CAR_Public/190415.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 75

                            Headlines

ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Underway
AETNA INC: Court Denies Peters' Class Certification Bid
AIR EVAC EMS: Hundley's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Asks Court to Deny Dorfman's Class Cert. Bid
ALLEGIANT AIR: Certification of Class Sought in Douglas Suit

ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Ct. Denies Prelim. OK of $2.5MM Douglas Suit Deal
ALSCO INC: Rodrigues Seeks Regular and OT Wages for Laundry Staff
AMAZON.COM: Gilbert Enterprises Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMAZON.COM: Judge Set to Hear Class Action on April 18
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORP: Cup Seeks Prelim. Okay of Class Settlement

APPLIED INTEGRATED: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Suit
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Hits Share Drop from Camera Flaw
ASAP COURIER: Almanza Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AVIS BUDGET: Ct. Certifies Class of Vehicle Renters in Venerus Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Birmingham Employees' Fund Hits Bond Price-fixing
BANK OF AMERICA: Int'l. Assoc. Fund Sues Over FFB Price-Fixing
BAREBURGER GROUP: Rosenberg Says Organic Product Label Misleading
BARTON HEALTHCARE: Guy Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
BRAVO NADER: Does not Pay Min., Overtime Wages, Quinonez Suit Says

BRONX BAR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Cortes Suit Says
BURKHALTER TECHNOLOGIES: Green Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
CAMPING WORLD: Geis Hits Share Price Drop from Misleading Reports
CAREER CONNECTIONS: Harvey File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CEVA LOGISTICS: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

CGS METAL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Du Suit Says
CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan's Bid to Certify Tossed Over Settlement Talk
COCA-COLA CO: Garcia Appeals Decision in Nelson Suit to 9th Cir.
COMFORT SYSTEMS: FLSA Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Maddison"
CONAGRA BRANDS: Court Dismisses Rosenblatt Class Action

CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Drop Merger-Related Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Vargas Class Suit
COOPER TSMITH: Wisniakowski Seeks Overtime Wages for Stevedores
DASH LUBE: Moreno Sues over Wage & Hour Violations

DINE BRANDS: Mullen Hits Applebee's Wheelchair Inaccessibility
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
DIRECTV LLC: Nationwide Class & Subclass Certified in Brown Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Gentile Sues Over Time-barred Debt
DRILTECH LLC: Brackett Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DUPAGE MEDICAL: Hardy Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Technicians
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ojeda Seeks to Certify Class of Texas Consumers
EAST CAPITOL: Seeks Final Approval of Kinard Class Settlement
ENCLARITY INC: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Fulton Suit
ENTEGRIS INC: Garfield Challenges Merger Deal with Versum

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Crosby Hits Illegal Access to Personal Info
EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Russell Moves for Workers Class Certification
ERIC RYAN CORP: Court Denies Gorss' Bid to Certify TCPA Class
EXXON MOBIL: Thomas Wheeler Sues over Royalty Payments
FACEBOOK INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class of Managers

FARMERS GROUP: May File Opposition Under Seal in Grigson Suit
FAT ALLEY INC: Aldama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
FEDERAL NATIONAL: FHFA Appeals Ruling in Banneck Suit to 9th Cir.
FINANCE SYSTEM: Sandri Appeals E.D. Wisc. Decision to 7th Circuit
FINANCIAL COLLECTION: Plumb Sues Over Vague Collection Letter

FIRST KEY HOMES: Drake Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
FREEDOM FOREVER: Faces Cooley Suit over Autodialed Calls
GARRISON PROPERTY: Roberts Insurance Row Removed to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
GEORGE'S INC: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class of Supervisors

GLOWMAR INC: Bodan Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GODADDY.COM LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Bennett Suit
GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD: Sandlin's Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn
GREATBANC TRUST: McMaken's Class Cert. Bid Denied Without Prejudice
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Wallace Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit

HEALTHY HALO: Hicke Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
HENKEL OF AMERICA: Duran Files Suit Over Misleading Product Label
HSN INC: Jewell Files Consumer Credit Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
IC SYSTEMS INC: Gentile Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
ILLINOIS: Class Certification Sought in Ford Human Rights Suit

INTERTAPE POLYMER: Duquette Sues Over Unlawful Compensation Scheme
JACKSON HEWITT: Endres Suit Asserts Sherman Act Violation
JIM & LINDA'S: Deiner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
JOHN ALLAN'S: Peralta et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Salon Staff
KIEWIT CORPORATION: Avila Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

KRAFT HEINZ: Hedick Hits Stock Drop from Internal Control Flaw
KRAKOWSKI TRUCKING: Gallam Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
LLR INC: Van Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 9th Circuit
LOCAL 1175 FUND: Two Subclasses Certified in Hoeffner Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Renews Bid for Prelim. Approval of Elliott Settlement

MDL 2709: 16 State Classes Certified in Motor Oil Litigation
MICHIGAN: Certification of Prisoners Class Sought in Theriot Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brooker Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letters
MIDTOWN CATCH: Rivera Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
N&A PRODUCTIONS: Aguilar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

NATIONAL BASKETBALL: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Abdul-Aziz Suit
NATIONAL COMMERCE: Bushansky Seeks to Halt Merger Deal
NATIONAL DOCUMENT: Fridman Sues for Invasion of Privacy
NCAA: Aldrich Seeks Damages Over Student-Athlete's Injuries
NCAA: Graham Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries

NORTH CAROLINA: Two Classes of Drivers Certified in Johnson Suit
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Rennick Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
NYU LANGONE: Arroyo Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
OHIO EDUCATION: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lee Class Suit
OOMA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Dolemba Class Action

OOMA INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Barnett Class Action
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Recupero et al. Balk at Smith & Nephew Merger
PANORAMA RESTAURANT: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
POVERELLO CENTER: Satchell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
QUORUM HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Zwick Partners Suit

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Removes TCPA Suit to Northern Dist. of Illinois
RREM INC: Boyd Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
SALT RIVER PROJECT: Sued for Alleged Discriminatory Pricing Scheme
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated NY Class Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Removes Labor Suit to N.D. California
SONAAL INDUSTRIES: Sandoval Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Campbell v. SCDC
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Shortchanges Drivers' Overtime Pay, Says Suit
SPC MANAGEMENT: Lopez Brings Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York

STEELMASTER INDUSTRIES: Wooton Seeks to Certify Laborers Class
STEVE MOORE: Reichbart Sues over Unwanted Unsolicited Telemarketing
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Appeals Ruling in Cadillo Suit to 3rd Cir.
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Anderson Class Action Underway
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Warciak Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling to 7th Cir.

T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAYLOR, MI: Attar 2018 Files Class Certification Bid
TENARIS SA: Faces 2 Class Suits over Argentine Court Probe
TEXAS FARM: Class of Contractors Certified in English FLSA Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class of Camry Purchasers Certified in Salas Suit

TRANSPORT-U: Taylor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
UNITED AIR: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Johnson BIPA Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Sues over Arbitrary Medical Policy
URBANICA MANAGEMENT: Coutin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
US XPRESS: Faces Stein Suit over Initial Public Offering

VL DELIGHTS: Cafe Worker Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VOCATIONAL TRAINING: Underpays Instructors, Karna Alleges
WAL-MART STORES: Bakov Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
WUXI PHARMATECH: Faces Altimeo Securities Class Action

                            *********

ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, 2018, that a motion to
dismiss in the case entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC, has been filed.

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.
The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).

On October 5, 2018, the court appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint"), which supersedes the initial complaints.

The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between October 7, 2015 and April 3,
2017 and alleges that the Company and certain of its current
officers and one former executive violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements and/or omitting to
disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends
negatively impacting sales of the Company's products and (ii)
overstated our ability to achieve profitable sales growth.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Acuity Brands said, "We dispute the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims in the complaints. We have
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint."

Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


AETNA INC: Court Denies Peters' Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. AETNA INC., AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C.).

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters filed this
putative class action against the Defendants asserting claims
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  She
contends that the Aetna-Optum arrangement wrongfully allowed Optum
to "bury" its administrative fees in claims, and that Aetna misled
her by representing these administrative fees as medical expenses.

The Plaintiff sought to represent two classes:

   (1) Plan Claim Class:

       All participants or beneficiaries of self-insured ERISA
       health insurance plans administered by Aetna for which
       plan responsibility for a claim was assessed using an
       agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the
       provider's contracted rate with Optum for the treatment
       provided; and

   (2) Member Claim Class:

       All participants or beneficiaries of ERISA health
       insurance plans insured or administered by Aetna for whom
       coinsurance responsibility for a claim was assessed using
       an agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the
       provider's contracted rate with Optum for the treatment
       provided.

In his memorandum of decision and order, Judge Reidinger concludes
that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there exists a
class of participants, who have actually been harmed by the
Aetna-Optum arrangement.  Judge Reidinger notes that the absence of
proof of injury is not the only shortcoming in the Plaintiff's
evidence.

Judge Reidinger also opines that the Plaintiff's flawed methodology
for determining class membership also reflects a lack of
commonality among the putative class members.  "A proposed class
challenging conduct that did not harm--and in fact benefitted--some
proposed class members fails to establish the commonality required
for certification," Judge Reidinger adds.[CC]



AIR EVAC EMS: Hundley's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., denied as moot the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled CONNIE R.
HUNDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., d/b/a AirMedCare Network; MED-TRANS
CORPORATION; and MATTHEW ELLIS, Case No. 2:16-cv-12428 (S.D.W.
Va.).

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as:

    "All West Virginia consumers who purchased or renewed a
     membership from Defendant Air Evac from July 25, 2012 to the
     date of certification."

Ms. Hundley does not seek class certification for all her claims,
but only that under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

According to its memorandum opinion and order, the Court entered a
memorandum opinion and order in response to the Defendants' motions
to dismiss, filed December 29, 2016, and February 2, 2017.  The
Court therein dismissed the Plaintiff's WVCCPA claim.  Accordingly,
the claim for which the Plaintiff seeks to certify her class has
been dismissed and her motion is moot.[CC]


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Asks Court to Deny Dorfman's Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT DORFMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S, LLC,
a Delaware corporation, doing business in California as SAV-ON
PHARMACY, Case No. 1:18-cv-00094-EJL (D. Idaho), files with the
Court its second motion to deny class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(C)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Albertsons moves the Court (i) to deny class certification, and
(ii) to award to Albertsons all other relief that it deems
equitable and just.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel McCarthy, Esq.
          MCCARTHY LAW, PLLC
          802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 201
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 343-8888
          Facsimile: (208) 342-4200
          E-mail: gabe@gabrielmccarthy.com

               - and -

          Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
          James A. Tabb, Esq.
          ZAVERI TABB, APC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 831-6988
          Facsimile: (619) 239-7800
          E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com
                  jimmy@zaveritabb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Brittany Casola, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcasola@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason E. Prince, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Grande, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          800 W. Main Street, Suite 1750
          P.O. Box 2527
          Boise, ID 83701-2527
          Telephone: (208) 342-5000
          Facsimile: (208) 343-8869
          E-mail: jeprince@hollandhart.com
                  asgrande@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-4949
          Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
          E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
                  meisen@beneschlaw.com


ALLEGIANT AIR: Certification of Class Sought in Douglas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Debra M. Douglas, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Allegiant Air, LLC,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01064-JL (D.N.H.), asks the Court to certify this
class:

     All natural persons whose personally identifiable
     information in the form of email addresses, were disclosed
     in two group emails from Allegiant dated November 8, and
     November 11, 2018.

Ms. Douglas also asks the Court to appoint her to serve as class
representative, to appoint her counsel as class counsel, and to
direct her to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice
within a reasonable time.

The lawsuit is brought for damages, and other legal and equitable
remedies, resulting from the actions of Allegiant in sending a
group e-mail on November 8, 2018, announcing a new Emotional
Support Service or Psychiatric Service Animal policy.  The e-mail
contained over 400 e-mail addresses with a majority of the
addresses including the name of the airline passenger
involved.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C.
          14 South Street, Suite 5
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224-1988
          E-mail: chuck@nhlawoffice.com


ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Ct. Denies Prelim. OK of $2.5MM Douglas Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara ruled that the Court cannot
preliminarily approve in its current structure the settlement
agreement in the lawsuit styled KIRK DOUGLAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES, ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC, ALLIED
SECURITY HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 17-CV-6093-SJB (E.D.N.Y.).

Under the proposed settlement, Allied would pay a gross settlement
amount of $2,520,000, including $740,000 in attorney's fees,
$70,000 in costs, a $20,000 service award for Douglas, and $52,000
in employer-side taxes, with a net settlement amount of
$1,638,000.

On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff Kirk Douglas brought this action, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against the
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
On November 30, 2018, Douglas filed an unopposed motion for class
and collective certification and preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement reached with Allied.

According to the order, the proposed settlement is a hybrid class
and collective action resolution.  A FLSA collective would cover
employees who worked for Allied at JFK Airport between October 18,
2014 and the present, while a NYLL class would cover employees who
worked there between September 1, 2013 and the present.

In his order, Judge Bulsara states that the proposed settlement
ignores the special complexities attendant to approval of a
settlement of FLSA claims in this Circuit--complexities resulting
from the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake
House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).

The Court first alerted the parties to these issues by Order dated
December 20, 2018, after the parties had submitted a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement, but failed to cite, let
alone address, Cheeks, Judge Bulsara notes.  He adds that the
parties' additional submissions have not resolved the various
issues that are present in the agreement, and as a result, the
Court cannot approve the proposed settlement.

Among other things, Judge Bulsara opines that the parties have
failed to provide the Court sufficient information to conduct a
Cheeks review of the proposed settlement.  He notes that the Court
lacks information on the potential or actual wage rate, the hours
worked, or the number of members of the collective.  He adds that
other components of the Cheeks review cannot be completed--namely,
an evaluation of the litigation risks and the reasonableness of
attorney's fees and costs.

Judge Bulsara directs the parties to provide a revised settlement
agreement by April 26, 2019, along with a memorandum of law that
explains the propriety of the new proposed settlement consistent
with his Order.[CC]


ALSCO INC: Rodrigues Seeks Regular and OT Wages for Laundry Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO A. RODRIGUES and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. ALSCO INC., the Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00709-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, as well as
retaliation by the Defendant.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted full-time
laundry employee, from October 26, 2018, to February 26, 2019, or
17 weeks plus 4 days. The Plaintiff had duties as a regular
commercial laundry employee including receiving sorting, washing,
drying, ironing, repairing work, folding, packing etc. The
Plaintiff main duty consisted on manual repetitive non-exempted
work. While employed by the Defendant, Plaintiff worked more than
40 hours every week, but he was not paid for overtime hours under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff completed 63.5 hours
per week but was unable to take bona-fide lunch periods.

