle.com.

Amy Kernaghan, on behalf of herself and all others similiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin, Forster &
Garbus, LLP, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Arleo, Robert L.
Arleo, Esq.

Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Ellen Beth Silverman
-- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Cullertson & Han Sheng
Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Dorman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN G. DORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP; MARK A. GARBUS; and
RONALD FORSTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01314-SJF-GRB
(E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R.
Brown.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


FOSTERS FREEZE: Underpays Cooks & Food Preparers, Funkhouser Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEDREK FUNKHOUSER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAC FF 91, INC.; DAC FF 161, INC.;
DAC FF 166, INC.; DAC FF 1117, INC.; FOSTERS FREEZE INTERNATIONAL,
LLC d/b/a FOSTER FREEZE; and DOES 1 - 100, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01197-NC (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Funkhouser was employed by the Defendants as cook and
a food preparer.

Fosters Freeze International, LLC d/b/a Foster Freeze is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Nunes , Esq.
          NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
          15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (530) 848-1515
          Facsimile: (424) 252-4301
          E-mail: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Miller, Esq.
          Bonnie Fong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER, A.P.C.
          24007 Ventura Blvd. Suite 125
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: 818-788-8081
          Facsimile: 877-578-3555
          E-mail: scott.miller@smillerlawoffices.com
                  bonnie.fong@smillerlawoffices.com


G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
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 Court has
approved the compromise agreement and struck out the lawsuit
related to food labeling.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on
January 3, 2018, against the Company and another company to the Tel
Aviv District Court for allegedly not complying with the food
labelling regulations 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.

The Company and the plaintiff reached a compromise agreement
whereby the plaintiff will withdraw the lawsuit and it will be
stricken out at a cost which is immaterial to the Company.

On July 18, 2018, the Court approved the compromise agreement and
struck out 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.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroofs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant General Motors, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KELLEY GAINES, Plaintiff,
v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 17cv1351-LAB (JLB).
(S.D. Cal.)

This is a putative class action arising from the sale of Cadillac
SRX vehicles with allegedly defective sunroofs. Plaintiff has
amended the complaint once, to name the correct defendant and to
add new claims. Plaintiff Kelley Gaines bought a model year 2010
Cadillac SRX vehicle in San Diego. The car came with an express
48-month, 50,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, that covered the
vehicle until it reached four years or 50,000, whichever occurred
first.

The Leaking Sunroof Defect

The complaint relies on California law, which recognizes two kinds
of product defects: manufacturing defects and design defects. It is
not particularly clear that the Leaking Sunroof Defect is actually
a defect as contemplated under California law. Under the bulletins
Gaines relies on to identify the Defect, sunroofs are susceptible
to leaks for a number of different reasons, including poor
workmanship and substandard materials.  

But it is clear all of the named causes are manufacturing defects,
not design defects.

Breach of Warranty

Gaines' vehicle's warrant expired no later than May of 2014, and
might have expired sooner if she exceeded the 48,000 mile limit
before then. Her sunroof leak occurred in February of 2017, well
after her vehicle's warranty had expired, and even after the end of
GM's customer service program.  

Gaines argues that the Defect was covered by the warranty because
it was present in her car and because it manifested during the
warranty period. She has not pointed to any language in the
warranty supporting her interpretation, but the parties appear to
agree that problems that manifest during the warranty period and
only those problems, are covered.  

Gaines' theory is that the Defect manifested in other people's
cars, and that therefore the warranty covers any latent defect in
her car too, even if she experienced no loss during the warranty
period. This would be a very unusual term, and in the absence of a
citation to particular language in the warranty, it is not
plausible.  

Here, Gaines' car performed as warranted within the warranty
period, and only experienced a sunroof leak three years after the
warranty expired, when her sunroof was no longer covered by an
express warranty. This claim cannot be salvaged by amendment.

Claims Concerning Misrepresentation and Fraud

The FAC does not allege any facts plausibly suggesting GM knew
about any Leaking Sunroof Defect before Gaines bought her car. The
earliest event suggesting GM might have known about some widespread
problem with sunroof leaks was its issuance of the first bulletin
in 2013. And even that creates, at best, an inference that it knew
some Cadillac SRX sunroofs were leaking for various reasons.

In the absence of GM's knowledge at the time of sale, Gaines must
show some kind of duty to disclose after the sale, when GM
allegedly first learned about the Defect. There must be a
sufficient nexus between the defect and the hazard.  

Gaines argues that the Defect constitutes a safety hazard because
water could damage wiring or electrical components. She has not
identified which wiring or electrical components are at risk, how
likely it is they would be damaged in the event of a leak, or what
would happen if they were damaged. She does not have to show that
anyone was actually injured, but she must plead facts that
plausibly show an unreasonable safety risk. She has not pleaded
facts plausibly showing any safety risk; it remains purely
conjectural at this point. Given the large number of vehicles she
says were affected, the lack of any known injuries undercuts the
plausibility of her claim of an unreasonable safety risk.  

Because Gaines' CLRA, Section 17200, Section 17500, and claims
sound in fraud, she must also comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s
pleading standard, which she has not done. For example, her false
advertising claim never identifies any communication or
advertisement as deceptive. Her claim that failing to honor the
expired warranty amounts to deception is conclusory and, as
discussed above, meritless. The only other communication she
identifies as deceptive is an advertisement about vehicles in model
years 2011 or newer, and how they are covered by the Cadillac
Shield. She never bought any of those vehicles and her car was
never covered by the Cadillac Shield; accordingly, she has no
standing to bring those claims.

Here it is clear Gaines' breach of express warranty claim cannot be
salvaged. It is doubtful the other claims can, although the Court
cannot say with certainty that they cannot. The breach of express
warranty claim is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y4h9esvafrom Leagle.com.

Kelley Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Waller, Jr. --
robert@robertwallerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert A. Waller, Jr.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Oxford --
goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP.


GILL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GILL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07664 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize wage
statements.

Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

The Gill Corporation operates as a small tool and die company. The
Company offers precision metal stamping, interior, and seating and
structural mechanisms assemblies. Gill serves clients in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          14 Joliet
          Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com


GLOBAL CONTACT: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lap Distributors, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Contact - International
Publishing Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06317, (D. N.J.,
February 20, 2019), seeks actual and statutory damages,
disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired, injunction requiring
Defendant to cease all unsolicited prerecorded calling activities,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Global Contact solicits small businesses to submit listings in
their print and online directories. In order to boost sales and
increase its revenues, Global Contact sends numerous faxes, usually
without recipients' permission or consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown, PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Petitions Judge to Vacate Arbitration Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Halliburton Energy Services
petitioned a federal judge to vacate a $6.7 million arbitration
award to two employees for their overtime complaint.

A copy of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s Notice of Petition
and Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is available at:

         https://is.gd/XRhaqR


HAWAIIAN ISLES: Dearmey Sues over Mislabeled Kona Coffee Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DEARMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00432 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2019)
alleges that the Kona Labeled Coffee Products sold and advertised
by the Defendant did not originate from the Kona District of the
Big Island of Hawaii.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that, through false and
deceptive packaging and advertising, the Defendant intentionally
misleads consumers into believing that coffee products it sells
bearing the word Kona originate from the Kona District of the Big
Island of Hawaii. In reality, these coffee products are made with
commodity coffee beans grown in various less-desirable locations
around the world.

Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd. was distributes and
supplies coffee products. The Company offers roasted, whole bean,
and ground coffee products. Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee operates in
the State of Hawaii. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  treyda@bursor.com

               - and -

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975-0512
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                 adhoover@reichradcliffe.com


HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Employment Services, LLC removed case styled ROSANNA
LOPEZ and AHZAYAH LARRIVA, indivdually, on a representative basis,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
RIC1901461 (Feb. 7, 2019), from Riverside County Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
March 22, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00515 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay regular and
minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide meal and
rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage, and
violated the California's Unfair Competition Act,the lawsuit
states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Arthur M. EidelhocH, Esq.
          Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
          Dawn Fonseca, Esq.
          Vanni Parti, Esq.
          LITTLER MEDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399 8490
          E-mail: aeidelhoch@litter.com
                  atodd-gher@littler.com
                  dfonseca@littler.com
                  vparti@littler.com

INDIANA: Class Action Demands Lawyers for Foster Care Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
national children's advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb.
6 claiming three Indiana counties are violating children's rights
to due process and equal protection by denying them legal
representation during foster care proceedings.

The 31-page complaint filed in Evansville federal court claims
Marion, Lake and Scott counties violate the rights of children in
foster care proceedings by only appointing legal counsel in less
than 10 percent of cases.

"Without an attorney, a child in a dependency proceeding risks
losing his or her liberty interests, as other parties present
evidence, offer witnesses, and make decisions about the child's
future that the child is not permitted to discredit, challenge, or
even address," the filing states. "Such an omission is
fundamentally unfair and contrary to the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The lawsuit -- brought by attorneys with the Children's Advocacy
Institute, Indianapolis-based Delaney & Delaney and California firm
Morrison & Foerster on behalf of 10 named foster children -- seeks
class certification for over 5,000 children and an injunction that
would require the appointment of a lawyer for children during
proceedings that place them in foster care or terminate a parent's
rights.

While parents in such proceedings are given legal counsel, the
children are often left unrepresented because the appointment of a
lawyer for them is at the discretion of a judge.

The complaint argues that without legal counsel, the children's
views and wishes are not properly weighed or considered, which can
be particularly problematic in cases of abuses or neglect.

Children are currently given a court-appointed special advocate to
protect their interests, but the lawsuit claims that is
insufficient because they are not allowed to provide legal advice.

"Even when a child knows his or her rights, without an attorney,
the child is likely to give up and remain silent if his or her
wishes are downplayed or disregarded at any point in the
proceedings," the complaint states. "Simply put, children in
dependency proceedings who are not represented by counsel are
placed at an unacceptably high risk of being erroneously deprived
of their rights."

The lawsuit says the named minor plaintiffs' stories illustrate the
problems with the courts and the foster care system.

Two foster children listed as Nicole K. and Roman S. are
half-siblings who live with a foster parent in Marion County.
Neither was given an attorney after being removed from their
biological mother's custody at a very young age, according to the
complaint.

Lacking legal help, the pair was "shuttled to foster home after
foster home," resulting in them living in nearly 20 different homes
before the age of 3, the lawsuit states.

Three sisters identified as Abigail R., Lily R. and Rachel H. were
neglected by their drug-abusing parents and have been living in
uncertainty through various adoption efforts, according to the
complaint.

"Neither Abigail, Lily, nor Rachel have been appointed an attorney
and, as a result, they have had no information about their legal
rights, no legal counsel, no voice in the adjudication of where or
with whom they live," the complaint states. "Abigail has asked her
case manager ‘do I get a say in where I end up?' The case manager
responded that Abigail does not get a say."

The child advocacy group claims this instability has caused some
children to suffer from behavioral and developmental problems,
which could have been avoided had they had strong legal
representation.

According to the lawsuit, 30 other states require the appointment
of counsel for children in child welfare proceedings.

Steve Keane -- skeane@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster said in a
statement, "Every child in dependency proceedings needs a voice and
a way to protect his or her legal rights before his or her fate is
adjudicated – that is a basic due process right protected by the
Constitution."

Attorneys for the counties did not immediately respond on Feb. 7 to
requests for comment.


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Deceptive Hotel Reservations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY POE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, PLC; HPT TRS
IHG-2, INC; CABLEWOODWOOD SUITES; SEAN HASHEMI; ARMIN BETZ;
STEPHANIE HUGHES; and DOES 1 through 1000, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV07415 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for misrepresenting the terms and
conditions of the hotel reservations made by the Plaintiff and the
class.