The Plaintiff was paid a salary of $1,100.00 weekly, with checks
and paystubs that did not show the real number of hours worked. The
Plaintiff worked 63.5 hours weekly, but he was not paid for
overtime hours. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but
Defendant was able to track the hours worked by him. Therefore, the
Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of
time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendant is a linen service company that provides commercial
linen and uniforms rental and laundry services.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

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

AMAZON.COM: Gilbert Enterprises Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GILBERT ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
corporation; ERIC SPENCER, and STEVEN SWANER, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMAZON.COM, a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; MARK ANDREW HASKINS; JOHN SEELY BROWN;
WILLIAM B. GORDON; ALAIN MONIE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 56 2019-00523685-CU-OE-VTA was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 1, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02453.

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of
customers and a representative action on behalf of technicians
related to the use of Amazon Home Services ("AHS"), which is an
online marketplace where consumers can purchase home services from
third-party providers.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:

     Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
     Joseph Duffy, Esq.
     Meghan Phillips, Esq.
     Megan McDonough, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Avenue
     Twenty-Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Phone: +1.213.612.2500
     Fax: +1.213.612.2501
     Email: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
            jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com

          - and -

     Brian C. Rocca, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     One Market, Spear Street Tower
     San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
     Phone: +1.415.442.1000
     Fax: +1.415.442.1001
     Email: brian.rocca@morganlewis.com


AMAZON.COM: Judge Set to Hear Class Action on April 18
------------------------------------------------------
Fortune's Josh Eidelson and Sarah Frier, and Bloomberg report that
Facebook said it will make major changes to its rules for
advertisers in order to settle a string of lawsuits alleging its
platform enables discrimination in housing, credit and employment.

"Getting this right is deeply important to me and all of us at
Facebook," Sheryl Sandberg, the company's chief operating officer,
said in a blog post to be published on March 19. The social media
platform called the settlement "historic" and expressed gratitude
to the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil
Liberties Union, two of the groups that sued it in the first place.
"Today's changes mark an important step in our broader effort to
prevent discrimination and promote fairness and inclusion on
Facebook."

The partial resolution of long-running litigation over
discriminatory ad strategies is a rare bit of good news for the
embattled company. The Menlo Park, California-based internet giant,
criticized for years about privacy breaches, hate speech and its
use by Russia and others to interfere with elections, has been
under intense scrutiny when an alleged gunman livestreamed the mass
murder of 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand.

As part of the settlement, Facebook will no longer allow housing,
employment or credit ads to be targeted to particular users by age,
gender or zip codes. Facebook said it also won't consider those
categories when it creates "Lookalike" audiences -- based on a
profile of a company's current employees or consumers -- as a
target for a particular ad.

Companies using Facebook to run housing, employment or credit ads
will have to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The
ads will be vetted by Facebook for compliance, using both human
staff and automation, the company said. People perusing the
platform's ads for housing opportunities will be able to look up
those targeted at users around the country -- even if they're not
one of them.

"It's a huge deal," said ACLU senior staff attorney Galen Sherwin
of the settlement. "It will cause Facebook to make sweeping changes
to its platform."

Facebook said that, while the new restrictions may make it harder
for some advertisers to achieve their goals, it doesn't expect the
changes to have a significant impact on its own revenue. The
company said it still believes that advertising targeted at
specific demographics can be appropriate in some, unspecified
circumstances.

The settlement resolves three lawsuits and several Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission complaints over the social network's
advertising. As part of the accord, the company will pay around $5
million in legal fees and compensation to consumers and job-seekers
allegedly excluded from opportunities advertised on the platform.

Facebook said it will also study the potential for unintended bias
in its algorithms, and will meet with the plaintiff groups every
six months for the next three years to discuss implementation of
the changes. Those groups include the Communications Workers of
America (CWA) union as well as civil rights and housing
organizations.

The deal doesn't resolve a lawsuit filed by the CWA and a group of
job-seekers against Amazon.com, T-Mobile and hundreds of other
employers and employment agencies accused of using Facebook's tools
to filter out older job-hunters. On April 17, a federal judge in
San Jose, California, is slated to hear arguments on whether to let
that case proceed as a class action.

"It's critically important that all of the companies that have
misused Facebook's advertising tools in the past be held
accountable," said attorney Peter Romer-Friedman, who represents
plaintiffs in the settling cases, the proposed class action and
dozens of pending EEOC claims. "Wherever they advertise, whether
it's a hiring hall or a job fair or through a server in Silicon
Valley, it's got to be equal. We want every company to agree to
principles of equality for the future." [GN]


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORP: Cup Seeks Prelim. Okay of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RONALD A. CUP, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated; and UNITED STEEL,
PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL, AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO v.
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, AKERS NATIONAL ROLL COMPANY, and
AKERS NATIONAL ROLL COMPANY HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00189-AJS (W.D. Pa.), move for:

   (1) class certification of the Settlement Class (as defined in
       the Settlement Agreement) for settlement purposes only;

   (2) preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   (3) approval of the proposed Class Notice; and

   (4) entry of an order setting a date for a hearing on the
       fairness of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
       Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
       along with other pertinent dates.

The parties have entered into a proposed settlement and have also
agreed on a proposed Class Notice.[CC]

Plaintiff United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, is represented by:

          Nathan Kilbert, Esq.
          ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
          UNITED STEELWORKERS
          Five Gateway Plaza, Room 807
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 562-2562
          E-mail: nkilbert@usw.org

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com


APPLIED INTEGRATED: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eric Cooper filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Eric Cooper v. Applied Integrated Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01561-HZ, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland.

The nature of suit is stated "Labor/Management Relations Act."

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Cooper v. Applied
Integrated Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-35239, 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 24, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 24, 2019;

   -- Appellant Eric Cooper's opening brief is due on July 3,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on August 5, 2019;

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC COOPER, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, is represented by:

          David A. Schuck, Esq.
          SCHUCK LAW, LLC
          208 E. 25th Street
          Vancouver, WA 98663
          Telephone: (360) 566-9243
          E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org

Defendant-Appellee APPLIED INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a foreign
corporation, is represented by:

          Mark Alan Crabtree, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1205
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 229-0404
          E-mail: Mark.Crabtree@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          April L. Upchurch, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          520 Pike Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 405-0404
          E-mail: April.Fredrickson@jacksonlewis.com


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James M. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, for
Disclosure of Contact Information and to Send Notices in the
lawsuit entitled TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE
CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.).

The Plaintiff sought certification of a class pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

     All Care Coordinators for Arkansas Total Care, Inc. and
     Centene Corporation at any time since August 27, 2015.

Judge Moody approves the form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff.
The Court orders the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
Plaintiff the names and addresses of all persons who were employed
by them as Care Coordinators during the specific time within
fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order.  The Defendant
shall provide the information in electronic format only if it is
currently maintained in electronic format.  The Court authorizes a
90-day opt-in period from the date the notice is mailed.

The lawyers for the Plaintiff are authorized to issue the notice
and consent forms by mail.  They are also authorized to send a
reminder postcard thirty days after the initial notice is mailed.

The Plaintiff's request to provide notice via electronic mailing or
text message is denied.[CC]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Hits Share Drop from Camera Flaw
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Hill, Edward Kang, Mike Tischler and Ryan Riley individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
Arlo Technologies, Inc., Matthew Mcrae, Christine M. Gorjanc,
Patrick C.S. Lo, Andrew W. Kim, Ralph E. Faison, Jocelyn E.
Carter-Miller, Grady K. Summers, Netgear, Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities LLC,
Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Raymond James Associates, Inc., Cowen
And Company, LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC, and Does 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00687 (S.D. Ind., February 15, 2019),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Arlo designs and markets intelligent internet-connected products
for homes and businesses that provide security and safety. On
August 6, 2018, Arlo went public and issued 11,747,250 shares of
common stock at $16.00 per share.

On December 3, 2018, Arlo revealed that the release of its newest
product, the Arlo Ultra security camera, would be delayed until
after the holiday season due to a quality issue with the battery
and reduced its fourth quarter 2018 earnings guidance. On this
news, the price of Arlo common shares declined approximately 23%
from the previous trading day to $9.28 per share on December 3,
2018, 42% below the IPO price. For the full year 2018, Arlo
reported a net loss of $68.4 million compared to a profit of $6.5
million for 2017. On this news, Arlo's stock price plummeted 49%,
from a closing price of $7.57 per share on February 5, 2019 to a
closing price of $3.86 per share on February 6, 2019, almost 76%
below the price at which over $187 million worth of Arlo common
shares had been sold to investors in the IPO just six months
prior.

Plaintiffs purchased or acquired Arlo common stock during the IPO
and lost substantially.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marion C. Passmore, Esq.
     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     101 California Street, Suite 2710
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 365-7149
     Email: passmore@bespc.com
            fortunato@bespc.com

            - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastian Tornatore, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
     Stamford, CT 06905
     Tel: (203) 992-4523
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com
            stornatore@zlk.com


ASAP COURIER: Almanza Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Loida Almanza, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. ASAP Courier & Logistics, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-60458, (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2019), seeks to recover
regular wages, overtime compensation, retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ASAP Courier and Logistics, LLC operates as "Need It Now Delivers"
a logistics company that provides courier, pick-up, and delivery
services in the areas of Miami-Dade County, Broward, and Palm Beach
County. Almanza worked as a courier driver from approximately
September 27, 2018 through October 22, 2018. She claims to have
worked a minimum of 84 hours weekly and was not paid for overtime
hours at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate for every
hour that she worked in excess of forty per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVIS BUDGET: Ct. Certifies Class of Vehicle Renters in Venerus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza issued an order in the lawsuit titled
HEATHER VENERUS v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC and BUDGET
RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:13-cv-00921-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla.):

   1. denying the Defendants' Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for
      Lack of Article III Standing and Defendants' Motion for
      Relief from Final Judgment;

   2. granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time
      to File Motion for Taxation of Costs;

   3. designating the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   4. designating Edmund Normand, Esq., Jacob Phillips, Esq., and
      Christopher J. Lynch, Esq., as class counsel; and

   5. setting the matter for a telephonic hearing on April 10,
      2019, at 10:30 a.m., to discuss the appropriate steps
      necessary to bring this litigation to a conclusion,
      including class notice, briefing of the damages issue, and
      whether the parties are inclined to engage in a settlement
      conference.

The Court redefines the Class as follows:

     All individuals who (1) rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in
     the State of Florida after June 12, 2008, pursuant to a
     prepaid voucher, and (2) whose Rental Receipt contained the
     notation "SLI .00/Day Accepted" or "ALI .00/Day Accepted.

     Excluded from the Class are all such renters who have been
     involved in accidents and who have outstanding claims for
     liability or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, as
     well as all such renters whose liability or
     uninsured/underinsured motorist claims have been paid by
     Defendants.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Birmingham Employees' Fund Hits Bond Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Electrical Workers
Pension Fund LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., and Local 103, I.B.E.W. Health
Benefit Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank PLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., First
Tennessee Bank, N.A., FTN Financial Securities Corp., Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J. P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and UBS Securities LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01704 (S.D. N.Y., February 22, 2019),
asserts claims for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the
Clayton Act.

Defendants are dealers of debt issued by the Federal National
Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
unsecured bond issuances.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System is a public pension
fund that provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to
eligible civil service employees, elected officials and appointed
employees of the City of Birmingham, Alabama. It had transacted
directly with the Defendants for these instruments and claim that
it was overcharged or underpaid in these transactions as a direct
result of an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of the bonds.

Defendants allegedly charge inflated, supracompetitive prices for
newly issued bonds that they sold to investors after acquiring them
from the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-233-4565
     Facsimile: 619-233-0508
     Email: cburke@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
     Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
     BERMAN TABACCO
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel.: (415) 433-3200
     Fax: (415) 433-6282
     Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
            chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com

            - and -

     Vincent Briganti, Esq.
     Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
     Christian Levis, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
     44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: (914) 997-0500
     Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
     Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
            rstlouis@lowey.com
            clevis@lowey.com

            - and -

     George A. Zelcs, Esq.
     Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
     Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
     KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
     205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 641-9750
     Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
     Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
            rewing@koreintillery.com
            rcortazar@koreintillery.com

            - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     P.O. Box 192
     156 South Main Street
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Telephone: (860) 537-5537
     Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
     Email: alawrence@scott-scott.com
            david.scott@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
     BERMAN TABACCO
     One Liberty Square
     Boston, MA 02109
     Tel: (617) 542-8300
     Fax: (617) 542-1194
     Email: lstern@bermantabacco.com

            - and -

     Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
     One Tower Bridge
     100 Front Street, Suite 520
     West Conshohocken, PA
     Tel: (215) 399-4770
     Fax: (610) 862-9777

            - and -

     Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
     Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
     KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
     505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: (314) 241-4844
     Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
     Email: sberezney@koreintillery.com
            mklenov@koreintillery.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Int'l. Assoc. Fund Sues Over FFB Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers Local No. 14 Pension and Health and Welfare Funds,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS
CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; FIRST TENNESSEE
BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02661 (S.D. N.Y., March 25, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the
Defendants for their violations of law from at least January 1,
2009 through April 27, 2014.

The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division has
initiated a criminal investigation into price-fixing in the $550
billion secondary market for debt issued by Federal National
Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation("Freddie Mac"), ("FFBs").

The Defendants were the dominant Approved FFB Dealers in the
primary market for FFBs. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue FFBs (the
"FFB Issuance Process") in the primary market to Approved FFB
Dealers who, in turn, establish the secondary market for certain
FFBs. The secondary market for FFBs operates as a massive
"over-the-counter" market. That is, FFBs do not trade on a national
exchange or transparent market. Rather, if an investor, such as
Plaintiff, wishes to purchase an FFB, the investor must generally
transact directly with an employee (i.e., a salesperson or trader)
of an Approved FFB Dealer, such as the Defendants, over a computer
network and/or by phone to receive a price quote.