According to the complaint, during the period of time from June
2016 to December 2017, and prior thereto and subsequently
thereafter, the Defendants repeatedly represented to the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated that the Defendants guaranteed the
significant terms of any reservation made by the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated, such as the type of accommodation being
provided, the length of the stay, and the daily rate that would be
charged. These representations were made by employees or agents of
the Defendants, including but not limited to, the telephone agents
who made and confirmed the reservations requested by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated, as well as the "front desk" agents
who made and confirmed the reservations. These representations were
made at the time that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
were making a reservation for a future stay at a particular
residential property operated by the Defendants. Those
representations made by the Defendants through their agents were
false.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC owns, manages, franchises, and
leases hotels in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East,
Africa, and Greater China. The company operates hotels, resorts,
and restaurants under the InterContinental, KIMPTON, Hotel Indigo,
EVEN HOTELS, HUALUXE, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn
Express, Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Holiday Inn Resort, avid,
Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, and InterContinental Hotels &
Resorts brands. It also provides IHG Rewards Club, a hotel loyalty
program. As of March 04, 2019, the company had approximately 5,600
hotels with 837,000 guest rooms. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC
was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Denham, the United
Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Moest, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. MOEST
          2530 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90403-4643
          Telephone: (310) 915-6628


LITTLE CAESAR: Removes Lenoir Suit to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of NIVEA LENOIR, individually and on
behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois,
County of Cook (Case No. 2019CH01185) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on March 5, 2019. The clerk
of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
Case No. 1:19-cv-01575. The case is assigned to Judge Robert M.
Dow, Jr.

Little Caesars Enterprises, Inc. operates pizza restaurants. The
Company offers pizzas, cheese breads, sauces, and dips as well as
gift cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lazar P. Raynal, Esq.
          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          Kaitlin P. Sheehan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606-1881
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401


LL BEAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shirley Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William A. Shirley filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled WILLIAM A. SHIRLEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. L.L. BEAN, INC., a Maine
corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-02641-YGR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings the instant class action complaint for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for declaratory
relief.

The appellate case is captioned as WILLIAM A. SHIRLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L.L. BEAN, INC.,
a Maine corporation, Case No. 19-15501, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- April 18, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- May 20, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- June 27, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- July 29, 2019 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


LOGITECH INC: Cal. App. Affirms Parker Class Certification Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER
PARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOGITECH, INC., Defendant and
Respondent. No. A153147. (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Christopher Parker appeals from the trial court's refusal
to certify as a class action what plaintiff describes as a routine
consumer-fraud case about misleading advertising and defendant
Logitech's failure to disclose material information to consumers
before they spent hundreds of dollars purchasing Logitech's
expensive home-security systems.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that, Logitech began the
sale and distribution of high-definition digital video security
systems under the Alert brand name (Alert Systems). Logitech
packaged the Alert Systems as a complete home video security system
that would allow customers to "Be There When You're Not."

Among other things, customers reported experiencing problems that
included: (1) difficulty installing and setting up the cameras and
software (2) cameras that would not turn on, stay powered up, or
record video properly (3) failures of the micro SD cards installed
in the cameras (4) connectivity problems between the cameras (5)
problems with inoperable or faulty motion sensors (6) problems
downloading video (7) incoming video that would freeze; (8) poor
picture quality (9) delayed alerts (10) errors in the camera's
timestamps, and (11) software bugs and glitches that made the
systems inoperable.

The amended complaint alleges five causes of action, for violations
of California's Unfair Competition Act and the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and for breaches of express and implied
warranties.

The decision to certify a class rests squarely within the
discretion of the trial court, and we afford that decision great
deference on appeal, reversing only for a manifest abuse of
discretion. Class certification requires proof (1) of a
sufficiently numerous ascertainable class, (2) of a well-defined
community of interest, and (3) that certification will provide
substantial benefits to litigants and the courts, i.e., that
proceeding as a class is superior to other methods.  

Here, the trial court denied certification because after reviewing
the parties' lengthy submissions the court found that common issues
do not predominate. In this, as in most, cases there undoubtedly
are factual issues common to the claims of most if not all putative
class members and there are factual questions that are unique to
the claims of individual members, or perhaps to groups of members.
Whether the common issues preponderate and class treatment will
facilitate trial and resolution of the claims is largely a matter
of judgment. Understandably, the parties cite cases in which the
judgment call in the particular case was made as each contends it
should be made here.  

The record contains substantial evidence that as the Alert Systems
evolved, a number of different problems were encountered and
addressed. Logitech unquestionably received complaints about
different features, but the evidence fails to show that the product
was so fundamentally defective that most users found it unusable or
that it was likely to fail during its useful life. Rather, the
record indicates that different users experienced different
problems with their units at different times, that various
revisions in the product were made over time so that not all
putative class members purchased identical products, and that most
users apparently did not encounter the difficulties that plaintiff
experienced.  

With respect to one survey reporting a large number of users
experiencing complaints, the general manager stated: The mere fact
that 59% of users reported experiencing a problem at any point with
their Alert system is neither surprising nor cause for concern. The
cameras are designed to be self-installed and there are any number
of issues which could have arisen with the Alert which were
unrelated to Logitech or to an actual problem with the product. The
percentage of users experiencing a problem does not indicate a
defect in the product, nor does it indicate that many or most
consumers experienced the same problems in the same way.

The same is true for consideration of whether Logitech
misrepresented the product to the public. Plaintiff alleges no
misrepresentation about a specific feature of the Alert Systems,
but only allegedly false claims that the system provided peace of
mind in a box, was simple to use and install and would provide
customers with safety and security. Putting aside the issue of
reliance on such puffery, the underlying question of whether
Logitech concealed from consumers information that they would
reasonably want to know, including that the defects permeating the
Alert meant that it could not perform as the complete and
dependable home-security system that Logitech represented it to be
can hardly be considered without addressing the myriad of defects
that plaintiff ascribes to the product.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
there is no community of interest justifying class treatment of
these claims.

The order denying class certification is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 25, 2019 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yxhrh3opfrom Leagle.com.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Discovery Underway in Gathmann-Landini Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended February 3, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Rebecca
Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc.

In February, the Court granted a joint request for extension of the
discovery period.  Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields ruled that the
discovery completion date is extended to June 22, 2019.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by
failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


MARKEL CORPORATION: Cohen Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glen Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Markel Corporation, Alan I. Kirshner, Thomas S. Gayner,
Richard R. Whitt, III, Anne G. Waleski and Jeremy A. Noble, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02133 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2019), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers
of Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018,
inclusive. These claims are asserted against Markel and certain of
its officers who made materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period in press releases and filings with the
SEC.

The Plaintiff Glen Cohen purchased Markel securities during the
Class Period.

The Defendant Markel, a financial holding company, markets and
underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. The Defendant Markel's
New York corporate offices are located at 1185 Avenue of the
Americas, 16th Floor, New York, NY.  Markel common stock trades on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "MKL" and as of February 5, 2019,
there were almost 14 million shares issued and outstanding.

Alan I. Kirshner is the executive chairman of the Markel Board of
Directors. Thomas S. Gaynor is the co-chief executive officer of
Markel. Richard R. Whitt, III is the co-CEO of Markel. Anne G.
Waleski was the chief financial officer of Markel until September
2018. Jeremy A. Noble is the CFO of Markel since September 5, 2018.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY  11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      Murray House
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 802-1486
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com


MASSACHUSETTS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Rosie D. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Charles D. Baker, Michael Heffernan, Marylou Sudders and
Daniel Tsai filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Rosie D., et al v. Baker, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-30199-MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.

Charles D. Baker is the Governor of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Rosie D. is seeking home-care option for thousands of children with
extreme functional disabilities who participate in Medicaid.  The
group said that most of the roughly 15,000 children under Medicaid
receive adequate services only when placed in psychiatric
hospitals, but they often become just "stuck kids" there.  Thus, it
is asking for homecare option.

The appellate case is captioned as Rosie D., et al v. Baker, et
al., Case No. 19-1262, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form and Appearance form were
due April 4, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSIE D., By her parents John and Debra D.;
TYRIEK H., by his mother Christine H.; JOSHUA D., by his mother
Emelie D.; SHEENA M., by her mother, Deborah D.; DEVIN E., by his
grandmother Barbara E.; ANTON B., by his mother Lisa A.; NATHAN F.,
by his mother Tracey F.; SHAUN E., by his grandmother Jacquelyn E.;
and JERRY N., by his mother Susan P. On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Steven J. Schwartz, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Daniel William Halston, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-6654
          E-mail: daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Laski, Esq.
          MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ADVISORS COMMITTEE
          399 Washington St.
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 338-2345
          E-mail: flaski@mhlac.org

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSIE D., By her parents John and Debra D.;
TYRIEK H., by his mother Christine H.; JOSHUA D., by his mother
Emelie D.; SHEENA M., by her mother, Deborah D.; DEVIN E., by his
grandmother Barbara E.; ANTON B., by his mother Lisa A.; NATHAN F.,
by his mother Tracey F.; SHAUN E., by his grandmother Jacquelyn E.;
and JERRY N., by his mother Susan P. On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; SAMUEL L.; JOSE M.; TERRENCE M.;
MARC ST. L.; NATISHA M.; SARAH B.; FORREST W.; JASON S.; SHENTELLE
G.; CHRISTINE Q.; KRISTIN P.; CHRIS T.; CHELSEA T.; RALPH B.; TEVIN
W. and DANIELLE H. are represented by:

          Kathryn Lesley Rucker, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          246 Walnut St.
          Newton, MA 02460
          Telephone: (617) 965-0776
          E-mail: krucker@cpr-ma.org

Defendants-Appellants DANIEL TSAI, in his Official Capacity as the
Assistant Secretary for MassHealth; CHARLES D. BAKER; MARYLOU
SUDDERS, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human
Services; and MICHAEL HEFFERNAN, Secretary of the Executive Office
of Administration and Finance, are represented by:

          Daniel John Hammond, Esq.
          Ronald F. Kehoe, Esq.
          MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          1 Ashburton Pl
          Boston, MA 02108-0000
          Telephone: (617) 963-2078
          E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us
                  ronald.kehoe@state.ma.us

               - and -

          Kenneth Warren Salinger, Esq.
          MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          18 Putnam Rd.
          Arlington, MA 02474-8256
          Telephone: (781) 643-9403
          E-mail: ken.salinger@state.ma.us


MDL 2887: Navarette, et al. Seek Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------------
In In Re Hill's Pet Nutrition Dog Food Recall Litigation, MDL No.
2887, Plaintiff John Navarrete in Case No. 3:19-cv-00767, and
Plaintiffs Ann Bauer, Forrest Cleveland, Kimberly Mull, Jill Cole,
Lorie Pritchard, Karen Guinen, Donna Lee Soltis, Lyn Shanley,
Yasser Daoudi, and Wendy Henry, in Case No. 3:19-cv-00908, filed a
motion on February 20, 2019, for the transfer and consolidation of
six civil actions listed in a schedule filed together with their
motion, as well as any subsequently filed tag-along actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before
Judge Willam H. Alsup, for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs have filed their actions over elevated levels of Vitamin
D in Hill's Pet Food.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      Email: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
             wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
             nschubert@sjk.law
             kschubert@sjk.law


MERRICK UNITED: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York
----------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SOFIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERRICK UNITED EQUITIES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01300-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and referred to Magistrate Judge
Arlene R. Lindsay.

Merrick United Equities LLC is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (646) 290-8258
          Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
          E-mail: James@civilrightsNY.com


MESKO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grijalva Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GRIJALVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP III, INC.; ROCK &
BREWS CORONA; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP II, INC.; MESKO RESTAURANT
GROUP IV, INC.; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP V, LLC; MESKO RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC; ROCK & BREWS FRANCHISING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07649 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Grijalva was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non exempt employees.

Mesko Restaurant Group, LLC owns and operates a family of signature
restaurants in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Julia Z. Wells, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  jwells@maternlawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Missouri Judge Tosses Several Dicamba Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Missouri dismissed several claims in a class
action brought by farmers claiming agrochemical giant Monsanto sold
dicamba weed killer products that damaged their soybean crops.

Twenty soybean farmers slapped Monsanto and BASF with the 94-claim
federal lawsuit in 2018, seeking damages for crops they say were
harmed by dicamba weed killer that drifted from neighboring farms.

According to the farmers, Monsanto's pursuit of profit led them to
push the Xtend seeds and XtendiMax and Engenia herbicides and vouch
for the system's safety while knowing crops and plants not
resistant to dicamba would be damaged. Furthermore, the farmers
claim Monsanto did all this to force soybean farmers to ditch other
products in favor of Monsanto's system so their crops would be
safe.

Dicamba is an herbicide that kills certain weeds but is highly
volatile and tends to drift, according to the lawsuit.

On Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. dismissed
several of the farmers' individual state law claims relating to
trespass, nuisance, negligent training, failure to warn, strict
liability, warranty and consumer protection.

He also dismissed a nationwide class action misrepresentation claim
against BASF because it is incorporated in Delaware, so the court
lacks general jurisdiction over it.

Although the judge largely granted the motions to dismiss, he
allowed conspiracy claims relating to underlying intentional torts
to proceed. He found the farmers have sufficiently shown at this
stage in the litigation that the businesses worked together to
profit from the products through false advertising and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

Don Downing, chair of the plaintiffs' court executive committee,
expressed satisfaction about the ruling in a phone interview on
Feb. 7.

"We are pleased that the court has ruled that soybean farmers who
have been harmed by dicamba have legally viable claims against
Monsanto and BASF. We also look forward to vigorously prosecuting
those claims, as the litigation moves forward toward trial," said
Downing.

Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord said in a statement the company
is also pleased with the ruling.

"Monsanto appreciates that the court recognized that the majority
of the plaintiffs' claims were meritless, in their entirety or in
part, and has refused to let those claims go forward. Monsanto
believes the remaining claims are likewise without merit and is
confident that we will prevails as we continue to vigorously defend
those claims."

The plaintiffs include 21 farmers from Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee.


MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused California Man's Cancer, Jury Finds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal jury on March 19 unanimously found that Monsanto's
Roundup weed killer caused a California man's cancer, advancing his
high-stakes San Francisco trial to a second phase to decide whether
the agrochemical company is liable for his illness and how much it
might owe for selling him a carcinogenic product.

The six-person jury found plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, 70, proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that 26 years of heavy Roundup use
was a "substantial factor" in causing his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Hardeman, who has been in near-remission since undergoing
chemotherapy in 2015, used Roundup to combat poison oak on his
56-acre property in Forestville, California. During trial, his
expert pathologist testified Hardeman sprayed an estimated 5,900
gallons of Roundup and was exposed to the herbicide over 300 times
without wearing protective clothing or equipment -- increasing his
risk for developing cancer.

Monsanto, acquired in 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer,
argued Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by a chronic
hepatitis C infection, exposure to hepatitis B and advancing age,
all risk factors for the disease.

Outside the courtroom after the verdict on causation was read,
Hardeman's attorney Jennifer Moore said, ""This has been a long
time coming for Mr. Hardeman. He's very pleased he had his day in
court and we're looking forward to Phase 2."

The March 20 verdict is a blow to Monsanto, advancing Hardeman's
claims to a second round of trial to decide the company's liability
and potentially how much it should fork over in damages. The jury's
finding on causation alone could prompt the company to reconsider
settling with thousands of other non-Hodgkin lymphoma plaintiffs
who sued it after the World Health Organization's cancer research
arm in 2015 classified Roundup's active ingredient as a probable
human carcinogen.

It is also possible that the jury could find Monsanto not liable
during this second phase of trial because its conduct and product
label were adequate.

In a statement posted to Twitter, Bayer US said it is disappointed
by the jury's decision but stands behind the science it says
"confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer." The
company added it believes "the evidence in phase two will show that
Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not
be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."

Moore and Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff said in a statement
after the verdict that they will now focus on the evidence that
Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the
safety of Roundup."

They added: "Instead, it is clear from Monsanto's actions that it
does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving
people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and
undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about
the issue. We look forward to presenting this evidence to the jury
and holding Monsanto accountable for its bad conduct."

Hardeman's trial is the first of three bellwether trials, or test
trials, scheduled this year before U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria in San Francisco. The bellwether trials are meant to
determine future litigation strategy, including whether to settle
the remaining cases.

During Hardeman's proceedings, Chhabria suggested "pushing the
pause button" after verdicts are delivered in the three bellwethers
to "allow both sides to sort of figure it out how they want to
approach settlement issues."

This past August, a state court jury awarded a San Francisco Bay
Area groundskeeper with terminal lymphoma $289 million in damages.
While a judge later reduced the award to $78 million, the historic
verdict could still play into any settlement discussion.

But whether Monsanto will concede to settlement negotiations right
now is an open question. Because the federal San Francisco cases
were chosen for bellwether trials based on plaintiff residency
requirements and not on traditional bellwether criteria like
similar plaintiff profiles, Monsanto doesn't consider them test
cases sufficient for determining settlement strategy.

Opening statements in the second phase of Hardeman's trial was set
to begin on March 20.


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Bumgardner Appeals Decision in Boothe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenors Michael Bumgardner, William Pennington, John Wood and
Marjorie Wood filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Boothe v. Northstar Realty Finance Corp. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-03742-JKB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Bumgardner v. Jack
Boothe, Case No. 19-1298, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2019, Judge
James K. Bredar denied the Intervenors's motion to intervene and
for relief from the final order and judgment.

The case involved the merger between Colony Capital, Inc.,
NorthStar Asset Management Group, Inc., and NorthStar Realty
Financial Corp.  A number of public shareholders--including the
Plaintiff, a shareholder in NorthStar Realty Finance Corp.
("NRF")--challenged the merger.  In November 2017, the Plaintiff
and the Defendants agreed to a settlement, terminating the case.

Four former NRF shareholders move to intervene in the closed case,
seeking relief from the judgment so that they can proceed on their
own claims against the Defendants.

In June 2016, the Defendants entered into a planned merger
agreement.  The Defendants notified their shareholders of the
proposed merger and requested their votes.  Over the course of the
next few months, several shareholders sued the Defendants for
violating Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities Exchange Commission Rule
14a-9.

The Plaintiff filed his complaint on Nov. 18, 2016.  The Plaintiff
alleged that the joint proxy statement, circulated to the
shareholders, contained materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (1) the financial projections for the
Defendants, which were relied upon by the board in assessing the
fairness of the Merger Consideration and by the Company's financial
advisor; and (ii) certain information regarding the valuation
analyses the financial advisor] performed in support of its
fairness opinion.  He sought class certification and an injunction
against the merger.  News of the Plaintiff's complaint became
public immediately.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to the proposed settlement
in June 2017.  The proposed settlement moved the Court to certify a
non-opt out class of all NRF shareholders, preliminarily approve
the terms of the settlement, approve the means of notifying the
class of the settlement, and schedule a fairness hearing.  The
Court granted preliminary approval.  The parties hired a legal
administrative services company to mail notice of the proposed
class action settlement to all the class members who could be
identified.

The Court held a fairness hearing.  The Court determined that the
settlement was fair and reasonable and, accordingly, approved it on
Nov. 30, 2017.  The settlement dismissed all claims against
Defendants, and the Plaintiff agreed to a broad release such that
all Class Members -- that is, all NRF shareholders -- were deemed
to have forever released completely claims of any kind that related
to the merger.  Objector Lawrence Dvores appealed.

The Intervenors seek to intervene in the case.  In July 2018, they
filed complaints in California courts, alleging that the Defendants
violated different provisions of the Securities Exchange Act.  At
the end of July, Intervenors filed an amicus brief in Dvores'
appeal, but Dvores settled in September.  On November 13, the
Intervenors moved to intervene, asserting that, as former NRF
shareholders, they were members of the non-opt out class certified
by the Court and, as such, their claims were released by the
Plaintiff's settlement agreement.  To this Court, the Intervenors
argue that the judgment must be vacated or amended because the
Plaintiff (1) failed to investigate claims that were subsequently
released; (2) misrepresented to the Court the nature of the claims
being released; (3) made misstatements in the Registration
Statement; and (4) did not comply with the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 30, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on May 30, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JACK BOOTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: (410) 332-0030
          E-mail: trepetin@browerpiven.com

Intervenors-Appellants MICHAEL BUMGARDNER, WILLIAM PENNINGTON, JOHN
WOOD and MARJORIE WOOD are represented by:

          Patrick Charles Smith, Esq.
          DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP
          36 South Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 783-7225
          E-mail: psmith@dehay.com

Defendants-Appellees NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP., DAVID T.
HAMAMOTO, JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, WESLEY D. MINAMI, LOUIS J. PAGLIA,
GREGORY RUSH and CHARLES W. SCHOENHERR are represented by:

          Andrew Gendron, Esq.
          Elizabeth Catherine Rinehart, Esq.
          VENABLE, LLP
          750 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 244-7439
          E-mail: agendron@Venable.com
                  lcrinehart@venable.com


NOVAN INC: Securities Suit over SB204 Clinical Trials Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated class
action suit related to Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204, has been
concluded.

Novan said, "We reported that we were subject to putative
stockholder class action lawsuits that were filed in November 2017
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina against us and certain of our current and former
directors and officers, which were consolidated under the case name
In re Novan, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated amended complaint filed by the designated lead
plaintiff asserted claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements related to the company's Phase 3
clinical trials of SB204.

On June 14, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 30, 2018, a federal
magistrate judge entered an order recommending that the district
court grant our motion. The plaintiff filed objections to this
recommendation and we filed a response.

On January 28, 2019, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation, dismissed the action with prejudice and
entered judgment in favor of us and against the plaintiff.

Novan said,. "The plaintiff did not appeal this dismissal and
judgment. As such, we have concluded that this matter is closed."

Novan, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based therapies
to treat dermatological and oncovirus-mediated diseases. Novan,
Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North
Carolina.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from the
court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit
by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund remains pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's
individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false
statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for
securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class
members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On
March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower
court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a
class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities
in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court
remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.


On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  One member of the
settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of
the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not
receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely
opt out of the class.  

After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  

Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing.  On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum
and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.  

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019.  

Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss.  The Company
believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


OCWEN LOAN: Makoni Suit Transferred to Worcester, Mass. Division
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Dorothy Makoni, On behalf of herself and all others so
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ocwen Loan Servicing LP, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10553 (Filed March 22, 2019), from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern
Division (Boston), to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Central Division (Worcester) on March 25, 2019. The
Central Division assinged Case No. 4:19-cv-10553-TSH to the
proceeding. The case arises from a dispute related to the parties'
loan agreement. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy S.
Hillman.

Ocwen Financial is a provider of residential and commercial
mortgage loan.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION
          15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Telephone: (401) 965-4131
          Facsimile: (401) 535-1231
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com

OMNI RECYCLING: Underpays Laborers, Bonilla Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI RECYCLING OF BABYLON, INC.; ANTHONY E.
CORE; BRIAN KNOLIS; and JUDINE FEDERICHIE, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01288 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Bonilla was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.

Omni Recycling of Babylon, Inc. provides waste recycling services.
The Company offers recycling of solid waste, construction and
demolition debris, cardboards, papers, plastics, and scrap tires.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C.
          595 Steward Avenue, Suite 400
          Garden City, NY 11750
          Telephone: (516) 750-0595


ORACLE AMERICA: Loses Bid to Duck Arbitration in Sales Staff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that noting its departure from an
employer's usual reliance on arbitration clauses, the Ninth Circuit
rejected Oracle's bid to duck arbitration in a $150 million spat
with its sales staff over commission.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at:

         https://is.gd/ykBm06


ORANGE CO, CA: Probe Reveals Widespread Homeless Shelter Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Macias, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
year-long investigation into conditions at three homeless shelters
in Orange County uncovered rampant sexual harassment, age, race and
gender-related abuse, and rodent-infested facilities that lacked
heat on cold nights and flooded during storms, according to a
report released on March 14.

Through interviews with more than 70 homeless residents, shelter
staff and volunteers at Courtyard Transitional Center and SAFEPlace
in Santa Ana, and Bridges at Kraemer Place in Anaheim, the American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California uncovered
toxic, unsafe living conditions.

The report, titled "This Place is Slowly Killing Me: Abuse and
Neglect in Orange County Emergency Shelters," found arbitrary
destruction and seizure of residents' property without due process,
neglect of elderly residents to the point that their needs became
medical emergencies and staff who went unpunished for retaliating
against residents who issued complaints.