The Defendants are alleged to have colluded to manipulate the
prices of FFBs in the secondary market in order to extract supra
competitive profits for themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and
members of the Class. The Defendants' alleged agreement to restrain
trade in the FFB market is one of many instances of unlawful
collusion and price-fixing in the various financial markets in
which many of these same Defendants purported to compete during the
Class Period. Plaintiffs believe that additional evidentiary
support for their allegations will be revealed after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery, particularly given the widespread and
secretive nature of many of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct
and the DOJ's ongoing criminal investigation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a pension fund and health and welfare fund
administered on behalf of the International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local No. 14, with headquarters
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Defendants are the largest dealers in both the primary and
secondary markets for FFBs. Defendants sell FFBs to and buy FFBs
from investors, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class, in the
secondary market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 559-9740
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4606
     Email: dwalker@bm.net

          - and -

     Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
     Michael J. Kane, Esq.
     Mark R. Suter, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile (215) 875-4604
     Email: mdellangelo@bm.net
            mkane@bm.net
            msuter@bm.net


BAREBURGER GROUP: Rosenberg Says Organic Product Label Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Rosenberg individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bareburger Group LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01634-DLI-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019), contends
that the Defendant deliberately promoted and continues to promote
its non-organic menu options in a deceptive way to obtain the
premium prices consumers are willing to pay, based on the fact that
some of the menu items are actually organic.

Bareburger Group LLC processes, co-mingles, transforms, labels,
advertises and sells prepared meals at its Bareburger restaurants.
The Products include burgers (meat and vegetable), chicken and
fried potatoes, represented as "Organic" at Defendant's
restaurants. The Products are available to consumers at no fewer
than 47 restaurants operated, franchised, controlled and managed by
defendant in states including New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, New
York, California and Florida.  The Products and Restaurants are
represented as "Organic" through the prominent placement of
"Organic" (i) next to the brand name, (ii) on store fronts, store
boards, signage and awnings, (iii) as a descriptor to its burgers,
salads, etc., (iv) menu sections, (v) digital and non-digital
marketing.Defendant is aware of the importance of labeling its
Products "Organic" -- stating that "It's better for you".

However, recent reports have cast doubt on the Defendant's
products. For example, the Defendant has described their beef
patties as "organic grass-fed burgers" that were made of a
proprietary "organic blend." Beef packages being delivered to the
Restaurants lacked the conspicuous "certified organic" seal of the
United States Department of Agriculture, according to the NY Times.
The Defendant's executives also have confirmed that approximately
75% to 80% of the burgers were organic, not 100%, contrary to the
labels.  The Defendant's "Organic" restaurants also have countless
non-organic ingredients including lamb and bison and mayonnaise and
tomatoes -- crucial condiments when it comes to dressing up a
purportedly organic burger.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1460 Walton Blvd
          Rochester Hills, MI 48309
          Telephone: 248 650-5366
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

BARTON HEALTHCARE: Guy Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Guy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BARTON HEALTHCARE, L.L.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH04264 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., April 2, 2019) is brought
pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure against Defendant,
its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"),
specifically to regulate companies that collect, store and use
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
Defendant disregards their employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Patricia Guy worked for Barton as Certified Nursing
Assistant from September 2018 to January 2019.

Defendant Barton Healthcare, L.L.C, is a healthcare corporation
that operates supportive living and behavioral health facilities in
Chicagoland and Central Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BRAVO NADER: Does not Pay Min., Overtime Wages, Quinonez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Siomara Celeste Escriu Quinonez (a.k.a. Celeste Escriu),
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Bravo Nader Inc (d/b/a Bravo! Nader), and Nader Edmond Gebrin,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01796 (E.D. N.Y., March 28, 2019)
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Plaintiff Escriu is a former employee of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian Restaurant, located
at 9 Union Pl, Huntington, NY 11743 under the name "Bravo!
Nader".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRONX BAR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Cortes Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Moises Cortes, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The Bronx Bar and Grill, LLC, doing business as "Mott
Haven Bar & Grill", or any other business entity doing business as
"Mott Haven Bar & Grill", and Rosa Garcia, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02819 (S.D. N.Y., March 29, 2019)
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages; unpaid overtime
compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he
worked in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages and statutory
penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was paid the same regular rate
for all hours worked, without an overtime premium for hours worked
in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff did not receive tips in
connection with his employment.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Moises Cortes was continuously employed by Defendants,
between January 2018 through December 2018.

Defendant, The Bronx Bar and Grill, LLC, dba "Mott Haven Bar &
Grill", is a domestic limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone (212) 209-3933
     Email: pcooper@cpclaw.com


BURKHALTER TECHNOLOGIES: Green Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Mikaylah Green, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Burkhalter Technologies, Inc., and John
Burkhalter, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00215-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
March 28, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all
other hourly-paid employees who lived on premises lawful overtime
compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants violated the FLSA and the AMWA by not including all
forms of compensation, such as rent discounts and commissions for
Plaintiff, other leasing agents and other hourly-paid employees who
lived on-premises, in their regular rate when calculating their
overtime pay, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a leasing agent from around
April of 2018 until around January of 2019.

Burkhalter Technologies, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit corporation
headquartered in central Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve Rauls, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CAMPING WORLD: Geis Hits Share Price Drop from Misleading Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Geis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., Marcus A.
Lemonis, Thomas F. Wolfe, Andris A. Bal Tins, Brian P. Cassidy,
Jeffrey A. Marcus, K. Dillon Schickli, Stephen Adams, Goldman
Sachs, & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated,
Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC,
Stephens, Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2019CH02404 (Ill. Cir, February 22, 2019), seeks redress
for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933.

Camping World specializes in selling recreational vehicles and
related services such as travel assist programs, emergency roadside
assistance, property and casualty insurance programs, extended
vehicle service contracts and vehicle financing and refinancing.
Camping World went public in a $261 million initial public
offering.

Geis alleges that Camping World's financial report failed to
disclose the lack of deferral of a portion of roadside assistance
policies sold with the sale of vehicles, that a portion of certain
vendor rebates was applied against the related inventory balances,
the intercompany allocation of certain revenue from new and used
vehicles to consumer services and plans was eliminated and
intercompany markup between costs was applied to new and used
vehicles.

On this news, the price of Camping World stock declined. Between
February 26, 2018 and March 2, 2018, the price of Camping World
Class A common stock dropped $4.63 per share, or more than 10%, on
abnormally high trading volume. Geis invested in Camping World
stock and lost upon correcting disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
      HEFFNER HURST
      30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-3466
      Facsimile: (312) 346-2829
      Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com


CAREER CONNECTIONS: Harvey File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jarmel Harvey, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Career Connections Associates LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-02869 (S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2019)
alleges on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated current
and former employees who worked for the Defendant and who elect to
opt into this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), that he and they are: entitled to unpaid wages from
Defendant for working more than forty hours in a week and not being
paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for
each and all such hours over forty in a week; entitled to unpaid
minimum wages from Defendant for working and being paid less than
the applicable federal minimum wage rate for each hour worked for
Defendant in a week; and entitled to maximum liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees.

The Defendant had a policy of only paying Plaintiff for 48 hours
worked per week at his straight regular rate and did not pay
Plaintiff any wages for the remaining hours worked in each week of
his employment to date, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery helper.

Career Connections Associates LLC provides recruiting services for
permanent placement, temporary staffing, contract, and
temporary-to-permanent staffing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-355-9668


CEVA LOGISTICS: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
Clarence C. Bell, III, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., Randstad Inhouse
Services, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. RG1824189
filed on November 15, 2018, was removed from California Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on February 22, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01358.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of alleged wage and hour violations
over their failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements
and failure to timely pay all final wages.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Lander, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (323) 549-9100, (323) 302-9675
      Fax: (7323) 549-0101
      Website: https://www.kbarneslaw.com/

             - and -

      Raphael Albert Katri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A KATRI
      8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Phone: (310) 940-2034
      Fax Number: (310) 733-5644
      Email: rkatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
      Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      50 California Street, 9th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
      Telephone: (415) 394-9400
      Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
      E-mail: fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
              mariko.ashley@jacksonlewis.com


CGS METAL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Du Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Ming Du, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CGS METAL FABRICATION INC. and GUO SHENG
CHEN a/k/a "SAM" CHEN, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 1:19-cv-01821
(E.D. Wis., March 29, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act, ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising
from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, as well as failing to
provide their employees, including Plaintiffs, with wage notice at
the time of hiring and wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a Welder and Metal Fabricator by
Defendants from March 19, 2018 to March 8, 2019.

Defendant CGS Metal Fabrication INC. is a corporation incorporated
under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan's Bid to Certify Tossed Over Settlement Talk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class in the lawsuit titled JESSICA
HOGAN, et al. v. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SIRENS, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

According to the order, the parties have notified the Court that
they are finalizing the terms of a settlement agreement with the
Sirens Defendants.

"In light of this, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Supporting
Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 166), Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 179), Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply (ECF No. 188), Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class (ECF
Nos. 193, 195), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 194) are MOOT and are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,"
Judge Marbley ruled.[CC]



COCA-COLA CO: Garcia Appeals Decision in Nelson Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant and Proposed Intervenor Ernesto Garcia filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Karen Nelson v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-02225-GPC-MSB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on September 25, 2018.

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

The Coca-Cola Company is an American corporation, and manufacturer,
retailer, and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and
syrups.  The Company is best known for its flagship product
Coca-Cola, invented in 1886 by pharmacist John Stith Pemberton in
Atlanta, Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen Nelson v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 19-55355, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Ernesto Garcia's opening brief is due on May 28,
      2019;

   -- Appellees Karen Nelson and The Coca-Cola Company's
      answering brief is due on June 28, 2019; and

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

Movant-Appellant ERNESTO GARCIA, Proposed Intervenor, of Miami,
Florida, appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KAREN NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101  
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

Defendant-Appellee THE COCA-COLA COMPANY is represented by:

          Michelle Waller Cohen, Esq.
          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: mcohen@pbwt.com
                  jmetcalf@pbwt.com
                  sazalesin@pbwt.com


COMFORT SYSTEMS: FLSA Collective Action Cert. Sought in "Maddison"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN T. MADDISON and DAVID
WALTON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA (SYRACUSE), INC, d/b/a ABJ FIRE
PROTECTION CO., INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00359-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y.),
seeks an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

   a. permitting this case to proceed as a collective action;

   b. approving the Plaintiff's proposed collective action
      notice;

   c. compelling the Defendant to disclose immediately the names
      and last known addresses and telephone numbers of each
      hourly employee who 1) worked on fire alarm, sprinkler, or
      security system equipment for public customers, and/or 2)
      worked at the location of Defendant's customers; and

   d. permitting the Plaintiff to post the proposed collective
      action notice in common areas and break rooms at all of
      Defendant's locations.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 3, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
          E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Court Dismisses Rosenblatt Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2019, that the court has
dismissed the class action suit entitled, Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle
Foods Inc. et al.

On June 26, 2018, the company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Pinnacle Foods Inc. ("Pinnacle") under which the
company will acquire all outstanding shares of Pinnacle common
stock in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9
billion, including Pinnacle's outstanding net debt.

On August 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Pinnacle
Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2018-0605 (the "Rosenblatt Action").

The Rosenblatt Action alleged that the directors of Pinnacle
breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary
proxy statement that contained materially incomplete and misleading
information.

The Rosenblatt Action further alleged that Pinnacle, Conagra, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.

The Rosenblatt Action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
the merger or an award of rescissory damages should the merger be
consummated, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

Conagra and Pinnacle maintained that the Rosenblatt Action was
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss. Ultimately, the
plaintiff chose not to pursue the Rosenblatt Action and filed a
voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice. On January 30,
2019, the Court dismissed the case.

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, West Palm
Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.

The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits assert that the Company's
officers made material misstatements and omissions that caused the
market to have an unrealistically positive assessment of the
Company's financial prospects in light of the acquisition of
Pinnacle, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued
prior to the release of the Company's consolidated financial
results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal year
2019.

The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts will likely be
consolidated, was filed February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Conagra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Parties Agree to Drop Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2019, that the parties to the
consolidated merger-related class action suit have stipulated to
the dismissal of the case.

On June 26, 2018, the company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Pinnacle Foods Inc. ("Pinnacle") under which the
company will acquire all outstanding shares of Pinnacle common
stock in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9
billion, including Pinnacle's outstanding net debt.

On August 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alexander Rasmussen
v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12501.

On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Robert H. Paquette
v. Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12578.

On August 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of Pinnacle filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Wesley Lindquist v.
Pinnacle Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-12610.

On September 12, 2018, the Court consolidated the three New Jersey
Actions (the "Consolidated Actions"), each of which alleged that
Pinnacle's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on July
25, 2018, omitted material information with respect to the merger,
rendering it false and misleading and thus that Pinnacle and the
directors of Pinnacle violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as
well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Actions further alleged that the directors of
Pinnacle violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and sought to
enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement unless
Pinnacle disclosed the allegedly material information that was
allegedly omitted from the proxy statement, an award of damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On September 27, 2018, Pinnacle filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission containing supplemental
disclosures that substantially mooted the claims raised in the
Consolidated Actions regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures
in the proxy statement.

On October 4, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the
Consolidated Actions.

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Vargas Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In light of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order, the Hon.
Charles R. Norgle grants Defendant Thomas Dart's motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim in the lawsuit entitled JOSE VARGAS,
et al. v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01598 (N.D. Ill.).

Judge Norgle also:

   -- grants Defendants Toni Preckwinkle, in her official
      capacity, and Cook County's Motion to Dismiss;

   -- grants Defendant Toni Preckwinkle's motion to dismiss;

   -- dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' procedural due
      process claims, as set forth in Counts I and II of the
      First Amended Complaint;

   -- relinquishes jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' remaining
      state law claims;

   -- denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class;

   -- denies as moot Defendant Thomas Dart's motion to clarify
      the Court's May 9, 2019 Order; and

   -- terminates the civil case.[CC]




COOPER TSMITH: Wisniakowski Seeks Overtime Wages for Stevedores
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Wisniakowski On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Cooper/T.Smith Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01087 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Cooper/T.Smith under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employs stevedores, like Plaintiff, to carry out its
work at ports across the country. The Plaintiff, and the other
workers like him, regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.  But Defendant allegedly does not pay these
workers overtime for those hours. They are misclassified as exempt
and are not compensated beyond their salary for this overtime work,
the lawsuit says.