The findings contrast with the county's recent attempts to tackle
its widespread homelessness and housing affordability crisis by
placing homeless residents into new shelters and expanding health
services.

Settlement talks from a recent lawsuit seeking to prevent cities
from issuing citations to the homeless without first offering
shelter and permanent housing resulted in new shelters opening –
such as the Link in Santa Ana – or being slated to open soon in
other cities.

But the 101-page report said more work is needed to hold shelter
staff accountable and to ensure humane treatment of residents.

"Orange County's emergency shelters are dangerously unregulated and
downright abusive," ACLU policy analyst Eve Garrow said. "The need
for reform becomes increasingly urgent as more shelters are added
to the system."

Shelter residents -- including Roberta Filicko, who stayed at
Courtyard and whose handwritten notes are included in the audit --
reported a lack of soap and cleaning products, black mold in
bathrooms, long wait times for meals and harassment by staff
members who often rolled people up in their beds and tossed them
out of the shelters if they stayed past closing time.

"People who have been to jail have said jail is better than this
shelter," said Filicko, adding that she became homeless after
losing both her husband and her home. "We are so scared that we
will be living on the streets, and the staff make sure to remind
you of this every minute of every day. It's true we have no one to
help us, so we go along with it."

Male shelter staff reportedly targeted women residents for
demeaning comments about their appearance and offers to exchange
special treatment for sex, the report said. These experiences
betrayed the "measure of hope" that the shelters provided to
homeless residents leaving the streets, according to the report.

Spokespersons for the shelters did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on the report.

Molly Nichelson, a spokesperson for the county, said in a statement
on March 14 that officials will review the report and address the
complaints with shelter operators.

"The County of Orange is committed to ensuring our emergency
shelters are safe for all our clients. Each emergency shelter has
its own provider and complaint process," the statement said. "We
work to ensure valid complaints are addressed by our service
providers in a timely fashion."

The ACLU said it has requested an independent audit of shelter
conditions by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the
California Department of Housing and Community Development and the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which also
received copies of the report.

In February, homeless residents filed a class action lawsuit
against cities in the southern part of the county -- Irvine, Dana
Point, Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente --
claiming the cities violated their rights by issuing citations and
confiscating their property without giving them a chance to access
shelter -- even though a September 2018 ruling from the Ninth
Circuit found that homeless residents could not be cited for
sleeping on the street if no shelter was available to them. That
case dealt with Boise, Idaho, shelters, but the ruling extended to
California cities.

The only low-barrier shelter in southern Orange County -- where,
according to the lawsuit, over 400 people are sleeping on the
street -- is a 45-bed facility in Laguna Beach.

The sidestepping of the responsibility to offer shelter has had
fatal consequences for the homeless, who face threats of heat
stroke in the summer and frostbite and hypothermia in the winter,
the complaint said.

A Feb. 25 report by the county coroner found that at least 250
homeless people died in 2018, up from 164 in 2015, and that 25
homeless people have died this year, as of Feb. 19.

Attorneys for the advocacy organizations who are party to the class
action lawsuit filed one of two similar complaints against the
county last year to prevent closure of an encampment on the Santa
Ana riverbed.

The lawsuits, overseen by U.S. District Judge David Carter, halted
the removal of homeless people living on the riverbed and pushed
the county to pay to house almost 700 people in nearby motels.

Carol Sobel, an attorney for the informal class of homeless
residents in the pending cases, said in an interview on March 14
that advocates for the homeless are aware of the issues raised in
the ACLU report, which are largely being addressed because of their
legal action.

Sobel said attorneys and county officials have mandated changes to
shelter policies on due process, harassment and property seizure.

"Remedies are in process," Sobel said.

Advocates continue to push the county to fund construction of
permanent housing that includes health services for residents as a
long-term solution to homelessness, Sobel said. In the meantime,
shelters are necessary.

"We recognize that we placed demands that were beyond the capacity
of facilities. But we did it because we didn't want people dying on
the street," Sobel said. "The number of [homeless deaths] goes up
every year and if you ask anyone they would say they prefer
shelters over dying on the street or going to jail."


ORG RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCrumb Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY MCCRUMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O.R.G. RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a ORIGINAL
ROADHOUSE GRILL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV07221 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

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

O.R.G. Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Original Roadhouse Grill operates a
steakhouse restaurant serving fresh, hand cut mesquite grilled
steaks, fall off the bone barbecue ribs and fresh baked rolls.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


OS RESTAURANT: Court Dismisses C. Chavira's FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Count III of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned CARLOS CHAVIRA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC and BLOOMIN' BRANDS,
INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-10029-ADB. (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Carlos Chavira filed this action against Defendants OS
Restaurant Services, LLC, and Bloomin' Brands, Inc., together doing
business as Outback (Defendants), asserting violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
payment frequency provisions of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Count III of the Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
Wage Act by failing to pay all compensation owed to the Plaintiff
within six days after the end of the pay period during which the
wages were earned.  

The issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiff can maintain a
class action under the Wage Act for an employer's failure to pay
FLSA overtime wages in a timely manner.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's Wage Act claim is wholly
derivative of his FLSA overtime claim and, for that reason, cannot
be brought as a class action under Rule 23.  

The Plaintiff responds that courts have recognized that employers
are liable under the Wage Act for failure to pay overtime wages due
under the FLSA. The Plaintiff further asserts that the availability
of FLSA remedies does not make Rule 23 inapplicable and refutes
Defendants' position that the Wage Act claim is premised on the
FLSA.  

The Wage Act May Be Used in Individual Actions to Recover Overtime
Wages Owed Under the FLSA

While courts generally agree that state law claims that precisely
duplicate FLSA claims are preempted, there are two schools of
thought as to whether a state law wage timeliness claim is actually
duplicative of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
FLSA.

One set of case law holds that state law wage timeliness claims are
duplicative of FLSA claims and thus preempted. The other set of
case law concludes that state law wage timeliness claims are not
duplicative of FLSA claims and are not preempted.  

Case law in this district aligns with the second school of thought.
At least two cases have concluded that individual Wage Act claims
premised exclusively on FLSA violations are not duplicative of FLSA
claims and not preempted.  In Lambirth v. Advanced Auto, Lambirth
v. Advanced Auto, Inc., 140 F.Supp.3d 108, 110-13 (D. Mass. 2015),
the plaintiff, who was exempt from the Massachusetts overtime law,
brought a Section 148 claim based on his employer's failure to pay
overtime wages due under the FLSA.   

The defendants moved to dismiss the Wage Act claim and argued that
it was improper for the plaintiff to use the Wage Act to recover
overtime wages not due under state law. See id. The court denied
the motion to dismiss and concluded that Section 148's provisions
applied to wages owed under either state or federal law.  

This Court finds the reasoning of both Lambirth and Carroca sound
and agrees with the parties that the Wage Act may be used by
individual plaintiffs to hold employers accountable for failure to
pay overtime wages due only under the FLSA.  

A Rule 23 Class Action May Not Be Maintained for a Wage Act Claim
Based Only on Failure to Pay FLSA Wages

The FLSA clearly states that actions brought for violations of its
provisions may not be brought as class actions under Rule 23 and
must instead be brought as collective actions pursuant to Section
216.   Section 216, however, does not foreclose all state class
actions alleging wage claims in conjunction with federal claims.
Courts have generally accepted that where a plaintiff has
independent claims under both state and federal law, he may seek to
certify a Rule 23 class for the independent state-law claim in
conjunction with seeking certification of a collective action under
the FLSA.  Consistent with this, there is no dispute that Wage Act
claims may generally be brought as Rule 23 class actions.  

Relying on this case law, the Plaintiff argues that the
availability of FLSA remedies in this case does not render Rule 23
inapplicable for the Plaintiff's Wage Act claim. This argument,
however, misses the point. The Plaintiff's ability to proceed under
Rule 23 is not foreclosed by the fact that FLSA remedies may be
available to the Plaintiff, but rather because his Wage Act claim
is wholly dependent on his FLSA claim.

Actions brought for violations of the FLSA, whether under the FLSA
directly or through a dependent state law claim, must be brought
either individually or in conformance with the procedures of
Section 216. A Rule 23 action for a claim seeking to recover wages
due exclusively under the FLSA circumvents the FLSA's opt-in
requirements, even when it is not wholly duplicative of the FLSA
claim, and may not be maintained.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y44lplt9
from Leagle.com.

Carlos Chavira, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Timmel, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Deirdre A. Aaron,
Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Fran L. Rudich, Klafter Olsen &
Lesser LLP, Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group PA, pro hac vice,
Justin M. Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Logan A.
Pardell -- lpardell@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A., pro
hac vice, Michael J. Palitz -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz
Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice, Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen &
Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Brant Casavant -- rant@fairworklaw.com --
Fair Work P.C. & Hillary A. Schwab -- hillary@fairworklaw.com --
Fair Work, P.C.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC, doing business as Outback Steakhouse &
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., doing business as Outback Steakhouse,
Defendants, represented by Christopher M. Pardo --
cpardo@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Ellen C.
Kearns -- ekearns@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith &
Prophete LLP & Jonathan D. Persky -- jpersky@constangy.com --
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP.


PACIFIC ETHANOL: Faces Ragsdale Labor Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Pacific Ethanol, Inc. The case is captioned as MICHAEL RAGSDALE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PACIFIC ETHANOL INC.; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00251883-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Supe., Sacramento Cty., March
5, 2019).

Pacific Ethanol, Inc. produces and markets low-carbon renewable
fuels in the United States. Pacific Ethanol, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


PARTNER COMMS: 012 Smile Still Defends Excessive Charge Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
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 012 Smile
continues to defend a lawsuit related to the allege excessive
charge of tariffs from occasional customers for each long distance
call minute.

On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile and two other
international long distance operators.

The claim alleges that the defendants charged excessive tariffs
from occasional customers for each long distance call minute,
contrary to the Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and
Broadcasting), that allows a licensee to charge reasonable payment
for a telecommunication service that it provides.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. 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: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal
in the lawsuit related to the volume rate of data packages remains
pending.

On November 1, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company sends text messages regarding
the volume rate of data packages, which unlawfully include
advertisement content, intended to encourage purchasing another
data package.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

In September 2018, the Court dismissed the claim and in November
2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme 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: Call Recordings-Related 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 lawsuit that alleges that the Company
breached legal provisions by not providing customers with requested
copies of call recordings with customer service representatives and
allowing them only to listen to the recordings at the Company's
service centers.

On May 3, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators.

The claim alleges that the Company breached legal provisions by not
providing customers with requested copies of call recordings with
customer service representatives and allowing them only to listen
to the recordings at the Company's service centers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

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: Class Cert. Ruling in 012 Smile Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal
has been made on the court's approval of the request to certify a
claim in the 012 Smile lawsuit.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that
012 Smile required their customers to purchase a router and/or a
call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition for using its
fixed-line telephony services, an action which would not be in
accordance with the provisions of its licenses.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 64 million.

In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the
claim as a class action. On March 17, 2019, the Company filed an
appeal of this decision.

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: Class Cert. Ruling in Customers' Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
has taken an appeal from an Israeli court's decision granting class
certification.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner required their customers to purchase
a router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a
condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
licenses.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116 million.

In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the
claim as a class action. On March 17, 2019, the Company filed an
appeal of this decision.

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: Continues to Defend Roaming Services-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
alleged contractual breach in acting negligently by charging V.A.T
for roaming services that are consumed abroad.

On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner is breaching its contractual and/or
legal obligation and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for
roaming services that are consumed abroad. The plaintiff demands to
return the total amount of V.A.T that was charged by Partner for
roaming services that were consumed abroad.

The plaintiff also pursued an injunction that will order Partner to
stop charging VA.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad.
In August 2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014, the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The hearing was held in May 2016 before an expanded panel of seven
judges and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal in July 2017 and
dismissed the District Court's decisions.

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: Data Speed Suit vs. 012 Smile 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 012 Smile
continues to defend a lawsuit related to 012 Smile's plans that
does not support data speeds.

On April 21, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile.

The claim alleges that the infrastructure included in the 012
Smile's plans does not support data speeds that the Company
publishes to its customers.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

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: Location Data-Related 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 lawsuit related to the company's unlawful use
of customers' location data.