Cooper/T.Smith is one of the oldest and largest stevedoring and
maritime related firms. Through its various companies and
divisions, it provides stevedoring and terminal services (receiving
and delivery of cargo, weighing, sorting, clerking and sampling)
for break bulk and containerized cargo in Alabama, California,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina,
Texas and Virginia.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Marybeth E Mullaney, Esq.
          Mullaney Law LLC
          1037-D Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Suite 104
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: 843 588-5587
          Facsimile: 800 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

DASH LUBE: Moreno Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH
ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP., collectively d/b/a JIFFY LUBE,
PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH, POYA PAUL GHARDASH; and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00015568-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., March 22, 2019), is a representative action pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor
Code, on behalf of other current and former aggrieved employees of
Defendants for engaging in a pattern and practice of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees were required to work
beyond 40 hours in a single workweek and eight hours in a single
workday. The Defendants, however, maintained a company-wide policy
of refusing to pay their hourly employees, like Plaintiff and the
Aggrieved Employees, for all hours worked, including overtime.
Specifically, the Defendants maintained a company-wide pattern and
practice of altering employees' timecards to eliminate numerous
hours worked, including overtime hours. As a result, the Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved Employees all
minimum, regular and overtime wages for all hours worked in
violation of Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C 204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: JLAPUYADE@JCL-LAWFIRM.COM

               - and -

          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: JTHOMPSON@SOMMERSPC.COM
                  RJOHNSTON@SOMMERSPC.COM

DINE BRANDS: Mullen Hits Applebee's Wheelchair Inaccessibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bartley M. Mullen, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dine Brands Global, Inc.,
Applebee's International, Inc., Applebee's Restaurants LLC and
Applebee's Franchisor LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00198, (W.D.
Pa., February 22, 2019), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Defendants own, operate, lease and/or control Applebee's
restaurants throughout Pennsylvania and the United States. Mullen
is confined to a wheelchair and claims that he has difficulty in
accessing Defendants' establishments due to their failure to
provide accessible seating at the bar-counter dining surface. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
     Chad Throndset, Esq.
     THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
     Cornerstone Building
     One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
     St. Michael, MN 55376
     Tel: (763) 515-6110
     Fax: (763) 226-2515
     Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
            chad@throndsetlaw.com

            - and -

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
     Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
            kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
            bfox@carlsonlynch.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Diplomat
Pharmacy, Inc. (NYSE: DPLO) to the April 25, 2019 Lead Plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat Pharmacy securities
between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019 (the "class
period") and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.  For more information about the case:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/DPLO

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing DPLO@hbsslaw.com

According to the complaint, during the class period Defendants
misled investors about Diplomat's success in integrating and
growing its pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") business.

On February 22, 2019, Defendants' announced they delayed releasing
2018 financial results, expected to record PBM-related impairment
charges totaling approximately $630 million, and withdrew
preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in January 2019.

This news drove the price of Diplomat shares down $7.59, or down
about 56%, to close at $5.87 that day.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether Defendants'
statements about Diplomat's core PBM business may have misled
investors," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Diplomat should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information;
      
       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Telphone: 510-725-3000
       Website: www.hbsslaw.com
       Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
              DPLO@hbsslaw.com [GN]


DIRECTV LLC: Nationwide Class & Subclass Certified in Brown Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER BROWN v. DIRECTV,
LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-01170-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.).

The Court revises the Class and Subclass definition based on the
parties' briefing, the September 21, 2018 hearing, and the Court's
analysis in the order.

   1. The Court certifies this Nationwide Class:

      All persons residing within the United States who, within
      four years prior to and after the filing of this action,
      received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV
      and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt
      allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the
      use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not
      provide the cellular phone number called on an initial
      application for DIRECTV service;

   2. The Court certifies this Nationwide Subclass:

      All persons residing within the United States who, within
      four years prior to and after the filing of this action,
      received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV
      and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt
      allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the
      use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who were
      never DIRECTV customers.

   3. The Court certifies Jenny Brown as Class Representative and
      Lieff Cabraser Heinmann & Bernstein, LLP, Meyer Wilson Co.,
      LPA, and Burke Law Offices, LLC as class counsel;

   4. In light of this ruling, the Court rules that it need not
      address the Plaintiff's alternative argument to set aside
      Magistrate Judge Charles Eick's discovery ruling.

   5. If the Defendant intends to file a motion to compel
      arbitration as to class members' claims, the Court says
      that it shall do so by no later than April 12, 2019.
      The Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by April 26,
      2019.  The reply shall be filed by May 3, 2019.  The
      hearing on any such motion shall be on May 24, 2019, at
      10:00 a.m.[CC]


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Gentile Sues Over Time-barred Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martha Gentile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-60838-BB (S.D. Fla., March 29, 2019) asserts
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").

The Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt. The Debt was primarily
for personal, family or household purposes, namely, a personal
credit card account. In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff by letter dated March 6, 2018. The Letter was
the initial communication Plaintiff received from Defendant. The
statute of limitations on the Debt expired prior to the date of the
Letter. The Defendant knew the statute of limitations on the Debt
expired prior to the date of the Letter.

The Letter fails to inform Plaintiff that any payment on a
time-barred debt may result in revival of an otherwise time-barred
debt. The Letter also fails to inform Plaintiff that any promise to
pay a time-barred debt may result in revival of an otherwise
time-barred debt. Notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
limitations, the Letter fails to inform Plaintiff that any payment
by Plaintiff may result in the revival of Plaintiff's otherwise
time-barred debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Martha Gentile is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of Florida residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Diversified Consultants Inc. is a Florida Corporation with a
principal place of business in Duval County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


DRILTECH LLC: Brackett Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Brackett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Driltech, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00051 (W.D. Tex., February 21, 2019), seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

DrilTech is an oilfield services company providing directional
drilling services to its clients throughout the United States where
Brackett worked as an oilfield worker. She claims to have worked
more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com


DUPAGE MEDICAL: Hardy Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against DuPage Medical
Group (DMG) and Midwest Physician Administrative Services, LLC for
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum
Wage Law (IMWL). The case is captioned JENNIFER HARDY,
Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DUPAGE MEDICAL GROUP, LTD., and MIDWEST PHYSICIAN
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a BONCURA HEALTH SOLUTIONS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2019).

Representative Plaintiff Jennifer Hardy brings this action to
redress Defendants' violation of the FLSA by knowingly suffering or
permitting Hardy and other similarly situated medical technicians
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly
compensating them at an overtime rate for those additional hours,
and by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiffs to work during
their purported meal break without pay. Hardy also brings this
action to redress Defendants' violation of the IMWL by knowingly
and intentionally failing to pay Hardy and putative class members
all wages accruing to them on their regular paydays. Hardy and
similarly situated medical technicians worked for Defendants as
hourly-paid Computed Tomography Technicians, Ultrasound
Technicians, MRI Technicians, Radiology Technicians, and other
similar positions, regardless of their precise titles.

DMG is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois with its principal place of business located in Downers
Grove, Illinois. DMG is registered to conduct business in Illinois
and has business locations throughout the state. DMG is one of the
largest physician groups in Illinois, offering services in family
medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, women’s health,
oncology, immediate care, and more. It owns and operates more than
100 locations, employing over 700 physicians and handling upwards
of two million patient visits annually.

Boncura is a limited liability company and a subsidiary of DMG,
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. Boncura is a
physician-owned management services organization that offers
billing and collections, human resources, case management, and
information technology, among others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan
     Anna M. Ceragioli
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             aceragioli@stephanzouras.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ojeda Seeks to Certify Class of Texas Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned HECTOR OJEDA, pleading on
his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00180-KC
(W.D. Tex.), seeks to certify a class defined as:

     All consumers with a Texas address that have received
     collection letters similar to Exhibit A from Defendant
     concerning debts for Capital One Bank used primarily for
     personal, household, or family purposes within one year
     prior to the filing of this complaint.

The Class does not include any employees of the Defendants or the
judges assigned to this action or their relatives.

The action arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt
from the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on
June 13, 2018, and a first Amended Complaint on October 17, 2018,
alleging that the Defendant's collection letter violated the
provisions of the FDCPA banning false, deceptive, or misleading
information.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com


EAST CAPITOL: Seeks Final Approval of Kinard Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled MILDRED KINARD, EARLENE WHEELER,
VICKY BORDEAUX and DONALD ROBINSON v. EAST CAPITOL FAMILY RENTAL,
L.P., A&R MANAGEMENT, INC., and KETTLER MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-1935 (TJK) (D.D.C.), jointly submit their Motion for Final
Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes and for Approval of
Class Settlement.

On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class
action Complaint alleging violations of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program.

As of the date of the filing of this Motion, the Parties have
received no objections to the Settlement Agreement and no Class
Members have requested to be excluded from the Settlement
Agreement.

The matter was set for a fairness hearing before the Court last
April 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chinh Q. Le, Esq.
          Beth Mellen Harrison, Esq.
          Rachel Rintelmann, Esq.
          LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          1331 H Street, N.W. Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1161
          E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org
                  bharrison@legalaiddc.org
                  rrintelmann@legalaiddc.org

Defendants East Capitol Family Rental, L.P. & A&R Management, Inc.,
are represented by:

          David G. Sommer, Esq.
          James D. Bragdon, Esq.
          GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
          218 N. Charles Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21201-4033
          Telephone: (410) 727-7702
          E-mail: dsommer@gejlaw.com
                  jbragdon@gejlaw.com

Defendant Kettler Management, Inc., is represented by:

          Nicholas Hallenbeck, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          1300 I Street, NW, Suite 825
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 399-1009
          E-mail: nhallenbeck@gordonrees.com


ENCLARITY INC: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Fulton Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Enclarity Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
titled Enclarity Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Matthew N. Fulton,
Case No. 18-1258.

Response is due on April 29, 2019.

The Lower Court Case is captioned MATTHEW N. FULTON, D.D.S., P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ENCLARITY, INC.;
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA,
INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL, INC.; JOHN DOES 1–12,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1380, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The District Court Case is entitled MATTHEW N. FULTON, D.D.S.,
P.C., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. ENCLARITY, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA, INC.; LEXISNEXIS
RISK SOLUTIONS FL, INC.; JOHN DOES 1–12, Case No.
2:16-cv-13777—Denise Page Hood, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jane B.
Stranch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (i)
reversed the District Court's judgment in favor of the Defendants,
and (ii) remanded Fulton's TCPA and conversion claims for further
proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

Plaintiff Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, P.C., a dental practice in
Linden, Michigan, brings the suit on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.  Fulton alleges that it received a fax from the
Defendants in September 2016 that was an unsolicited advertisement
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), but that
failed to include the requisite opt-out provision.

Fulton filed a two-count class action complaint in October 2016.
Count I asserted that the fax violated the TCPA, and Count II
asserted a state law conversion claim.  The complaint included the
fax itself, as well as printouts from the Defendants' referenced
website, including the FAQs, a provider lookup form, the
Defendants' privacy policy, and the Defendants' terms and
conditions.  Fulton alleged that the fax was a pretext to obtain
both participation in the Defendants' proprietary database and
consent to send additional marketing faxes to recipients.  Fulton
alleged that both the Defendants and the third parties will use the
information to contact the recipients regarding products, services,
competitions and promotions.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent MATTHEW N. FULTON, D.D.S., P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N LaSalle St., # 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (844) 786-7772
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees-Petitioners ENCLARITY, INC., et al., are
represented by:

          Joseph Russell Palmore, Esq.
          Bryan J. Leitch, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-6940
          E-mail: jpalmore@mofo.com
                  bleitch@mofo.com

               - and -

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Patterson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com
                  bpatterson@mofo.com


ENTEGRIS INC: Garfield Challenges Merger Deal with Versum
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bertrand Loy, Paul L. H. Olson,
Michael A. Bradley, R. Nicholas Bums, James F. Gentilcore, James P.
Lcderer, Azita Saleki-Gcrhardt, Brian F. Sullivan, and Entegris,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 19-825 (Mass. Super., March 22,
2019), alleges that the Defendants have breached and/or aided the
other Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties to Entegris's
public shareholders by acting to cause or facilitate a merger
agreement because it is not in the best interests of the
shareholders.  The deal only benefits the Defendants, who will
collectively receive significant personal profits as a result of
the merger agreement, which they would not otherwise receive at
this time.

The case is a shareholder class action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and other Entegris shareholders, against Entegris
and the members of its board of directors. The action arises from
Defendants' actions in connection with a proposed merger between
Entegris and Versum Materials, Inc., pursuant to an agreement dated
January 27, 2019. In connection with the Merger, Versum
stockholders will receive 1.12 shares of Entegris stock for each
share of Versum stock.

According to the complaint, Entegris's directors were motivated to
cause Entegris to enter into the Merger Agreement by their own
self-interest in increasing their personal compensation. In this
regard, the Merger will effectively result in Entegris nearly
doubling in size. Since the compensation of Entegris's CEO Beitrand
Toy and Entegris's other board members is determined by, among
other things, reference to the compensation of directors and senior
officers of similarly sized "peer companies" each of Entegris's
board members and CEO Loy will personally benefit form the Merger
because an increase in Entegris's size will place the Company and
its directors in a higher paying peer group.

In order to persuade Entegris' shareholders to approve such an
unfavorable Merger Agreement, the Defendants caused Entegris to
file a proxy statement with the SEC on or about March 20, 2019 and
thereafter, on or about March 22, 2019, mailed the same to
Plaintiff and other Enlegris's stockholders in connection with
soliciting their vote on the Merger Agreement. The Proxy Statement
is deficient, however, because, among other things, its conceals
material information regarding:

     -- The conflicts of interest of each of Entegris' directors,
including the extent to which each will benefit from the Merger.

     -- The conflicts of interest of Defendants' purported
independent financial advisor, Morgan Stanley so as not to
discredit its recommendation of the Merger to Entegris's
shareholders. In this regard, while the Proxy Statement touts
Morgan Stanley's opinion that the Merger is 'fair', it does not
even acknowledge that Morgan Stanley is a shareholder of Versum,
holding nearly $9 million worth of Versum's stock at the time it
rendered its fairness opinion on the Merger. Additionally, the
Proxy Statement does not disclose the amount of financing fees that
a Morgan Stanley affiliate will be entitled to receive in
connection with a financing commitment letter that it entered into
with Entegris at the same time as the Merger Agreement was executed
and does not disclose the criteria that will be used to determine
whether Morgan Stanley is deserving of, and will receive, a $5
million "discretionary bonus."

     -- The free cash flow financial projections for Entegris and
Versum that Morgan Stanley relied upon in the relative discounted
cash flow analysis underlying its fairness opinion.

Because Defendants have knowingly or recklessly breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and/or arc
personally profiting from the same, the burden of proving the
inherent or entire fairness of the Merger, including all aspects of
its negotiation, structure, and terms, is borne by Defendants as a
matter of law, the lawsuit says.

Entegris is a global developer, manufacturer, and supplier of
microcontamination control products, specialty chemicals, and
advanced materials handling solutions for manufacturing processes
in the semiconductor and other high-technology industries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Adam Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          2 Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439 3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439 0134
          E-mail: astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          John F. Keating, Jr., Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Crosby Hits Illegal Access to Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Crosby and Anne Crosby, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company of Boston, LLC,, Defendants, Case No. 19-514 (Mass.,
February 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages arising from the
unauthorized dissemination of personal information in breach of
contract.

Plaintiffs availed of Enterprise's car rental service and provided
their customer data. As a result of phishing, a certain Matthew
Olivier gained access to Anne Crosby's contact information and
stalked her.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Relethford, Esq.
     Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
     FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, PC
     2 Salem Green, Suite 2
     Salem, MA 01970
     Email: drelethford@forrestlamothe.com
            mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Russell Moves for Workers Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned MELISSA RUSSELL, AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00005-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), move for conditional
certification of and notice to this group of the Defendants'
current and former employees outlined in the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint:

     Defendant's current and former non-supervisory employees
     paid on a salary basis; who worked more than 40 hours in at
     least one workweek over the past three years; and whose job
     duties included Care Management Work or similar job duties.
     This definition includes, without limitation, such job
     titles as "Care Coordinator," "Pediatric Care Coordinator,"
     "Utilization Review Nurse," "Utilization Review
     Coordinator," "Utilization Reviewer," "Clinical Reviewer,"
     "First Level Reviewer," and other non-supervisory positions
     within Defendant's "Care Coordination" or "Utilization
     Management" job families containing the terms "coordinator,"
     "utilization" or "reviewer" in the job title whose job
     duties include Care Management Work.  This definition
     specifically excludes Defendant's employees, if any, whose
     job duties involved providing direct medical care to members
     or traditional nursing care to patients in a clinical
     setting.

As explained in their memorandum, the Plaintiffs contend that the
Court should grant notice because they have met their lenient first
stage burden to justify notice through substantial allegations
corroborated by nine sworn statements establishing that the
Plaintiffs and the collective action members stand similarly
situated with respect to job duties and with regard to pay
provisions.

Because recovery for the Potential Plaintiffs erodes daily, the
Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize notice to this limited
group of Defendant's current and former employees as soon as
possible.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          5438 Rutherglenn Drive
          Houston, TX 77096
          Telephone: (512) 417-5716
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Esq.
          THE MAHONE FIRM LLC
          5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 564-7342
          Facsimile: (504) 617-6474
          E-mail: mike@mahonefirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


ERIC RYAN CORP: Court Denies Gorss' Bid to Certify TCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dominic J. Squatrito denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC. v.
THE ERIC RYAN CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:17-cv-00126-DJS (D.
Conn.).

In accordance with the Court's previous Order, dispositive motions
will be filed by April 29, 2019.

"Because the Court has found that Gorss failed to meet its burden
under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court does not find it necessary to
address the other issues raised by Eric Ryan in opposition to the
motion for class certification, i.e., ascertainability of the
proposed class (to the extent that issue differs from the
predominance requirement) and adequacy of class representation,"
Judge Squatrito opines.

Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
"that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

In its complaint, Gorss asserts violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.  Gorss alleges that Eric Ryan sent
unsolicited advertisements to Gorss and members of the proposed
class in violation of the TCPA, including three unsolicited
facsimiles sent during the time period between March 1, 2013, and
December 1, 2013.

Gorss has sought certification of this class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about March 1, 2013, stating: "The Eric Ryan
     Corporation," Sign Up for a Free Utility and
     Telecommunications Bill Review," and "To Find Out More, call
     (800) 837-6406, email: sales@ericryan.com, online:
     http://www.ericryan.com/wyndham-specials/."[CC]


EXXON MOBIL: Thomas Wheeler Sues over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation for alleged breach of
lease, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.  The case is captioned
THOMAS E. WHEELER, FITZGERALD FARMS, LLC; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; and
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, including affiliated predecessors and
affiliated successors), Defendants, Case No. CV-19-4025 (D. Kan.,
April 2, 2019). Plaintiffs Thomas E. Wheeler and Fitzgerald Farms,
LLC. bring claims against Exxon Mobil and ExxonMobil Oil over the
defendant's actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or
non-payment of royalties on natural gas and/or constituents of the
gas stream produced from wells through improper accounting methods
and by failing to account for and pay royalties.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants have breached the leases,
including the implied covenants, by their actions and/or inactions
in underpaying royalty or not paying royalty on all products sold
from the gas stream.  The Defendants have also breached the
fiduciary duty to the subclass members and class members in
Oklahoma wells by failing to report, account for, and distribute
gas proceeds to the subclass members for their proportionate
royalty share of gas production. In addition, the Defendants have
made uniform misrepresentations and/or omissions on the monthly
check stubs sent to class and subclass members reflecting the wrong
volume and price, and not detailing all of the monetary fee and
in-kind volumetric deductions.

Fitzgerald Farms, LLC is a limited liability company organized
under Kansas law. Fitzgerald Farms owns royalty interests pursuant
to an oil and gas lease in defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation's
operated unit, the Fitzgerald Unit located in Texas County,
Oklahoma.

Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is a for profit business
corporation organized under New Jersey law and headquartered in
Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a for profit business
corporation organized under New York law and headquartered in
Irving, Texas. Exxon Mobil and ExxonMobil Oil are related entities,
with ExxonMobil Oil operating as a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
     Barbara C. Franklands, Esq.
     Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
     REX A SHARP,P.A.
     5301 W. 75th Street
     Prairie Village, KS 66208
     Telephone: (913) 901-0505
     Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
     E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
             bfrankland@midwest-law.com
             sgoodger@midwest-law.com

         - and -

     Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
     Maggie Robertson, Esq.
     Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     431 W. Main Street, Suite D
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Telephone: (405) 698-2770
     E-mail: Reagan.Bradford@LanierLawFirm.com
             Maggie.Robertson@LanierLawFirm.com
             Ryan.Wilson@LanierLawFirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class of Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SUSIE BIGGER, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACEBOOK,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07753 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action by and
similarly
      situated members of the collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b), defined as:

      "all individuals who were employed by Facebook as Client
      Solutions Managers at level IC-3 or IC-4 at any location in
      the United States during the period from three years prior to

      the entry of this Order, and as extended by stipulation of
      the parties, to the present";

   2. directing Facebook to produce to the Plaintiff in a usable
      electronic format the names, last-known mailing address,
      email address, telephone number, dates of employment, social
      security numbers, and dates of birth of all FLSA Collective
      members to be notified. The Facebook shall tender this
      information to Plaintiff on or before April 2, 2019."

   3. providing notice to the FLSA Collective in the form of her
      Proposed Notice. The opt-in period will be 60 days from the
      Notice mailing.;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the Proposed Notice, at her

      expense, by first-class U.S. Mail and email to all members of

      the FLSA Collective to inform them of their right to opt-in
      to this lawsuit;

   5. denying the Plaintiff's request for a reminder notice 20 days

      before the conclusion of the opt-in period; and

   6. denying the Plaintiff's request to post the Proposed Notice
      in Facebook's offices.

The case concerns the Client Solutions Manager ("CSM") position at
Facebook, Inc., and whether that role constitutes an
"overtime-exempt" position under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.[CC]

FARMERS GROUP: May File Opposition Under Seal in Grigson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lee Yeakel granted in part the Defendant's Unopposed
Motion to File Opposition and Exhibit Under Seal filed Jan. 10,
2019, in the lawsuit titled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.).

The Defendant's motion is granted to the following extent:
Defendant may file the Exhibit A under seal.  In all other
respects, the motion is denied.  Judge Yeakel ruled that the
Defendant may file a redrafted opposition that omits any
confidential information or information protected by the parties'
Protective Order.

On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.  On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
motion for class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Yeakel ruled that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification filed February 22, 2019, is dismissed without
prejudice.[CC]


FAT ALLEY INC: Aldama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Diogenes Aldama, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fat Alley, Inc. and Robert E. O'Dell,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00524 (D. Colo., February 22, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Defendants operate "The New Fat Alley" restaurant in Telluride,
Colorado where Aldama worked as a server. Aldama claims he was
denied overtime for each hour worked beyond forty each workweek,
rest periods during their shifts, and wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Fax: (303) 957-5754
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: FHFA Appeals Ruling in Banneck Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor-Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled James Banneck v.
FNMA/Fannie Mae, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04657-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 26, 2019, Judge
William H. Orrick granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary
judgment.

Mr. Banneck brings the instant lawsuit against Defendant Fannie Mae
alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act ("CCRAA") and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").  He claims that Fannie Mae's Desktop Underwriter ("DU")
system, which is used by lenders to determine whether an
applicant's loan can be purchased by Fannie Mae, generated an
inaccurate DU findings report that negatively impacted his loan
application.  He contends that Fannie Mae prohibited mortgage
originators from providing consumers with a copy of their DU
findings report in violation of the CCRAA and FCRA.

The appellate case is captioned as James Banneck v. FNMA/Fannie
Mae, et al., Case No. 19-15594, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on June 21, 2019, for James
      Banneck;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on July 22, 2019, for
      Federal Housing Finance Agency and Federal National
      Mortgage Association;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on August 22, 2019, for
      James Banneck; and

   -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Federal Housing
      Finance Agency is due within 21 days of service of Third
      brief on cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JAMES BANNECK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS AND MAILMAN PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sylvia A. Goldsmith, Esq.
          GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          20545 Center Ridge Road, Suite 120
          Rocky River, OH 44116
          Telephone: (440) 934-3025
          E-mail: goldsmith@goldsmithlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul B. Mengedoth, Esq.
          MENGEDOTH LAW PLLC
          20909 N. 90th Place
          Scottsdale, AZ 85255
          Telephone: (480) 778-9100
          E-mail:  paul@mengedothlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

Defendant FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION is represented by:

          Seth W. Lloyd, Esq.
          Brian Matsui, Esq.
          Deanne Maynard, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          E-mail: slloyd@mofo.com
                  bmatsui@mofo.com
                  dmaynard@mofo.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq.
          Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7150
          E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
                  doakley@omm.com

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY is
represented by:

          Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5654
          E-mail: michael_johnson@aporter.com

               - and -

          David Eric Shapland, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4238
          E-mail: eric.shapland@arnoldporter.com


FINANCE SYSTEM: Sandri Appeals E.D. Wisc. Decision to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dorean A. Sandri filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Dorean Sandri v. Finance System of Green Bay,
Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01208-WCG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on August 6, 2018.

Finance System offers collection solutions for multiple
industries.

The appellate case is captioned as Dorean Sandri v. Finance System
of Green Bay, Inc., Case No. 19-1557, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due April 10, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 6, 2019, for
      Dorean A. Sandri.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DOREAN A. SANDRI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Ave., 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Appellee FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC., is
represented by:

          Jessica Lee Prom Klander, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          100 S. Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 376-1660
          E-mail: jklander@bassford.com


FINANCIAL COLLECTION: Plumb Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Plumb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Collection Agency of Anchorage,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00084-JWS (D. Alaska, March 28,
2019) arises from  violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").

Plaintiff was involved in a car accident in December 2014. As a
result of the accident, Plaintiff was treated by EMS services. As a
result of Plaintiff's treatment by EMS, Plaintiff incurred a
certain medical bill ("the Debt"). The statute of limitations for
the Debt expires no later than January 2018, yet the Defendant sent
the letter after the statute of limitation expired.

Moreover, the Letter fails to provide any indication to Plaintiff
that no legal action could be undertaken to attempt to recover the
Debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Joshua Plumb is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of Alaska.

Financial Collection Agency of Anchorage, Inc. is an Alaskan
Corporation with a principal place of business in Anchorage County,
Alaska. It provides debt collection services. The company
collections are mostly generated from the medical industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cook, Esq.
     P.O. Box 1
     Eagle River, Alaska 99577-0001
     Phone: (907) 694-2000
     Fax: (907) 694-2024

          - and -

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     Barchay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Olaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
     Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

FIRST KEY HOMES: Drake Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Drake, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. First Key Homes, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01268-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) is a case
involving violation by the Defendant of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC").

In an effort to solicit and generate new business and profits,
First Key engaged in a calling campaign making unsolicited
telephone calls to Plaintiff and others. In violation of the TCPA,
Defendant used both an "artificial or prerecorded voice" and an
"automatic telephone dialing system," without Plaintiff's and
others' "prior express written consent" within the meaning of the
TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Indiana residing
in the City of Fishers.

First Key specializes in generating "leads" by placing calls to
consumers looking for a rental home, and then referring those
consumers for a fee to customers of First Key, who are typically
property owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: 561.826.5477
     Fax: 561.961.5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 803-1578
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


FREEDOM FOREVER: Faces Cooley Suit over Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Forever LLC
and its present, former, or future direct and indirect parent
companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and/or other related
entities, as well as John Doe Corporation doing business as
Universal Energy. The case is captioned BLAKE COOLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
FREEDOM FOREVER LLC, a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION D/B/A UNIVERSAL ENERGY, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00562 (D. Nev., April 3, 2019).

Plaintiff Blake Cooley, individually and as class representative
for all others similarly situated, brings this action against
Freedom Forever for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. Freedom Forever hired Universal Energy to originate new energy
leads for their company.  Universal Energy, with the knowledge and
acceptance of Freedom Forever, generated those leads with automated
telemarketing calls.

Cooley seeks an award of $500 in damages for each and every call
made or up to $1,500 for each telemarketing call made deemed to be
a willful or knowing violation. He also seeks for an injunctive
relief prohibiting Freedom Forever from using third parties to make
automated outbound telemarketing calls, other than for emergency
purposes.

Freedom Forever LLC is a solar energy provider that has its
principal place of business in Temecula, California, and with a
registered agent of Greg Albright, 43445 Business Park Dr., Suite
104 in Temecula. John Doe Corporation d/b/a Universal Energy is a
telemarketing company hired by Freedom Forever to make
telemarketing calls to generate new customers. Upon information and
belief, Universal Energy is located in Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, Esq.
     4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
     Las Vegas, NV 89121
     Telephone: (702) 435-7968;
     Facsimile: 1-702-825-8071
     E-mail: attcbf@cox.net

             - and -

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Telephone: (617) 485-0018
     Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
     E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


GARRISON PROPERTY: Roberts Insurance Row Removed to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tiffany Roberts, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Garrison Property and
Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-2019-000234
(Ariz. Super., January 18, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on February 22, 2019
under Case No. 19-cv-01232.