On October 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and another cellular
operator.

The claim alleges that Partner harms the privacy of its customers
by unlawfully using their location data. The total amount claimed
against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately
NIS 1 billion.

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: Overcharging-Related Suit Still 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 lawsuit related to overcharging.

On September 29, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner refunded its customers, in cases
where it was apparent that they were overcharged, not in accordance
with legal provisions.

In addition, the claim alleges that Partner charges some of its
customers that subscribe to the "One" service for the provision of
this special service even though it was terminated. The plaintiff
noted that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the
lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class action.

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: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit 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 the revised
settlement agreement reached in the employees' severance
pay-related lawsuit has been approved.

On March 24, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.  The claim alleged
that the Company did not include in the severance pay calculation
for its employees various components that constitute an addition to
the salary for the severance pay calculation and thereby acted
unlawfully.  

The total amount claimed from Partner was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 100 million. In November 2015,
the plaintiff filed an amended claim and a motion to certify the
claim as a class action.

In November 2017, the parties filed a revised settlement agreement
which was approved by the Court in July 2018.

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: Still Defends Customers' Discrimination-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 suit alleging discrimination between cellular
customers.

On May 4, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges, that Partner discriminated between its cellular
customers, including between new customers and existing customers,
by offering the same type of customers, different terms, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
license.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action.

he 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 Telecom Packages for Use Abroad 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 suit related to the company's charges to its
customers the full price of telecommunication packages that are
intended for use abroad.

On January 4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that
Partner charges its customers the full price of telecommunication
packages that are intended for use abroad despite the fact that the
packages are not fully utilized and does not allow customers to
transfer the balance to the next trip abroad or to receive a credit
for the balance.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 234 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 v 012 Smile on License Breach 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 012 Smile
continues to defend a  suit that alleges breach of license by not
offering their services at a unified tariff.

On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet
Service Provider. The claim alleges that the defendants breached
certain provisions of their licenses by not offering their services
at a unified tariff to the same type of customers.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was not stated by the plaintiff.

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: Withdrawal of Suit over Overcharged Fees 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 an agreement among the parties to withdraw a
lawsuit alleging overcharging of customers.

On April 2, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.  The claim alleges
among others, that Partner overcharges its customers without their
consent for services that they did not order and does not respond
to customers that apply in writing regarding the overcharge
contrary to its license.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 60 million.

In October 2018, 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.


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Lucien Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHERIE LUCIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and PCL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CO., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01089 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and her
similarly situated co-workers -- HSE Coordinators, Pipe Foremen,
Pipe Fitter Journeyman, Electrical Journeyman, Rigger Journeyman,
and other similarly situated individuals paid a per diem
(Non-Exempt Laborers) -- who work or have worked for PCL
Construction Enterprises, Inc., and PCL Industrial Construction
Co., throughout the United States.

According to its website, the PCL family of general contracting
construction companies is composed of several construction
companies that carry out operations in different construction
markets and geographic areas. Overseeing this "family" of companies
is PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., which provides advice and
services, on a direct or consultation basis to groups within the
PCL family of construction companies and oversees PCL's entities in
the US.

PCL compensated the Non-Exempt Laborers on an hourly and per diem
basis. Despite being non-exempt employees, PCL has failed to
properly pay the Non-Exempt Laborers overtime compensation at 1.5
times their regular rates of pay, which should include all
compensation labeled as per diem. PCL tied Non-Exempt Laborers' per
diem to the hours they worked. For example. Lucien was informed a
per diem would be paid "provided that you work all scheduled hours
and that you meet the mileage criteria, 50 mile radius outside of
the project location, to receive per diem. A day worked is defined
as a minimum of 10 hours. If you do not work all of your scheduled
hours you will only be eligible to receive per diem for the time
worked. This also applies to late arrivals, early-outs or absence's
either excused or non-excused. Based on your hourly classification,
you will earn 1.5 times your base hourly wage for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours, note all overtime hours beyond the project
sites scheduled 50-hour work week must be preapproved by your
direct supervisor."

PCL's "Per Diem Allowance Policy" further confirms the per diem
payment is tied to the hours worked by the Non-Exempt Laborers.
PCL's Job Listings for Non-Exempt Laborers state that per diems
paid to Non-Exempt Laborers are tied to the number of hours they
worked. PCL's policy of tying per diem payments to hours worked was
applied to Lucien and the other Non-Exempt Laborers, the lawsuit
states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

PRICE TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fiedler Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL FIEDLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRICE TRASNFER, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07370 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Mr. Fiedler was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

Price Transfer, Inc. operates as a provider of centralized
examination stations. The Company provides remote filing
examination, bonded warehousing, container freight station,
transloading, and local drayage services. Price Transfer serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Manny M. Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@fronteirlawcenter.com
                  manny@fronteirlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason Ibey, Esq.
          Veronica Cruz, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  Jason@kazlg.com
                  veronica kazlg.com


PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HAAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV07602 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Haas was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. provides residential mortgage
lending services in the United States. The company was founded in
1998 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. It has branch locations
in El Dorado, Derby, Wichita, Newton, Lawrence, Leavenworth,
Hutchinson, Kansas; Fort Smith, Little Rock, Hot Springs, Arkansas;
The Colony, Highland Village, Lewisville, Hurst, and Whitehouse,
Texas; Paducah, Kentucky; Rock Island, Illinois; Sioux Falls, South
Dakota; Portales, New Mexico; and Nashville and Brentwood,
Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Jared Hague, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
          5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 325-0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981-1217


PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Crowder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mary Crowder as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Purple Communications,
Inc., CSDVRS, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
S-CV-0040180 filed in California Superior Court on October 11,
2017, was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on February 20, 2019 under Case No.
19-at-00144.

Crowder worked as a video interpreter for Purple, providing remote
on-demand sign language interpreting for telephone calls between
deaf or hard-of-hearing persons and hearing persons, using video,
mobile and computer technology. She seeks redress for Defendants'
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide
proper wage statements under the California Labor Code.[BN]

Crowder is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 E. Maple Ave., Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355

Defendants are represented by:

      Gary M. Mclaughlin, Esq.
      Stephanie Priel, Esq.
      AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
      Telephone: 310-229-1000
      Facsimile: 310-229-1001
      Email: gmclaughlin@akingump.com
             spriel@akingump.com


SAINT ALPHONSUS: King & Spalding Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hayes-Kibreab, Esq. -- ahayes-kibreab@kslaw.com -- of King &
Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that legal challenges
to hospital charges are increasing in both number and intensity
with plaintiffs' counsel continuing to file suits against hospitals
around the country challenging the very existence and use of
chargemasters in patient billing.  In many of these cases, the
plaintiffs are seeking class action status.  In an effort to upend
chargemaster billing altogether, plaintiffs argue either that (1)
hospital financial contracts, which generally require patients to
pay for non-covered services at the hospital's regular chargemaster
rates, do not permit hospitals to charge those rates because
patients with government-sponsored or commercial insurance may pay
a different amount, or (2) hospital chargemaster rates are
inherently unconscionable because the charges are higher than the
hospital's reported costs.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)
requires hospitals to treat patients who present to the emergency
room by first stabilizing the patient's medical emergency before
confirming the patient's possession of health insurance or ability
to pay for the services.  Federal and state regulations also
require transparency in hospital pricing, including annual
submission and/or publication of hospital chargemasters.  See,
e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300gg-18.

By signing the conditions of admission form requiring the plaintiff
to pay "in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the
Hospital," patients have "consented to pay the facility fee to
defendant."  Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center 236 Cal. App. 4th
1401, 1404-09 (May 21, 2015).  The remedy the class action
plaintiffs are seeking is to have courts put aside the financial
agreements signed by patients and instead decide on a
claim-by-claim basis what is reasonable for a hospital to charge
for services provided to emergency room patients.  As one court put
it, plaintiffs seek "judicial intervention in a commercial
transaction (for which the legislature has already established a
policy favoring price comparison by the patient), whereby judges
and juries would be called on to set appropriate prices for
hospitals to charge their patients."  Cox v. Athens Regional
Medical Center, Inc., 279 Ga. App. 586, 588 (2006).

The theory behind the cases is generally that uninsured patients
should reasonably expect to pay what someone with Medicare,
Medicaid or commercial insurance would pay.  A key gap in that
theory is that uninsured patients are not meeting the burdens of
coverage such as monthly premiums or qualifying age or disability.
The theory also ignores that plaintiffs have access to publicly
available charge data to help them make informed decisions about
where to seek care.

Plaintiffs also ignore the overlay of federal and state laws that
require hospitals to provide charity care to low-income patients
making less than 350% of the federal poverty level, ensuring that
financially vulnerable patients are protected from charges that
they cannot afford.  With such safeguards in place, these lawsuits
only stand to benefit patients with higher incomes who elected not
to secure healthcare coverage, thereby placing the well-off
uninsured in a better position than those who obtain insurance
without any of the burdens.

In late 2018, an Idaho trial court granted summary judgment to
Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, holding that plaintiffs failed to
allege a justiciable controversy for declaratory relief because
even if plaintiffs successfully obtained a declaration that the
hospital may bill only a "reasonable value" of the hospital
services provided, the suit would not determine what that
"reasonable value" is or what plaintiffs should have been billed.
Valencia and Williams v. Saint Alphonsus Medical Center – Nampa,
Inc., Case No. CV-2017-6387-C.  The Valencia court further held
that hospital use of chargemasters is not inherently unconscionable
because it is reasonable for a person to agree to pay a hospital's
charges for treatment he or she has received. Likewise, it is fair
for a hospital to accept an agreement to pay Chargemaster rates
regardless of whether the patient has insurance or may ultimately
be eligible for other payment adjustments.

In a similar lawsuit in California that went all the way to trial,
Kendall v. Scripps, Case No. 37-2013-00073680-CU-BT-CTL, a jury
returned a verdict for the hospital, confirming that the hospital's
standard condition of admission agreement was sufficient to alert
patients to its charges, which are publicly available.

Although they have been largely unsuccessful, lawsuits challenging
hospital chargemasters continue.  Were plaintiffs to be successful,
it could cause serious disruption to hospital finance structures
and contracting since reimbursement rates are often tied directly
or indirectly to chargemaster rates, requiring that hospitals
continue to meet chargemaster challenges head-on. [GN]


SARDONIC SENTIMENTS: Laibe Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Assistants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margaux Ann Laibe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff. vs. Sardonic Sentiments, Inc. & Desiree
Ontiveros, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02764 (E.D. La., March
22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly assistant by Defendant.
While working for the Defendant, the Plaintiff was not paid
one-and-a-half times her regular hourly rate for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant is in the business of installing balloon art for
conventions and parties.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ryan E. Beasley Sr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RYAN E. BEASLEY SR ., LLC
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 900
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 517-4290
          Facsimile: 504 814-4291
          E-mail: ryan@rbeasleylaw.com

SCCG INC: Landaverde Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jovito Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S.C.C.G., Inc., S.C.G.K., Inc.,
S.C.G.M, Inc. and Umer F. Khan, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00591
(S.D. Tex., February 20, 2019), seeks all available relief,
including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Landaverde was employed by the Defendants from February 9, 2017
until February 18, 2019 as an hourly-paid construction worker and
supervisor, supervising workers who were hanging sheetrock,
painting, installing chairs and putting down plywood flooring. He
claims to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was
denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


SELECT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yapura-Weiler Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN YAPURA-WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT SOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00011815-CL-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 4,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Yapura-Weiler was employed by the Defendants as hourly
paid, non-exempt employee.

Select Source International, Inc. offers consultation,
implementation, and integration services. The company provides
services to retail, engineering, finance, healthcare, government,
utilities, and energy sectors. Select Source International, Inc.
was founded in 2000 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sandeep J. Shah, Esq.
          SHAH SHETH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 955-4551
          Facsimile: (714) 966-0663
          E-mail: sandeep@shahshethlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
          ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 505-6283
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4584
          E-mail: greg@adeptemploymentlaw.com


SERVICE KING: Underpays Service Advisors, Gutierrez et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO GUTIERREZ; and HAGOP AJEMYAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV07427 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as service
advisors.