Roberts seeks to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney's fees, declaratory and injunctive relief resulting from
breach of contract. She contends that Garrison improperly imposed a
10% cap on coverage for the loss of personal property and failed to
reasonably investigate her claim.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      John M. DeStefano, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
             johnd@hbsslaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Nathan D. Meyer, Esq.
      JABURG & WILK, P.C.
      3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Tel: (602) 248-1000
      Email: ndm@jaburgwilk.com


GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended February 2, 2019, that the Company has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Chen and Salas, and
Massachusetts suits.

On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the same subsidiary filed
a putative class and collective action, Chen and Salas v. Genesco
Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
certain Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including,
among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also
seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.

On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a
putative class action in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts claiming violations of the Massachusetts Overtime
Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing to pay overtime to
employees classified as store managers, and seeking restitution, an
incentive award, treble damages, interest, attorneys fees and
costs.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Chen and Salas, and the Massachusetts matters for payment of
attorneys' fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus
total payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to
participate in the settlement of up to $0.8 million.

The proposed settlement is subject to documentation and approval by
the court.

The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have
a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.

Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.


GEORGE'S INC: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class of Supervisors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled EVANJELINA RODRIGUEZ and JASON
DAVIDSON, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
v. GEORGE'S, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.), ask the
Court to conditionally certify this class:

     All Supervisors and Area Managers/Superintendents employed
     by Defendant since February 19, 2016.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of certain former and current
Supervisors and Area Managers/Superintendents of George's, Inc., to
recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, among other claims.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to direct the Defendant to
provide the names and current and/or last known mailing addresses,
cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all potential class
members; for approval and sending of attached Notice and Consent to
Join forms to all class members; to grant counsel a period of 90
days during which to distribute the Notice and to file opt-in
Plaintiffs' Consent forms; to approve of the Plaintiffs' proposed
language for electronic distribution of Notice; for expedited
review; and for costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GLOWMAR INC: Bodan Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eloisa B. Bodan and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Glowmar Inc., Gloria Giappi, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-20667 (S.D.
Fla., February 21, 2019), requests double damages and reasonable
attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court
costs, interest and any other relief.

Bodan worked for Glowmar as a cashier from on or about December 21,
2017 through on or about January 24, 2019, where her duties
included opening the store, attending to the customers, processing
the transactions, making coffee, serving food, selling lottery
tickets, cook, balancing the drawers, throw away trash, cleaning
the store and putting merchandise on the shelves. Bodan claims to
have worked over 40 hours a week and was not paid the extra half
time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


GODADDY.COM LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Bennett Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-03908-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com,
LLC, Case No. 19-80037, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John R. Cox, Esq.
          JRC LEGAL
          30941 Mill Lane, Suite G-334
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Telephone: (251) 517-4753
          E-mail: jrc@jrcoxlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner GODADDY.COM, LLC, is represented by:

          Taylor Widawski, Esq.
          Paula Lynn Zecchini, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 224-1285
          E-mail: twidawski@cozen.com
                  pzecchini@cozen.com


GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD: Sandlin's Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lance M. Africk grants the Plaintiff's motion to withdraw
his motion for conditional class certification in the lawsuit
titled WESLEY SANDLIN v. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-07607-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.).

The motion for conditional class certification is withdrawn.[CC]


GREATBANC TRUST: McMaken's Class Cert. Bid Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrea R. Wood denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Michael V McMaken v. Greatbanc Trust Company, Case No.
1:17-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.).

For the reasons stated in the Court's accompanying Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
complaint is granted.  The Plaintiff is granted leave to file its
proposed first amended complaint.

In light of the anticipated filing of the amended complaint, Judge
Wood ruled that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
denied without prejudice.[CC]



GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Wallace Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Broderick Bryant and Carmen Wallace filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Carmen Wallace, et al. v.
Grubhub Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04538, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege that GrubHub has misclassified its delivery drivers as
independent contractors and, in so doing, has committed wage and
hour violations under federal and state statutes, including the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
California Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Carmen Wallace, et al. v.
Grubhub Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1564, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due April 11, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 7, 2019, for
      Broderick Bryant and Carmen Wallace.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CARMEN WALLACE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and BRODERICK BRYANT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees GRUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., and GRUBHUB, INC., are
represented by:

          Todd M. Church, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: TChurch@littler.com


HEALTHY HALO: Hicke Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Halo
Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as Tom Hicke
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Healthy Halo Insurance Services Inc., Does 1 Through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00601-JM-KSC (C.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Healthy Halo is a workers' compensation and employee benefits
solutions company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


HENKEL OF AMERICA: Duran Files Suit Over Misleading Product Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABEL DURAN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HENKEL OF AMERICA, INC. and HENKEL CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02794 (E.D. N.Y., March 28, 2019) is a
consumer protection action arising out of deceptive and otherwise
improper business practices that the Defendants engage in with
respect to the labeling of their Schwarzkopf got2b Ultra glued
Invincible Styling Gel.

According to the complaint, the Product is advertised and sold to
mislead consumers into believing that the gel produces "no flakes,"
when it in fact does produce flakes. Consumers are misled as to the
quality and qualities of the Product. Accordingly, the Product
violates the New York State laws within the same scope as the
Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

Plaintiff and Class members viewed Defendants' misleading front
label, and reasonably relied in substantial part on the
representations that it did not produce flakes when used. Plaintiff
and Class members were thereby deceived into purchasing a product
inferior to the one that they had bargained for. Upon information
and belief, the Defendants continue to sell the misbranded Product,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a 6oz bottle of the Product at a CVS in
Queens.

HENKEL OF AMERICA, INC. is organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


HSN INC: Jewell Files Consumer Credit Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSN, Inc. The case is
styled as Maurice Jewell, Jr., on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSN, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00247 (W.D. Wis., Apr. 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

HSN, Inc. operates as an interactive multi-channel retailer in the
United States. It operates through two segments, HSN and
Cornerstone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Davidson, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
     Lein Law Offices
     P.O. Box 761
     Hayward, WI 54843
     Phone: (715) 634-4273
     Fax: (715) 634-5051
     Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com



IC SYSTEMS INC: Gentile Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Ronald D Gentile, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IC System, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-60839-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 29, 2019) seeks to recover
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").

The Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt. The Debt was primarily
for medical services. In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff by letter dated April 5, 2019. The Letter
directs Plaintiff to Defendant's website. Plaintiff accessed the
Website. The Defendant, through the Website, attempted to charge
Plaintiff a "Convenience Fee" of $41.39.

The Defendant's representation that it was entitled to be paid a
convenience fee of $41.39 is a false, deceptive, and misleading
representation in connection with the collection of the Debt, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Ronald Gentile is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of Florida residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ILLINOIS: Class Certification Sought in Ford Human Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Melvin A. Ford v. John R.
Baldwin, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-50074 (N.D. Ill.), moves for
class certification.

John R. Baldwin is the Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections.

In his complaint, Mr. Ford alleges that he and over 3,000 class
members were held under constant illumination, as well as other
violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Big Muddy River
Correctional Center, in Ina, Illinois, appears pro se.[CC]



INTERTAPE POLYMER: Duquette Sues Over Unlawful Compensation Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Duquette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Intertape Polymer Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00460 (E.D. Wis., March 30, 2019) is a collective and
class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws,
("WWPCL").

Defendant, among other things, develops, manufactures, and sells
paper and film based pressure sensitive and water activated tapes,
polyethylene and specialized polyolefin films, and packaging
systems for industrial and retail use.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Manufacturing employee at its
Menasha, Wisconsin manufacturing facility on December 17, 2012.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Manufacturing employees of their
wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.

Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful compensation system failed
to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, Call Time pay, and/or
other rewards, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
Manufacturing employees' regular rates of pay for overtime
calculation purposes, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     David M. Potteiger, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
            sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
            dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


JACKSON HEWITT: Endres Suit Asserts Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Endres and Latonya Fields, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service Inc., and Tax Services if America Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09065 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2019) is an
antitrust class action brought by and on behalf of individuals who
work or have worked for the Defendants over Defendants' unlawful
conspiracy to suppress the wages of its employees through
agreements with its franchises not to compete for workers in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants orchestrated and enforced this conspiracy at least
in part through an explicit contractual prohibition contained in
standard Jackson Hewitt franchise agreements that severely limited
Plaintiff's and Class member's job mobility and served to
significantly suppress their compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as seasonal Tax Preparers I for the Defendants
from 2015 through 2018.

Jackson Hewitt Inc. offers professional tax preparation services in
the United States and Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
     Willcox & Savage, P.C.
     440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 2200
     Norflox, VA 23510
     Phone: (757) 628-5500
     Fax: (757) 628-5566
     Email: cshumadine@wilsav.com

          - and -

     Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
     Willcox & Savage, P.C.
     500 West C Street, Suite 1750
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 400-5822
     Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com

          - and -

     Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
     Ashlea Scwartz, Esq.
     Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
     PAUL LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (8816) 914-8100
     Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
            Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
            Laura@PaulLLP.com


JIM & LINDA'S: Deiner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Desirae Deiner and Drake Bertnick, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jim & Linda's Lakeview
Supper Club, LLC, James Koenigs, and Linda Koenigs, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00462 (E.D. Wis., March 30, 2019) is a collective
and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
("WWPCL"), seeks unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Defendants operated (and continue to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked, work performed, and wages earned each workweek, including
at an overtime rate of pay, by operating an invalid and unlawful
tip pool and by retaining tips earned and received by its
hourly-paid, non-exempt tipped employees, asserts the complaint.

Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set
forth in the FLSA and state law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Deiner was hired by Defendant as a Bartender in
approximately December 2017, while Plaintiff Bertnick as a Server
in approximately May 2009.

Defendant, Jim & Linda's Lakeview Supper Club, LLC is a privately
owned supper club located in Malone, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
            sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


JOHN ALLAN'S: Peralta et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Salon Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against John Allan's Fifth Avenue LLC and
its affiliated entities seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three salons in New York,
New York. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The
Plaintiffs were employed as manicurists, assistants, shampoo girls,
and hair washers at the salons. The Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

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

The case is captioned styled ALMA PERALTA, CAMILA ALEJANDRA PINTO
SILA, ELIZABETH ARIAS, LLUVIA SERNA, MARIA CASARRUBIAS (A/K/A
JENNY), and YAJAIRA LEONARDO individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN ALLAN'S FIFTH AVENUE
LLC (D/B/A JOHN ALLAN'S), THE JOHN ALLAN COMPANY (D/B/A JOHN
ALLAN'S), JA TRIBECA, LLC (D/B/A JOHN ALLEN'S), JOHN ALLAN, EMMA
ALLAN, EDUARDO MENEZES, AMORY COSTANZO, and MARIA SOLANO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02578 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

KIEWIT CORPORATION: Avila Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Melvin Avila as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kiewit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV01167 filed in California Superior Court
on January 17, 2019, was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on February 19, 2019
under Case No. 19-cv-00306.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of wage and hour violations over their
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly
wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements and
failure to timely pay all final wages.[BN]

Avila is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      Allen Victor Feghali, Esq.
      Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
              allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Michael D. Hidalgo, Esq.
      BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-4751
      Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
      Email: michael.hidalgo@bakermckenzie.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Hedick Hits Stock Drop from Internal Control Flaw
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Hedick Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Bernardo
Hees, Paulo Basilio and David H. Knopf, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01339, (N.D. Il., February 24, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws.

Kraft manufactures and markets food and beverage products
internationally and its securities trade on the NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol KHC. It failed to disclose that Kraft's internal
controls were inadequate especially with regards to procurement;
that it was forced to write down a significant amount of goodwill
and certain intangible assets in its Kraft natural cheese business;
and that it had supply chain issues with regards to its cold cuts
business.

On this news, Kraft's shares fell $13.23 per share or over 27% to
close at $34.95 per share on February 22, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven F. Molo, Esq.
      Megan C. Church, Esq.
      Gerald P. Meyer, Esq.
      MOLOLAMKEN LLP
      300 North LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 450-6700
      Facsimile: (312) 450-6701
      Email: smolo@mololamken.com
             mchurch@mololamken.com
             gmeyer@mololamken.com

             - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


KRAKOWSKI TRUCKING: Gallam Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gallam, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Krakowski Trucking, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00396 (N.D. Ohio, February 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay
Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendant is a trucking and logistics company providing logistics
services where Gallam worked as a driver. He claims to be denied
overtime for hours worked over 40 per work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 291-4744
      Fax: (216) 291-5744
      Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


LLR INC: Van Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Katie Van filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Katie Van v. LLR, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00197-HRH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska, Anchorage.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 27, 2019, Judge
H. Russel Holland granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint.

The Defendants sell clothing through fashion retailers located in
all fifty states to consumers across the United States.  Plaintiff
Van alleges that she made purchases from LuLaRoe retailers in other
states and had those purchases shipped to her home in Anchorage,
Alaska.  She alleges that she was improperly charged sales tax on
purchases she made from LuLaRoe's remote consultants.  Alaska does
not have a state-wide sales tax, although some local jurisdictions
impose a sales and/or use tax.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants improperly charged sales tax on at least 72,503 sales
transactions shipped into non-taxing jurisdictions in Alaska from
April 2016 through June 1, 2017.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants began improperly charging
sales tax in 2016 after it was discovered that LuLaRoe was paying
sales tax on all sales regardless of whether or not the end
consumer was charged or paid sales tax on a transaction.  She
alleges that this happened because of the way that the Defendants'
point-of-sale system, which was called "Audrey," was programmed.

The Plaintiff alleges that in response to this discovery, the
Defendants, in April 2016, implemented a new sales tax policy,
which was that Audrey would be collecting tax from end consumers
based upon the retailer location.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants altered the Audrey POS to prevent retailers from turning
off the sales tax features when making sales delivered into other
states with no sales tax.  The Defendants launched a new POS system
in January 2017 called Bless and began transitioning retailers from
Audrey to Bless.  This transition was not completed until May and
Audrey was permanently disabled on May 31, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as Katie Van v. LLR, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 19-35242, 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 25, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 28, 2019;

   -- Appellant Katie Van's opening brief is due on July 5, 2019;

   -- Appellees LLR, Inc. and LuLaRoe, LLC's answering brief is
      due on August 5, 2019; and

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

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

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., DBA LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, are
represented by:

          Michael Baylous, Esq.
          Brewster H. Jamieson, Esq.
          LANE POWELL, P.C.
          301 West Northern Lights Blvd.
          Anchorage, AK 99503-2648
          Telephone: (907) 264-3303
          E-mail: baylousm@lanepowell.com
                  jamiesonb@lanepowell.com


LOCAL 1175 FUND: Two Subclasses Certified in Hoeffner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Pamela K. Chen certifies a pension subclass and a welfare
subclass in the action entitled RALPH HOEFFNER, ANTHONY LONGO,
ANTHONY TOMASZEWSKI and KENNETH REESE, as participants and/or
former participants of the SAND, GRAVEL, CRUSHED STONE, ASHES AND
MATERIAL YARD WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1175 LIUNA PENSION FUND AND
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated v. JOE D'AMATO, FRANK OMBRES, ALEXANDER MIUCCIO, FRANK P.
DIMENNA and JOHN DOES 1-4, in their capacity as Trustees of the
Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Ashes and Material Yard Workers Local
Union No. 1175 LIUNA Pension Fund and Welfare Fund, Case No.
09-CV-3160 (PKC) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.):

   -- Pension Subclass:

      All persons who were (i) employees of the employers College
      Point, Grace Industries and/or Willets Point, (ii) vested
      participants in the Local 1175 Pension Fund, and (iii)
      whose nonforfeitable benefits were transferred to the Local
      175 Pension Fund in December 2013; and

   -- Welfare Subclass:

      All employees and former employees of employers College
      Point Asphalt Corporation, Willets Point Contracting
      Corporation, and Grace Industries, LLC who were
      participants in the Local 1175 Welfare Fund and who became
      participants eligible for benefits in the Local 175 Welfare
      Fund as a result of a certified change in collective
      bargaining representative in 2005, excluding all persons
      who currently receive or become eligible to receive
      benefits from the Local 1175 Welfare Fund.

Judge Chen denies as moot the Defendants' motion to strike two
expert reports and an affidavit submitted by the Named Plaintiffs
in support of class certification.

The Plaintiffs are four asphalt plant workers employed by the
College Point Asphalt Corporation ("College Point").  They bring
this putative class action against the Defendants, who are Trustees
of the Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Ashes and Material Yard Workers
Local 1175 Pension Fund and Welfare Fund.  The Plaintiffs seek to
force the transfer of certain assets from the Local 1175 Funds to
corresponding pension and welfare funds maintained by the United
Plant and Production Workers Local 175.[CC]



LVNV FUNDING: Renews Bid for Prelim. Approval of Elliott Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY ELLIOTT v. LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00675-RGJ-LLK (W.D. Ky.), file their renewed
joint motion for certification of settlement class and preliminary
approval of class action settlement agreement.

On March 8, 2019, the Court denied the Parties' Joint Motion for
Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement Agreement without prejudice.

The Court's denial was premised on two discrete issues.  First, the
Court noted that under the prior Proposed Settlement, Class II
members were set to receive "minimal benefit" while still "subject
to the same release of claims as Class I members."

Second, the Court identified a potential discrepancy between the
waiver provision as it appeared in the Proposed Settlement versus
the Proposed Notice.  Specifically, the Court noted that the term
"Released Claims" was defined in the Proposed Settlement but not in
the Proposed Notice.  Counsel for the Parties conferred regarding
these issues and agree that these were the consequence of drafting
oversight.

Accordingly, the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1)
certifying the two classes set forth in Exhibit A for settlement
purposes; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement
Agreement; (3) order that Plaintiff may act as representative of
the Class and that Plaintiff's attorneys may act as counsel for the
Class; (4) authorize the form of notice attached hereto as Exhibit
B and directing said notice to the Class; (4) setting dates for
opt-outs, objections, and a hearing under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e)(2); and (5) at such hearing approve the settlement
and grant final judgment.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. McKenzie, Esq.
          JAMES R. MCKENZIE ATTORNEY PLLC
          115 S. Sherrin Avenue, Suite 5
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 371-2179
          E-mail: jrmckenzie5@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory S. Berman, Esq.
          Jordan M. White, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
          500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5235
          E-mail: gberman@wyattfirm.com
                  jwhite@wyattfirm.com


MDL 2709: 16 State Classes Certified in Motor Oil Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary A. Fenner granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the multidistrict
litigation captioned IN RE: DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2709 and Master
Case No. 16-02709-MD-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.).

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

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, is appointed as
lead counsel for all classes.  Class counsel for each class will be
noted in the summary of the class.  A summary of certified classes
and the appointed representatives is as follows:

    (1) California:

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

        * Named Representative: Roberto Vega

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

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

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

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

    (2) Colorado:

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

        * Named Representative: Allen Brown
        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC
        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (3) Florida:

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

        * Named Representative: Bradford Barfoot

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

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

    (4) Illinois:

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

        * Named Representative: Gerardo Solis
        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC
        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (5) Kansas:

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

        * Named Representative: Nicholas Meyer
        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC
        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (6) Kentucky:

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

        * Named Representative: John Foppe

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (7) Maryland:

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

        * Named Representative: John McCormick, III

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (8) Michigan:

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

        * Named Representative: Bruce Gooel

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

    (9) Minnesota:

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

        * Named Representative: Scott Sheehy

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

        * Claims

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

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

   (10) Missouri:

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

        * Named Representatives: Robert Oren, James Taschner

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

        * Claims

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

   (11) Nebraska:

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

        * Named Representative: Janine Harvey
        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC
        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

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

   (12) New Jersey:

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

        * Named Representative: William Flinn

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

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

   (13) New York:

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

        * Named Representatives: Kevin Gadson, Robert Barrows,
          Jason Wood

        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
          Clark Law Firm; Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment
          2) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349
          3) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350

   (14) North Carolina:

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

        * Named Representative: Brandon Raab

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment
          2) North Carolina Consumer Protection Act (N.C. Gen.
             Stat. Section 75-1.1)

   (15) Ohio:

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

        * Named Representative: Miriam Fruhling

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

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment
          2) Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Ohio Rev. Code
             Section 1345.01)

   (16) Wisconsin:

        * Class Definition: All persons in the State of Wisconsin
          who purchased Defendants' DG-branded motor oil, DG SAE
          10-W-30 and/or DG SAE 10W-40 for use in vehicles
          manufactured after 1988, and/or DG SAE 30 for use in
          vehicles manufactured after 1930, for personal use and
          not for resale, from May 8, 2011, to the present.

        * Named Representative: Seit Alla

        * Class Counsel: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, PC;
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP

        * Claims:

          1) Unjust Enrichment

          2) Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Wis. Stat.
             Section 100.18)

          3) Wisconsin Unfair Methods of Competition and Trade
             Practices (Wis. Stat. Section 100.20)[CC]


MICHIGAN: Certification of Prisoners Class Sought in Theriot Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Kevin Theriot v. Janet T. Neff,
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00073-GJQ-MV (W.D. Mich.), moves for class
certification on behalf of Michigan Department of Corrections
prisoners.

Janet T. Neff is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.

The Plaintiff, who is currently at the Baraga Correctional
Facility, in Baraga, Michigan, appears pro se.[CC]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Brooker Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Booker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a Kansas
corporation, and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00034 (N.D. Ind., March 29,
2019) is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), for a finding that Defendants' form debt collection
letters violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages.

The Defendants sent Mr. Booker a initial form collection letter,
dated August 29 2018, demanding payment of a debt he allegedly owed
for a Citibank/Shell credit card. Two days later, on August 31,
2018, Defendants sent Mr. Booker another form debt collection
letter, demanding payment of the same Citibank/Shell debt. This
letter was captioned, "Account Transfer Detail", offered Mr. Booker
a discount of "up to 10%", if he made a single payment of $991.83
by October 15, 2018. This settlement offer was a lot less favorable
than the one the Defendants already offered Mr. Booker two days
earlier.

Violations of the FDCPA would lead a consumer to alter his or her
course of action as to whether to pay a debt, or which would be a
factor in the consumer's decision making process. Here, Defendant's
conflicting statements concerning settlement offers would cause an
unsophisticated consumer to be confused as to which settlement
offer controlled or was still available, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Gary Booker is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Northern District of Indiana, from whom Defendants
attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM"), is a Kansas corporation
that acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com

          - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     Sawin, Shea & Steinkamp, LLC
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 255-2600
     Fax: (317) 255-2905
     Email: john@sawinlaw.com


MIDTOWN CATCH: Rivera Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
ENOC RIVERA (A.K.A MOSES), individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDTOWN CATCH CORP. (D/B/A
MIDTOWN CATCH), MICHAEL CIOFFI, and JOSEPH POLIZZI, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02574 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants who own,
operate, or control a seafood market and take out store, located at
405 East 57th Street, New York, New York 10022 under the name
"Midtown Catch". The Plaintiff was employed as a cook who worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Rivera appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Rivera and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

N&A PRODUCTIONS: Aguilar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Gil Aguilar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. N&A Productions Inc., McGees's
Bar & Grill, Inc., Peter Fitzpatrick , Thomas F. Dwyer, Colleen
Dwyer, Francis J. McCawley, John Bernard Doherty, Kenneth Gerard
Keating, Padraig Dwyer and Sean Dwyer, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01703 (S.D. N.Y., February 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and redress, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, for
Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

N&A Productions Inc. operates "The Playwright Irish Pub" while
McGees's Bar & Grill, Inc. as "McGees's Pub." Aguilar worked as a
cook in both restaurants. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants also failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL BASKETBALL: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Abdul-Aziz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zaid Abdul-Aziz filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion & Order and Judgment, both issued on March 20, 2019, in his
lawsuit styled Abdul-Aziz v. National Basketball Association,
Players' Pension Plan, Case No. 17-cv-8901, 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 Plaintiff
asserts his pension plan cheated retired players of hundreds of
thousands of dollars by skimping on cost-of-living adjustments.

Lead plaintiff Zaid Abdul-Aziz, formerly known as Don Smith, was a
power forward and center for six teams in an 11-year NBA career,
after being a first-round pick in the 1968 draft.  He retired from
the Houston Rockets in 1978.

The 27-page lawsuit claims there are steep disparities between NBA
benefit plans.  Mr. Abdul-Aziz claims the sole defendant National
Basketball Association Players' Pension Plan violated Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and IRS rules because the financial
difference between the normal retirement pension and the fixed
period actuarial equivalent he chose in August 1991 cost his family
hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.

The appellate case is captioned as Abdul-Aziz v. National
Basketball Association, Players' Pension Plan, Case No. 19-782, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Zaid Abdul-Aziz, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason Luke Melancon, Esq.
          MELANCON RIMES, LLC
          6700 Jefferson Highway, Building 6
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 303-0455
          Facsimile: (225) 303-0459
          E-mail: jason@melanconrimes.com

Defendant-Appellee National Basketball Association, Players'
Pension Plan, is represented by:

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3021
          E-mail: MRumeld@Proskauer.com


NATIONAL COMMERCE: Bushansky Seeks to Halt Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Commerce Corporation (NCC), Joel
S. Arogeti, Bobby A. Bradley, Thomas H. Coley, Mark Livingston
Drew, Brian C. Hamilton, R. Holman Head, John H. Holcomb Iii,
William E. Matthews V, C. Phillip McWane, Richard Murray IV, G.
Ruffner Page Jr., Stephen A. Sevigny, W. Stancil Starnes, Temple W.
Tutwiler III, Russell H. Vandevelde IV and William D. Smith Jr.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00355 (D. Del., February 21, 2019),
seeks: to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger
between CenterState's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, CenterState
Bank, N.A. and NCC's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, National Bank of
Commerce; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger; rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees;
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

CenterState's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, CenterState Bank, N.A.
and National Commerce's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, National Bank
of Commerce entered into a merger whereby NBC will be merged with
and into CenterState Bank immediately following the merger of NCC
with and into CenterState. The merger consideration has an implied
value of $40.01 per National Commerce share and has an implied
value of approximately $850.4 million.

According to the complaint, the proxy statement filed in connection
with the transaction failed to disclose National Commerce's and
CenterState's financial projections, relied upon by the company's
financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. in its financial
analyses and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support its fairness opinion in order for the
shareholders to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the
merger.

CenterState operates a community bank franchise headquartered in
the state of Florida, providing traditional retail, commercial,
mortgage, wealth management and SBA services throughout its
Florida, Georgia, and Alabama branch network and customer
relationships in neighboring states.

National Bank of Commerce provides a broad array of financial
services for commercial and consumer customers through banking
offices in Alabama, Florida and Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


NATIONAL DOCUMENT: Fridman Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fridman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Document Processing, LLC, a
California company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21217 (S.D. Fla.,
March 29, 2019) is a class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act against
Defendant to stop it from making unauthorized pre-recorded voice
message calls promoting its debt reduction services, and from
recording incoming consumer calls without consent, and to obtain
redress for all persons similarly injured by its conduct.

This case challenges Defendant's practice of making unauthorized
pre-recorded voice message calls to consumers promoting its debt
reduction services, and its practice of recording incoming consumer
calls without consent.

The Defendant's unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Defendant's
recording of incoming calls without consent violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), causing Plaintiff and putative
members of the Classes to suffer actual harm, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fridman is, and at all times relevant to the allegations
in the complaint was, a Miami-Dade County, Florida resident.

National Document Processing, LLC, is a California company
headquartered in Irvine, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Aldrich Seeks Damages Over Student-Athlete's Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Aldrich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00777 (S.D. Ind., February 22,
2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Aldrich played football at Wayne State from 1979 to 1982. He
suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless
sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. He
now suffers from headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss,
dizziness, loss of impulse control, suicidal thoughts, fatigue,
sleep difficulties, irritability, numbness and tingling and
post-concussion syndrome.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Aldrich alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Graham Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
David Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00778 (S.D. Ind., February 22,
2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

David Graham played football at Livingstone College from 1984 to
1989. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless
sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay.
Graham now suffers from depression, headaches, loss of impulse
control, loss of inhibition, loss of concentration, short-term
memory loss, and emotional instability.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Graham alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Two Classes of Drivers Certified in Johnson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit entitled SETI JOHNSON and MARIE
BONHOMME-DICKS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, and SHAREE SMOOT and NICHELLE YARBOROUGH, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. TORRE JESSUP, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of
Motor Vehicles, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Thomas D. Schroeder ruled that:

   -- the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
      granted in part and denied in part in that the Plaintiffs'
      first claim is dismissed with prejudice but their second
      and third claims survive insofar as they have not been
      challenged at this stage;

   -- the Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification is
      granted in part and that these two classes are certified:

      * Revoked Class:

        All individuals whose driver's licenses were revoked by
        the DMV on or after May 30, 2015, due to their failure to
        pay fines, penalties, or court costs assessed by a court
        for a traffic offense, and whose driver's licenses remain
        so revoked; and

      * Future Revocation Class:

        All individuals whose driver's licenses will be revoked
        in the future by the DMV due to their failure to pay
        fines, penalties, or court costs assessed by a court for
        a traffic offense; and

   -- the Plaintiffs' second motion for preliminary injunction is
      denied.