Service King Paint & Body, LLC provides auto paint and repair
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Boyajian, Esq.
          Amaras Zargarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC
          9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 609
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (424) 330-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 330-2351


ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads to City Plating
--------------------------------------------------------------
City Plating and Polishing, LLC, The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd.,
Sherelynn Lehman and Lap Distributors, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. St.
Augustine School of Medical Assistants, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00374, (N.D. Ohio,
February 20, 2019) seeks actual and statutory damages, pre-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and
other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

St. Augustine operates an online medical assistant training
program. In an attempt to generate sales leads and ultimately
increase its revenues, it created a fax-based marketing campaign
wherein it sends numerous unsolicited faxes advertising its
products and services. Plaintiffs have no previous relationship
with Defendant and Defendant never received the recipients' consent
to receive such faxes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


STANFORD PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintana Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCSICO QUINTANA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANFORD PARK HOTEL, LLC; and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CV001194 (Cal. Super., San
Mateo Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

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

Stanford Park Hotel, LLC provides hospitality services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

              - and -

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Matthew Bahr, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. State Collection Service,
Inc., the Defendant, and VoApps, Inc., the Third Party Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01284, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Mar 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01991 to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Sara L. Ellis.

State Collection provides collection services, such as third-party
payer follow up, self-pay follow up, financial assistance, and bad
debt collection.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: 404 513-6651
          Facsimile: 404 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

Attorneys for State Collection Service, Inc.:

          Jessica Klander, Esq.
          Patrick Daniel Newman, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE, PA
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Fifth Street Towers
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
          Telephone: (612) 333-3000
          E-mail: jklander@bassford.com
                  pnewman@bassford.com

               - and -

          John Colquitt Rogers, Esq.
          CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP – ATL
          191 Peachtree St., NE,, Suite 3600
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 522-8220
          Facsimile: (404) 222-9482
          jrogers@carlockcopeland.com

Attorneys for VoApps, Inc.:

          Stefanie H. Jackman, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR-ATL
          999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3915
          Telephone: (678) 420-9300
          Facsimile: (678) 420-9301
          E-mail: jackmans@ballardspahr.com

SUNSHINE USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Zhang FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Zhongliang Qiu and Meide Zhang filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Meide Zhang and Zhongliang
Qiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Liang Zhang and Ru Qiu Li as shareholders and corporate officers
and Sunshine USA Inc. d/b/a Wu Liang Ye, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04013, 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 lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, unreimbursed business related out-of-pocket costs and
expenses, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages,
post-judgment interest and attorney fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Zhang v. Zhang, Case No. 19-683,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Meide Zhang, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Zhongliang Qiu, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David Yan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
          136-20 38th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 888-7788
          E-mail: davidyanlawoffice@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees Liang Zhang, As shareholder; Ru Qiu Li, As
shareholder; and Sunshine USA Inc., DBA Wu Liang Ye, are
represented by:

          Pedro Medina, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF HUGH H. MO, P.C.
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 385-1500
          E-mail: pemedina@netscape.net


TABER COMPANY: Scoggins Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
L'RENZO VINCENTE SCOGGINS, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TABER COMPANY, INC.;
and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09661
(Cal. Super., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or
overtime, meal break premiums, rest break premiums, penalties for
accurate itemized wage statements, wages upon termination or
resignation, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, on a regular and consistent basis,
Plaintiff and the Proposed Class were not paid at the proper rate
of compensation. As such, when Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
worked overtime in the same pay period when they earned a bonus,
they were not compensated at the appropriate overtime rate of pay
under California law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com

TDT CONSULTING: Christy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Tonie Christy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TDT Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00186 (W.D. Pa., July 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for Defendant's violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

TDT is a staffing company that provides oilfield workers to Energy
Operators throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania and
Ohio. TDT employed independent contractors, including Christy who
worked as a "backyard hand." Christy claims he was paid a salary
regardless of the number of hours he worked that day without any
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


TEXAS: Problems in Foster Care System Similar to Immigrant Housing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an attorney's description on March 14 before a Fifth Circuit
panel of the "grave problems" in Texas' dysfunctional foster care
system -- including rampant sexual abuse, unsupervised children
housed together, and medical records in disarray -- sounded eerily
similar to recent reports of the state's temporary housing for
immigrant children.  

Children of all ages are housed together, often without nighttime
supervision, attorney Paul Yetter stressed during the March 14 oral
arguments in the New Orleans-based federal appeals court. Yetter is
lead counsel for the children named as plaintiffs in a class
action.

He said older children who are known sexual abusers are sometimes
placed in a home with young children and left completely
unsupervised, usually at night, and even when they are known
offenders, their records are often not retrievable or shared
because of the state's hopelessly inefficient records system, so no
one realizes the danger posed by the situation.

Proper foster care requires adequate resources and supervision,
Yetter told the three-judge Fifth Circuit panel.

"It's just that simple," he said.

Yetter said two key elements to fixing the Texas foster system are
"adequate resources and reliable information."

But he said state lawyers from Attorney General Ken Paxton's office
"seek to undermine the remedy" prescribed.

The state foster system sees roughly 12,000 kids annually. Court
documents say children leave Texas foster care with a five times
greater risk of post-traumatic stress disorder than combat
veterans.

A scathing 260-page ruling in 2015 from U.S. District Judge Janis
Graham Jack of the Southern District of Texas blasted the state for
running an understaffed foster care system where "rape, abuse,
psychotropic medication and instability are the norm," in violation
of children's constitutional rights to due process.

Jack's order noted that children who become permanent wards of the
state "almost uniformly leave state custody more damaged than when
they entered."

Following that ruling, Jack appointed two special masters to the
case. In late 2016, the special masters provided 56 recommendations
to improve care provided by the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, or DFPS, in its long-term foster care system.

The Fifth Circuit heard arguments in Texas' appeal of Jack's order
last May and issued a ruling in October upholding some but not all
of Jack's order.

Jack's order blasted the state for not tracking child-on-child
sexual abuse and placing children in homes without 24-hour
supervision.

Much of the March 14 hearing focused on these two issues. The case
is back in the Fifth Circuit after the state appealed the district
court's modified injunction issued in November, which Paxton says
reinstated provisions that the Fifth Circuit vacated.

Yetter told the panel the "grave problems" created by lack of
supervision of groups of six or more children is unique to Texas.

He said homes oftentimes house seven to 12 children, with kids
being unsupervised, particularly at night.

"There is no other state in the nation that allows this without
24-hour supervision," Yetter said.

Yetter said the state changed the name of the facilities that house
multiple children without adequate supervision, as if calling the
houses by another name changes the gravity of the situation.

But Joseph "Jody" Hughes, assistant solicitor general under Paxton,
told the panel judges "there is no reason for the district court to
revisit [the issue of foster housing] whatsoever."

As for creating an online application that would track the records
of tens of thousands of children in one, easy-to-use system, Hughes
said it just isn't feasible.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, a Ronald Reagan
appointee, noted on March 14 that without having a streamlined
online records system, kids easily fall through the cracks. Case
workers, he said, cannot read a child's records or find out where
that child is.

In the court's 103-page ruling from October, Higginbotham recounted
an experience of one plaintiff, referred to as S.A. in court
records: "Four months into foster care, S.A. reported being
sexually abused by an older child in her foster home. DFPS sent no
agency staff to interview S.A., and there is no record that anyone
from the agency followed up with the private company to which it
had outsourced the investigation."

After S.A. entered the state's long-term care, DFPS moved her to 33
different homes. She went to 16 schools and had 28 case workers.

She missed at least two chances for adoption because her
caseworkers did not update her records, Higginbotham wrote.

S.A. aged out of foster care at 18 and could not remember all the
places she had lived.

"The five-year-old girl DFPS had taken under its protection left
the state's care 13 years later psychologically scarred, deprived
of capacities for citizenship and productive adult life. S.A.'s
experience is typical for [permanent managing conservatorship]
children," the October ruling states.

During his arguments, Yetter noted that other states – for
instance, Tennessee, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. – have the
type of online records system the plaintiffs are asking Texas to
implement, but during rebuttal Hughes said something of the sort
could cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars and probably
wouldn't be as efficient as it sounds.

Paxton said in a statement after the hearing that he is confident
the Fifth Circuit will side with the state.

"In October, the 5th Circuit reversed several of the district
court's liability rulings and held that the district court's
sweeping permanent injunction far exceeded permissible limits. In
modifying the injunction, the district court has again
overreached," he said. "The improper provisions ordered by an
unelected federal judge are not only impractical, they are actually
harmful to foster care caseworkers and the children they care for
each day."

U.S. Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, another Reagan appointee, and
Edith Brown Clement, a George W. Bush appointee, also sat on the
panel.

The judges did not indicate when or how they will rule. The
district court's injunction has been stayed pending the Fifth
Circuit decision.

The conditions in the state foster care system described by Yetter
called to mind reports of temporary housing in Texas for immigrant
children separated from their adult relatives after crossing the
U.S.-Mexico border.


TITAN CONSTRUCTION: Arana Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Arana, Jose Bellow, John Ceballos, Salvador Colula, Hector
Guifarro, and Edil Sarmiento, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Titan Construction Services LLC dba
Titan Construction Services, El Castillo Contracting Corp., Juan A.
Garcia and Amador Garcia, Case No. 1:19-cv-02113 (S.D. N.Y., March
7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs, former scaffolding and general construction workers
at Titan, regularly worked over forty hours per workweek but were
paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked per week, including
those over forty, says the complaint. In addition to denying the
Plaintiffs overtime wages, the Defendants also failed to furnish
the Plaintiffs with wage notices and with accurate wage statements
at the end of every pay period.

The Plaintiff Jose Arana worked at Titan as a scaffold and general
construction worker for the first two weeks of June 2015 and worked
for Titan again from the end of June 2015 through approximately
December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from
approximately January 2018 to in or about June 2018.

The Plaintiff Jose Bello worked at Titan as a scaffold and general
construction worker from approximately October 2015 through
December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from
approximately January 2018 to July 6, 2018.

The Plaintiff John Ceballos worked at Titan as a scaffold and
general construction worker from in or about April 2013 through
approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El
Castillo from approximately January 2018 to June 19, 2018.

The Plaintiff Salvador Colula worked as a scaffold and general
construction worker from in or about July 2015 through
approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El
Castillo from approximately January 2018 to June 30, 2018.

The Plaintiff Hector Guifarro worked at Titan as a scaffold and
general construction worker from May 10, 2015 to approximately
December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from
approximately January 2018 to June 8, 2018.

The Plaintiff Edil Sarmiento worked at Titan as a scaffold and
general construction worker from in or about July 2015 to
approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El
Castillo from approximately January 2018 to in or about June 2018.

Titan provides waterproofing and restoration services for
residences and commercial buildings. The Defendant is a foreign
limited liability company organized under New Jersey law. Titan's
principal place of business is 153 West 27th Street, Suite 402, New
York, New York 10001.

The Defendant El Castillo Contracting Corp. is a New York
corporation. Although El Castillo is separately incorporated, the
Individual Defendants, Juan A. Garcia and Amador Garcia, operated
El Castillo as a single-integrated enterprise and joint employer
with Titan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Lillian M. Marquez, Esq.
      Jaime Sanchez, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              marquez@pechmanlaw.com
              sanchez@pechmanlaw.com


TOOTSIE ROLL: Must Face Junior Mints Slack-Fill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to
dismiss a class action against Tootsie Roll over the 44 percent
slack-fill that characterize its Junior Mints candy boxes, "a
rather substantial amount by any measure."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at:

         https://is.gd/rww3a4


TORO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdovinos Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO VALDOVINOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORO-AIRE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07381 (Cal. Super., Los
Angles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Valdovinos was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Toro-Aire, Inc. provides HVAC products. The Company offers
dampering devices, architectural grilles, air distribution,
terminal units, fan coil and air handlers, ventilator, power and
balance system, kitchen ventilation, commercial HVAC air filters,
and volume control. Toro-Aire serves customers in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  rglezakos@haineslawgroup.com


TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Kern County
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Townsend Industries, Inc. The case is captioned as SARAH GOMEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-100608 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 6, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett.

Townsend Industries Inc. was founded in 2011. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of surgical appliances and
supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Douglas Han, Esq.
           JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
           411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
           Glendale, CA 91203
           Telephone: (818) 230-7502
           Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT: Faces McCrumb Labor Suit in Kern County
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Trifecta Management Group, Inc. The case is captioned as DANNY
MCCRUMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; TRIFECTA
BLVD I, INC.; and THE BLVD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100621
(Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 6, 2019). The case is assigned to
Judge Stephen D. Schuett.

Trifecta Group LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of
business includes providing management consulting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (844) 294-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Jayce Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tristate Logistics of Arizona, LLC, Tristate Logistics
of Nevada, LLC, Tristate Logistics, LLC, C&A Holdings, LLC, The Bon
Air Trust, Carlos Jorge and Jane Doe Jorge, Case No. 2:19-cv-01552
(D. Ariz., March 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay
overtime to its current and former couriers/warehouse workers.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a courier/warehouse
worker from March 2016 through approximately July 2016.

The Defendant Tristate Logistics own and operate as an enterprise
doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona and Clark County Nevada.
Tristate Logistics is an enterprise that functions as an auto parts
courier and whose primary marketplace offering is
Couriers/Warehouse Workers who provide auto parts delivery
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Tel: (480) 382-5176
      Fax: (480) 304-3805
      E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
              chris@bendaulaw.com


          - and -

      Michael Zoldan, Esq.
      Jason Barrat, Esq.
      ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel: (480) 442-3410
      E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
              jbarrat@zoldangroup.com


TRU-FLEX METAL: Ct. Junks Third-Party Claims in Adams Pointe Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, issued a Report and Recommendation
granting Third-Party Defendant Ward Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned ADAMS POINTE I, L.P., ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY
NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., AND; BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; JBCO, ADAMS
POINTE III, L.P., ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, L.P.,
ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP.,
MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, JOHN EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. TRU-FLEX
METAL HOSE CORP., TRUFLEX, LLC, AND; AND PRO-FLEX LLC, Defendants,
et al. No. 2:16-CV-00750-CB. (W.D. Pa.).

Presently pending before the court is a motion by Third-Party
Defendant Ward to dismiss the contribution claim against it
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Tru-Flex and
Pro-Flex for the allegedly negligent manufacture, design, and
distribution of Pro-Flex(R) CSST, which was used as part of a
natural gas delivery system in the Plaintiffs' properties. The
Plaintiffs allege that despite internal industry recognition and
concern that yellow-jacketed CSST products are prone to
catastrophic failure when exposed to electrical energy, the
Defendants continued the manufacture, marketing, and distribution
of Pro-Flex(R) CSST through retail stores to do-it-yourself'
consumers and untrained workers.

The Third-Party Plaintiffs allege that because the Plaintiffs have
alleged inherent, industry-wide defects in the characteristics of
yellow-jacket CSST, that the Plaintiffs' allegations of defects,
breaches and negligence related to the characteristics of
yellow-jacket CSST would be equally applicable to Wardflex(R) and
Third-Party Plaintiffs.   

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A third-party defendant must assert any defense against the
third-party plaintiff's claim under Rule 12 and may assert against
the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the
plaintiff's claim. A motion to dismiss a third-party complaint is
generally analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).


Ward moves to dismiss the contribution claim by arguing that the
Third-Party Complaints are devoid of any facts showing that Ward is
a joint tortfeasor. Specifically, Ward argues that the Third-Party
Complaints do nothing more than allege that Wardflex(R) is present
in the Adams Pointe buildings and it is not enough for Third-Party
Plaintiffs to support its contribution claim simply by alleging its
product's presence at Adams Pointe.

The Third-Party Plaintiffs respond that because the Plaintiffs'
complaint alleges that the mere presence of Pro-Flex(R) in the
Plaintiffs' properties caused the Plaintiffs' damages, and that
because Wardflex(R) is also yellow-jacket CSST and was present at
Adams Pointe, Ward must have contributed to the Plaintiffs'
damages. Further, Third-Party Plaintiffs argue that because the
Plaintiffs allege that all yellow-jacket CSST was defective, that
Wardflex(R)'s presence in the Plaintiffs' properties caused the
Plaintiffs' damages.

A claim for contribution under Pennsylvania law is not a recovery
for the tort, but rather it is the enforcement of an equitable duty
to share liability for the wrong done by both. The burden of
proving the joint causal negligence falls upon the party seeking
contribution. The right of contribution is codified under
Pennsylvania law and provides that it is only available among joint
tortfeasors.  

While the Third-Party Complaints do not specifically name any tort
that Ward allegedly committed, reading the Third-Party Complaints
liberally, the torts alleged against Ward are for negligence and
strict liability. To maintain a claim for negligence under
Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must demonstrate [1] that the
defendant has a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct
[2] that the defendant breached that duty [3] that such breach
caused the injury in question and [4] actual loss or damage.

Here, assuming that the first and fourth elements have been met,
there are no concrete facts showing that Ward breached any duty it
owed to the Plaintiffs or that it caused the Plaintiffs' alleged
injuries. The crux of Third-Party Plaintiffs' contribution claim
against Ward is that because the Plaintiffs' complaint includes
some facts alleging that the entire yellow-jacket CSST industry
knew or should have known that yellow-jacket CSST was defective,
and because Ward's yellow-jacket CSST product was found at the
Adams Pointe properties, that Ward should share liability with
Third-Party Plaintiffs for the Plaintiffs' damages.

First, considering the allegations that Wardflex(R) was not bonded
and improperly installed, there are no allegations that make it
reasonable to infer that Ward was the entity who failed to bond or
properly install its product, or that these alleged failures caused
any damages to the Plaintiffs.

The Third-Party Plaintiffs provide no facts alleging that the mere
presence of Wardflex(R) in the Adams Pointe properties caused any
injury to the Plaintiffs, or how Third-Party Plaintiffs could
somehow be liable for any damages allegedly caused by Wardflex(R).
The Third-Party Plaintiffs attempt to claim that the defects
inherent in Pro-Flex(R) should be attributed or imputed to
Wardflex(R) also fails, as the Third-Party Plaintiffs specifically
state that the Pro-Flex(R) and Wardflex(R) products are unique with
different specifications at 6, and such allegations are
conclusory.

Turning to whether the Third-Party Plaintiffs' claim for
contribution is supported by a claim for strict liability, they
must allege that Ward placed its product on the market in a
defective conditions. This requires Third-Party Plaintiffs to prove
(1) that the product was defective (2) that the defect was a
proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and (3) that the defect
causing the injury existed at the time the product left the
seller's hands.

Again, the Third-Party Plaintiffs' entire theory for contribution
is that because the Plaintiffs generally allege that the
yellow-jacket CSST industry put a defective product on the market
and because Wardflex(R) happens to be a yellow-jacket CSST product
and present at the Adams Pointe properties that the Plaintiffs'
damages must have been caused in part by Ward.   

These claims, while conceivable, do not include enough factual
specificity that it would be reasonable to infer that Ward was
involved in causing the Plaintiffs' damages. The Third-Party
Plaintiffs have not nudged their contribution claim across the line
to be considered plausible. While the court previously allowed
defendants to conduct an inspection of the properties in order to
gain more facts into the role, if any, Ward played in causing the
Plaintiffs' damages, and allowed Third-Party Plaintiffs to amend
their Third-Party Complaints in order to buttress any contribution
claim against Ward, they have not met their burden of showing that
it is plausible that Ward contributed to Plaintiffs' damages. The
Third-Party Complaints offer only a sheer possibility that Ward
acted unlawfully, which is not enough to survive a motion to
dismiss.

Because the Third-Party Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded
that Ward has committed a tort, Ward cannot be a joint tortfeasor
for contribution and the claim must be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Magistrate recommended that the Third-Party
Plaintiffs' claim for contribution asserted against Ward be
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Report
and Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5vys6llfrom
Leagle.com.

ADAMS POINTE I, L.P., ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH
ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, JBCO, ADAMS POINTE III,
L.P., ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, L.P., ADAMS
POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP., MICHAEL
AND KATHLEEN BICHLER & JOHN EVANS, Plaintiffs, represented by D.
Aaron Rihn, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., N. Scott Carpenter,
Carpenter & Schumacher PC, pro hac vice & Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton,
Carpenter & Schumacher PC, pro hac vice.

TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP. & TRU-FLEX, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Ashley N. Rodgers -- arodgers@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill,
O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Daniel R. Bentz --
dbentz@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly &
Thomas Pie, Jr. -- TPie@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C.

PRO-FLEX LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Offenbach, Leahy,
Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Thomas A. Gamache, Leahy,
Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice & Pamela V. Collis, Walsh,
Barnes, Collis, Gill & Zumpella, P.C.


UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Suit Set for Trial This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit, filed by six veterans who said they
feared exposure to deadly diseases from dental care at the Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in Tomah, is scheduled for trial later this
year, though a judge has not yet ruled on whether to certify it as
a class action.

The six say in their lawsuit that they suffered emotional distress
after learning that a dentist at the VA in Tomah had used
improperly sterilized dental instruments that could have spread
blood-borne infections including HIV and hepatitis. After tests on
the nearly 600 vets who received care from the dentist, none was
found to have been infected, after some waited for up to six months
for results.

The lawsuit against the U.S. government, which seeks compensation
for emotional distress, is scheduled for a trial in October.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 1, 2017, by the six veterans on
behalf of a proposed class of 592 vets. The group had all received
letters informing them of possible exposure to the diseases as a
result of dental work done for them at the VA by Dr. Thomas
Schiller. A September 2017 report by the VA Office of the Inspector
General found that there were lapses in hygiene by Schiller that
could have exposed the veterans to infectious disease.

The lawsuit alleged that Schiller's hygiene practices were known to
a number of Tomah VA employees, but no action was taken for close
to a year.

On Sept. 25, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Conley denied a
motion by the government to dismiss the lawsuit. The government,
represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Madison, argued that
the vets had failed to allege sufficient facts to find there was
actual exposure to contamination. Conley ruled that was not
necessary.

"While the defendant argues that plaintiffs lacked reasonable
grounds for emotional distress because the letter they received
informed them that the risk of infection was low, there is no
evidence that the letter was correct in this assertion," Conley
wrote, "and it may be that exposure to a low risk of a deadly
infection provides reasonable grounds for emotional distress, at
least where the exposure is to a large enough population."

It may also be too much to expect patients to set aside their fears
"based on the assurances of a medical facility that admittedly did
not adhere to basic professional standards during their
treatment."

Conley also ruled out dismissal for an insufficient showing of
severe emotional distress or a failure to exhaust other legal
options short of a lawsuit.

When it formally answered the lawsuit in October, the government
admitted that when Schiller was confronted about his practices, he
admitted to using unsterilized dental burs that had been instead
cleaned with a disinfectant, believing it was common practice in
the private sector. But the government denied that the VA had
failed patients by failing to adequately train Schiller in the
proper use of dental equipment and in proper infection control.

The government asserted instead that Schiller "exercised a degree
of care toward plaintiffs that was reasonable under the
circumstances" and that the VA "exercised a degree of care in
supervising, training and retaining Dr. Schiller that was
reasonable under the circumstances."

In a letter written in January 2017 to the Office of the Inspector
General, Schiller's lawyer, Dawn Marie Harris, blamed a "toxic work
environment" at the Tomah VA for Schiller's inability "to have the
energy to initiate independent research after the busy day" into
policies concerning supplies or sanitizing practices. She wrote he
wasn't given the Tomah VA's written standard operating procedures.

"He is not an evil person who should be tarred, feathered and
prevented from ever practicing dentistry again," Harris wrote. "He
is an individual who believed he was providing greater service to
veterans through the use of better equipment that was disclosed to
and approved by management."

Lawyers for the veterans have also sought to take deposition
testimony from Dr. Frank Marcantonio, who was chief of dental
services while Schiller worked at the Tomah VA. But in September,
Marcantonio declined, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to
incriminate himself.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker in November allowed Marcantonio to
file a written explanation for his refusal to testify, which only a
judge can read. There has been no ruling yet on whether Marcantonio
will be compelled to testify. [GN]


UQM TECH: Carter Seeks to Halt Danfoss Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Dale Carter on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UQM Technologies, Inc. Donald W. Vanlandingham, Joe
Mitchell, Stephen J. Roy, Joseph P. Sellinger and John E. Sztykiel,
Case No. :19-cv-00502 (D. Colo., February 20, 2019) seeks (i) to
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of UQM
Technologies by Danfoss A/S, including Danfoss Power Solutions and
Danfoss-2019 Merger Sub, Inc., (ii) rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, (iii) rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees, and (iv) such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, UQM will become an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss, and Danfoss
stockholders will receive $1.71 in cash for each share of UQM
common stock they own.

UQM develops, manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators,
power electronic controllers and fuel cell compressors in the
United states and internationally.

The complaint asserts that the preliminary proxy statement filed in
connection with the transaction omitted the sales process and in
particular certain conflicts of interest for management, the
financial projections for UQM disclosed to its financial advisor,
Duff & Phelps, LLC for use in its financial analyses, and the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support
the fairness opinions provided by Duff & Phelps. The Plaintiff also
contests the "no solicitation" provision that prevents the UQM from
negotiating with or providing confidential information to competing
bidders and "matching rights" provision that allows matching any
competing proposal and up to $3,500,000 in termination fees and
expenses if the UQM board agrees to a competing proposal. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Phone: (610) 667-6200
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      Email: mackerman@brodskysmith.com


UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Carter Suit Over Danfoss Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
UQM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Carter v. UQM
Technologies, Inc., et. al.

On January 21, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Danfoss Power Solutions
(US) Company, a Delaware corporation ("Danfoss"), and Danfoss-2019
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Danfoss (the "Merger Sub"). Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged  with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), as a result of which the Company will
continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Danfoss.

On February 20, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint
captioned Carter v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et. al., (the "Carter
Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against the Company and the members of its
board of directors.

The Carter Complaint alleges that the Company directors breached
their fiduciary duties and the Company aided and abetted in the
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and
approval of the Merger Agreement by failing to maximize shareholder
value, and it brings claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), based on alleged failure to disclose material information in
the February 22, 2019 preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14(A)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Carter Complaint seeks to enjoin the Company and the directors
and Company from proceeding with the stockholders meeting to vote
on the Merger proposal and to otherwise enjoin the directors from
consummating the Merger, an accounting by the defendants for
alleged damages sustained as a result of the alleged failure to
meet their fiduciary duties, and plaintiff's costs and attorneys'
and experts' fees.

UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power
electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United
states and internationally. UQM Technologies, Inc. was founded in
1967 and is headquartered in Longmont, Colorado.


UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Danfoss Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
UQM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a shareholder class action suit entitled,
Franchi v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.

On January 21, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Danfoss Power Solutions
(US) Company, a Delaware corporation ("Danfoss"), and Danfoss-2019
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Danfoss (the "Merger Sub"). Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged  with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), as a result of which the Company will
continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Danfoss.

On February 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint
captioned Franchi v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,  (the "Franchi
Complaint") was filed in state District court in Weld County,
Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of
directors.

The Franchi Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary
duty by the directors; (ii) indemnification by the Company to the
plaintiff class; (iii) an injunction against the proposed merger;
(iv) breach of fiduciary duty as a derivative action; and (v) waste
of corporate assets against the individual directors on behalf of
the Company.

The Franchi Complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a
plaintiff class, injunctive relief ordering the directors to
fulfill their fiduciary duties to the Company and class, an
accounting by the defendants for alleged damages sustained as a
result of the alleged failure to meet their fiduciary duties, and
plaintiff's costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Defendants accepted service of the Franchi Complaint on
February 26, 2019.

UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power
electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United
states and internationally. UQM Technologies, Inc. was founded in
1967 and is headquartered in Longmont, Colorado.


USHEALTH GROUP: Jacobi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jacobi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USHealth Group, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-20653 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2019), seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff claims that she received automated telemarketing calls
from USHealth without his prior express written consent.

USHealth is a national health insurance distribution company, which
sells individual health coverage and supplementary insurance
products to America's self-employed, small business and individual
insurance market. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mays Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lerna Mays filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 7, 2019, the Hon.
Judge Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify Final Wage
      Statement Subclass;

   2. directing parties to meet and confer and submit a joint
      proposed class notice within 14 days of the date of the
      Order, along with a proposed order approving the notice

   3. certifying a Wage Statement Class of:

      "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received
      one or more wage payments during the period from Friday,
      December 16, 2016 to January 31, 2018.

   4. appointing Lerna Mays as Class Representative; and

   5. appointing Harris & Ruble as Class Counsel.

The Court said, "Plaintiff's claim is atypical because she is not a
member of the Final Wage Statement Subclass.  Here, Walmart
terminated her employment on February 10, 2017 and the class period
is from January 10, 2018 to the current date. This means that
Plaintiff did not receive a final wage statement within the entire
period of the subclass. The Plaintiff also does not satisfy Rule
23's adequacy requirement.  A named plaintiff must be a member of
the class she seeks to represent and Plaintiff does not qualify.
The Plaintiff acknowledges the problem this poses for her
representation of the subclass.  The Plaintiff requests that the
Court certify the subclass because Plaintiff suffered the same type
of violation, but at a different time, or, if the Court takes issue
with her representation of the Final Wage Statement Subclass, the
Court give her the opportunity to locate another class
representative for the subclass. The Court finds that the Final
Wage Statement Subclass should not be certified because Lerna Mays,
the named Plaintiff, is not a member of the Final Wage Statement
Subclass.  The Court will not allow Plaintiff's counsel to
substitute another class representative in place of Mays at this
stage. The Court is also troubled by the fact that Plaintiff's
class definition is identical to the class definition in Magadia."

The appellate case is captioned as Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Case No. 19-55318, 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 19, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019;

   -- Appellant Lerna Mays' opening brief is due on June 28,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      July 29, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

Defendant-Appellee WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq.
          Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell, Esq.
          Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq.
          Paloma Peracchio, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
                  cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com
                  mwrosch@bwslaw.com
                  pperacchio@bwslaw.com


WALMART INC: Awaits Court OK on Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting
the court's decision on the settlement in City of Pontiac General
Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit in which the complaint
closely tracks the allegations set forth in a news story that
appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21, 2012.

This is a securities lawsuit, City of Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of
AR, that was filed on May 7, 2012, in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and subsequently
transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, in which the
plaintiff alleges various violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (the "FCPA") beginning in 2005, and asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, relating to certain prior disclosures of
the Company.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between December 8,
2011, and April 20, 2012, and has sought damages and other relief
based on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the
value of such stock.

On September 20, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On October 6, 2016, the defendants filed a
petition to appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On November 7, 2016, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the Company's
petition.

On October 26, 2018, the parties filed a motion asking the court to
approve a proposed settlement under which the Company would pay
$160 million (the "Settlement Amount") to resolve the claims of all
class members. On December 6, 2018, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement and scheduled the final approval hearing
for April 4, 2019.

Walmart said, "The settlement does not include or constitute an
admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or
wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. The Settlement Amount
was expensed in the Company's fiscal 2019 financial statements."

Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in
various formats worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. It
operates supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs,
cash and carry stores, discount stores, drugstores, and convenience
stores; membership-only warehouse clubs; e-commerce Websites, such
as walmart.com, jet.com, shoes.com, and samsclub.com; and mobile
commerce applications. The company was formerly known as Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. in February 2018.
Walmart Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in Bentonville,
Arkansas.


WITTMAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Clark Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Wittman Enterprises LLC. The case is captioned as NAKITA CLARK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WITTMAN ENTERPRISES LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00251989-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
March 6, 2019).

Wittman Enterprises is an Emergency Medical Services billing
specialist, providing products and services specifically designed
to ensure that providers are reimbursed timely for the services
they provide. The Company collects legal reimbursement available
for our clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Property Owners File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims that Wyndham
Worldwide Corp. charges property owners unlawfully every month,
refuses to provide an accounting, and threatens them "with
ruination of their credit rating if they try" to withdraw from club
membership.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

          https://is.gd/JSy7AH



YOGAWORKS INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT to Lead Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
YogaWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the federal court actions
have been consolidated and Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's have
been appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles, captioned Salazar v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
November 26, 2018); Johnson v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
December 19, 2018); Lowinger v. YogaWorks, Inc. et al. (filed
December 21, 2018); and Mirza v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
January 17, 2019).

Additionally, two putative class action complaints, substantially
similar to the state court securities actions, captioned Cohen v.
YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed December 27, 2018) and Dellinger v.
YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed February 8, 2019) were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Central
California.

These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of YogaWorks
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misstatements and omissions in offering documents related to
YogaWorks initial public offering (IPO) that took place on August
11, 2017. The lawsuits name as defendants YogaWorks, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, YogaWorks majority
shareholder, and certain underwriters of YogaWorks IPO.

Pending further order of the courts, no response is currently due
for any of the State Court Actions.

On March 21, 2019, the Federal Court Actions were consolidated, and
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's were appointed as Lead
Plaintiff.

YogaWorks said, "The outcomes of the legal proceedings are
inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and
could be material to YogaWorks' financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows for a particular period. YogaWorks
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against it."

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga
classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related
retail merchandise. The company offers online yoga instruction and
programming services through its MyYogaWorks Web platform. The
company was formerly known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its
name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded
in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver City, California.


YOGAWORKS INC: Settlement Reached in Cal. Instructors' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YogaWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has agreed to
a class wide settlement in the class action suit initiated by a
former California employee.

On July 2, 2018, a former California employee ("Plaintiff") filed a
complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles (the "Complaint").

Plaintiff's Complaint was filed pursuant to the California Labor
Code purportedly on behalf of all Pilates instructors, yoga
instructors and other employees who worked for the company in
California on a piece-rate basis within the four years preceding
the date of the Complaint.

The Complaint alleged that certain of the company's payroll-related
practices with respect to California-based employees paid on a
piece-rate did not comply with the California Labor Code.

On March 21, 2019, the company agreed to a class wide settlement
for a maximum amount of $1.0 million, which would include
settlement of all penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 and California Labor Code, attorneys' fees and costs, class
representative enhancements and claims administration fees.

YogaWorks said, "As of December 31, 2018, we have reserved for the
entire amount under accrued expenses."

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga
classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related
retail merchandise. The company offers online yoga instruction and
programming services through its MyYogaWorks Web platform. The
company was formerly known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its
name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded
in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver City, California.


ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Kruk Fraud Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert Kruk, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., Solco
Healthcare U.S., LLC, Huahai US, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2018-cv-5944 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2018), was
transferred to the US District Court for the District of New Jersey
on February 20, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06211.

Kruk seeks actual damages, in addition to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and all such further and other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, gross negligence,
breach of implied and express warranty of merchantability and in
violation of New York's General Business Law.

Valsartan tablets is a generic hypertension and heart failure oral
medication. US Food and Drug Administration announced that several
distributors of Valsartan recalled the product due to
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable
human carcinogen. Nelson alleges that some of the valsartan
manufactured by Teva, Teva USA, Major, ZHP and Huahai and sold by
Rite Aid contains said carcinogen. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Sawin, Esq.
      SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
      55 West Wacker Dr., Ste. 900
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 853-2490
      Email: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com

             - and -

      Scott Anthony Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel. (312) 327-3386
      Fax. (888) 396-2478
      Email: smorgan@smorgan-law.com


[*] Australian Law Reform Commission Releases Class Action Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg,
Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for
JDSupra, disclosed that the Australian Law Reform Commission
released its Class Action and Litigation Funding Report.

The report recommends:

   -- A further inquiry aimed at the substantive law employed in
shareholder class actions.

   -- Legalization of contingency fees for lawyers in class
actions, but subject to court approval and supervision.

   -- Greater powers for the supervision of litigation funding be
given to the Federal Court, including being able to reject, vary,
or amend the terms of litigation funding agreements.

  -- Greater powers for resolving competing class actions be given
to the Federal Court and a single class action should be the
preferred approach. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***