This civil action arises out of the revocation of the Plaintiffs'
North Carolina driver's licenses, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 20-24.1(a)(2), because of their failure to pay court fines
and costs for motor vehicle violations.  The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Torre Jessup,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the North Carolina
Division of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), for enforcing Section
20-24.1(a)(2) against them in alleged violation of their equal
protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.[CC]



NPAS SOLUTIONS: Rennick Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rennick, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02495 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff through telephone calls on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in  violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Beginning at least March 2018, Plaintiff received a number of
unsolicited phone calls to her wireless phone, for which Plaintiff
provided no consent to call, in attempt to collect an alleged debt
from Havasu Medical Center. Plaintiff, however, has never visited
Havasu Medical Center, has no prior relationship with Havasu
Medical Center and maintains no debt with Havasu Medical Center.

These unsolicited phone calls placed to Plaintiff's wireless
telephone were placed via an automatic telephone dialing
system("ATDS") and used "an artificial or prerecorded voice"
system, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of
the State of California.

Defendant NPAS is a debt collector that specializes in collecting
delinquent debts for healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RONALD A. MARRON, ESQ.
     ALEXIS WOOD, ESQ.
     KAS GALLUCCI, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            alexis@consumersadvocates.com
            kas@consumersadvocates.com


NYU LANGONE: Arroyo Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ivan Arroyo as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NYU Langone Hospitals,
Defendant, Case No. 150525/2019 filed January 18, 2019 in New York
Superior Court was removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on February 21, 2019, under Case
No. 19-cv-01624.

Arroyo is a former security officer employed by NYU Langone who
claims overtime for pre and post shift work rendered
off-the-clock.[BN]

Arroyo is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082

Defendants are represented by:

      Mark A. Konkel, Esq.
      Steven R. Nevolis, Esq.
      KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
      101 Park Avenue New York
      New York, NY 10178
      Tel: (212) 808-7800
      Fax: (212) 808-7897


OHIO EDUCATION: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lee Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sarah R. Lee filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Sarah Lee v. Ohio Education Association, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01420, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 25, 2018.

Ohio Education Association (OEA) is a teachers union which serves
as the largest such organization for educators in the American
state of Ohio.

The appellate case is captioned as Sarah Lee v. Ohio Education
Association, et al., Case No. 19-3250, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SARAH R. LEE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW
          106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940

Defendants-Appellees OHIO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and AVON LAKE
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, as representative of the class of all
chapters and affiliates of the Ohio Education Association, are
represented by:

          Eben O. McNair, IV, Esq.
          SCHWARZWALD, MCNAIR & FUSCO LLP
          1300 E. Ninth Street
          Penton Media Building, Suite 616
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566-1600
          E-mail: emcnair@smcnlaw.com

               - and -

          John M. West, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: jwest@bredhoff.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

          Adam M. Bellotti, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: abellotti@bredhoff.com

               - and -

          Jason Walta, Esq.
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
          1201 16th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-7035
          E-mail: jason.walta@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee AVON LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, as
representative of the class of all school districts in Ohio, is
represented by:

          Steven A. Friedman, Esq.
          Emily R. Spivack, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
          127 Public Square, Suite 4900
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 479-8500
          E-mail: steven.friedman@squirepb.com
                  emily.spivack@squirepb.com

Defendants-Appellees W. CRAIG ZIMPLER, in his official capacity as
chair, vice-chair, and board member of the State Employment
Relations Board; AARON A. SCHMIDT, in his official capacity as
chair, vice-chair, and board member of the State Employment
Relations Board; and J. RICHARD LUMPE, in his official capacity as
chair, vice-chair, and board member of the State Employment
Relations Board, are represented by:

          Michael David Allen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          150 E. Gay Street, 16th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466-3181
          E-mail: Michael.Allen@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov


OOMA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Dolemba Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action
suit by Scott Dolemba are in the discovery phase.

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other appropriate
relief. The parties are commencing the discovery phase.

Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any loss resulting from the Dolemba
Litigation is not estimable.  No further updates were provided in
the Company's SEC report.

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to business, residential, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets. Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


OOMA INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Barnett Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated class action initiated by Michael Barnett.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of
California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) on July 17, 2015.

Since that time two additional purported class actions making
substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were
filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into
a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities
Litigation").

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company's IPO
in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the
Company filed with the SEC.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and the other
defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") by issuing the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that
were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
prejudice, but denied the Company's motion to stay the case pending
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty.
Emp. Ret.' Fund.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court published its
decision in the Cyan case, holding that state courts have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Securities
Act, such as the claims alleging violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act (the only remaining claims in the Securities
Litigation) brought against the Company in the Superior Court. The
parties are now engaged in the discovery phase of the litigation.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities
Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is
unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will
obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid
unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of
litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense
and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.


Ooma said, "Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company
has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any
losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities
Litigation is not estimable."

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to business, residential, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets. Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Recupero et al. Balk at Smith & Nephew Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELIZABETH A. RECUPERO and RAYMOND MORRISON, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, c/o Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. 7015 Albert Einstein Dr. Columbia, MD 21046, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PETER FRIEDLI, THOMAS KNAPP, WILLI MIESCH, and
CHARLES A. RIENHART, III, c/o Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. 7015 Albert
Einstein Dr. Columbia, MD 21046, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00870-ELH (D. Md., Mar. 22, 2019), is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated public shareholders of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.
against the members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the Board's agreement to sell the Company to Smith & Nephew
plc.  Plaintiffs contend Osiris is being sold cheaply.

On March 12, 2019, Osiris, Smith & Nephew plc entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Sub
will merge with and into Osiris, and Osiris shall continue as the
surviving corporation in the Merger.  Under the terms of the
transaction, Smith & Nephew will commence a two-step tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Osiris common stock
for $19.00 per share in cash.  The deal is valued at $660 million
merger, according to news reports.

The purchase price represents a 37% premium over the 90-day volume
weighted average price of Osiris' shares prior to this
announcement. Peter Friedli has entered into a Tender & Support
Agreement with Smith & Nephew whereby he will commit to tender
approximately 30% of the outstanding shares of Osiris in favor of
the transaction.

The companies expect to close the transaction in the second quarter
of 2019, subject to customary closing conditions, including
relevant antitrust clearances and the tender of a majority of
outstanding shares of Osiris common stock on a fully diluted
basis.  The acquisition will be financed from Smith & Nephew's
existing cash and debt facilities. The transaction is expected to
be accretive to Smith & Nephew's adjusted earnings per share from
2020. The acquisition is expected to generate a return on invested
capital that exceeds Smith & Nephew's cost of capital in the third
year after closing.

The complaint alleges that the Offer Price is inadequate and that
the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement regarding
the Proposed Transaction provides stockholders with materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Proposed
Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. In particular, the Complaint alleges that the
Recommendation Statement sets forth materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
Osiris; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Osiris'
financial advisor, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., in support of its
fairness opinion.

Osiris researches, develops, manufactures and commercializes
regenerative medicine products. Osiris common stock is traded under
the ticker symbol "OSIR".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

         Cynthia L. Leppert, Esq.
         Robert C. Baker III, Esq.
         NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN,
         RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A.
         One South Street, 27th Floor
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Telephone: (410) 332-8529
         Facsimile: (410) 332-8594
         Email: cll@nqgrg.com
                rcb@nqgrg.com

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
         440 Park Avenue South
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com

PANORAMA RESTAURANT: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Isabel Crespo Ordonez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Doe Corp. (d/b/a Panorama
Restaurant), Luis Panora and Marisol Saca, Defendants, Case No. 1
1:19-cv-01833 (E.D. N.Y., March 29, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum
wages, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law
("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Crespo (and all similarly situated employees) to work
without paying her appropriate minimum wage and spread of hours pay
as required by federal and state laws, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff Crespo was employed by Defendants from approximately
September 20, 2018 until on or about March 17, 2019.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Latin American Restaurant,
located at 87-16 Astoria Blvd East Elmhurst, NY 11369 under the
name "Panorama Restaurant".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


POVERELLO CENTER: Satchell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Poverello Center,
Inc.  The case is styled as Michael Satchell and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. The
Poverello Center, Inc., Thomas S. Pietrogallo individually, Tania
Tavares individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60856-DPG (S.D.
Fla., Apr. 1, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Poverello Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to
providing food, shelter, clothing and other essential services to
the community's hungry and homeless population in and around
Missoula, MT.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Jane Scott, Esq.
     Jordan Lee Richards, Esq.
     USA Employment Lawyers, Jordan Richards PLLC
     805 East Broward Boulevard. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
            jordan@jordanrichardslaw.com


QUORUM HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Zwick Partners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit titled ZWICK
PARTNERS, LP and APARNA RAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUORUM HEALTH CORP., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-02475 (M.D. Tenn.).

The Class will be defined as set forth in the Court's Memorandum
Opinion.  Zwick shall serve as Class Representative and Pomerantz
LLP shall serve as Class Counsel.

The Quorum Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint and CHSI Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint are granted.

The case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case
management.[CC]


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Removes TCPA Suit to Northern Dist. of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Redbox Automated Retail, LLC removed the case captioned as, CRYSTAL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02050, from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 22, 2019. The Northern
District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01993 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
          Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq.
          Tamra Miller, Esq.
          JASZCZUK P.C.
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 442-0509
          Facsimile: (312) 442-0519
          E-mail: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com

Attorneys for Defednant:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9 th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com


RREM INC: Boyd Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Boyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RREM Inc., Case No. 2019CH02321 (Ill. Cir.,
February 21, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection,
storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

RREM, Inc. operates as Winston Manor Convalescent and Nursing Home,
where Boyd was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a
timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges that RREM
improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed
consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Tel: (314) 833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


SALT RIVER PROJECT: Sued for Alleged Discriminatory Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Ellis, Robert Dill, Edward Rupprecht and Robert Gustavis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01228, (D. Ariz.,
February 22, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Sherman
Anti-trust Law and Arizona law.

Salt River Project provides retail electricity to customers in its
designated territory within the state of Arizona. Plaintiffs allege
that Salt River engaged in anticompetitive conduct designed to
eliminate solar energy competition by implementing a discriminatory
pricing scheme by unfairly penalizing those consumers with solar
energy systems through the imposition of higher electricity rates,
while consumers without solar energy systems are subject to
different, lower rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
     Scottsdale, AZ 85254
     Telephone: (800) 493-2827
     Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

              - and -

     David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
     Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
     ZIMME1MAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-341-0400
     Fax: 612-341-0844
     Email: alia.abdi@zimmreed.com
            david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com

            - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            dheldund@gustafsongluek.com
            dnordin@gustafsongluek.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated NY Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September
29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that
covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24,
2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second
amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on
defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the security of
customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs. The
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December
1, 2017.

On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead
plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017,
and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any
further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues
raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, Nebil Aydin filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its current Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853). The
Aydin complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, the Aydin case
was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint.

On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss. Discovery is ongoing in this action.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. The company operates through
three segments, North America, International, and Other. Signet
Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton,
Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that Signet Jewelers, Inc.
(SJI), a company subsidiary, still awaiting the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on claimants' class
action appeal.

On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.  

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion
on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an
order denying the Claimants' Motion.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award in part and denied it in part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November
25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI
appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed
and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the
arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion.

On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.
On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And
Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period,
which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.


Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The
arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016,
which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part
on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was
issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice
recipients closed on August 1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid
consents to be approximately 9,124.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the
absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017. On January 15, 2018, District Court
granted SJI's Motion finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her
authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the
Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE
Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby,
reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to 254.
Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is
254.

On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. SJI currently awaits the Second
Circuit's decision on this appeal.

On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral
argument on SJI's motions was heard. On January 26, 2018, SJI filed
a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And
Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority
by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing
the absent claimants to opt-in the litigation. On March 12, 2018,
the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still has a pending
motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective Action before
the Arbitrator.

On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially
granting SJI's Motion to Amend the Arbitrator's November 2, 2017,
Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a
continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has
not been set.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

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

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. The company operates through
three segments, North America, International, and Other. Signet
Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton,
Bermuda.


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Removes Labor Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
SkyWest Airlines, Inc. removed case styled, TREMAINE WILSON and
LAUREN BECKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the
Plaintiffs, vs. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Utah corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-573737 (Filed Feb. 13, 2019), from the San Francisco County
Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 22, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01491
to the proceeding.

The complaint assert unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, waiting time penalties, penalties for
non-compliant wage statements, civil penalties for violations of
California's Private Attorneys General Act, and unfair business
practices.

SkyWest Airlines is a North American regional airline headquartered
in St. George, Utah. SkyWest is classified as one of the major
airlines of the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq.
          Scott Morrison, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: 213 489 3939
          Facsimile: 213 243 2539
          E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
                  scottmorrison@jonesday.com
                  kitrummel@jonesday.com

SONAAL INDUSTRIES: Sandoval Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Sonaal Industries, Inc., and its
related entities seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who own, operate,
or control four buildings, located at 332 W 37th Street, New York,
New York 10018, at 334 W 37TH Street, New York, New York 10018, at
527 W 46TH Street, New York New York 10019 and at 717 W 49th
Street, New York, New York 10019, under the management and/or
control of REM Residential or Sonaal Industries. The Plaintiff was
employed as a superintendent at the four buildings.

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

Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff
Sandoval wages on a timely basis. Defendants' conduct extended
beyond Plaintiff Sandoval to all other similarly situated
employees.

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

The case is captioned as MARCOS ANTONIO SANDOVAL, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SONAAL
INDUSTRIES, INC. (D/B/A REM RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL INDUSTRIES)),
RAMA & MANJULA LLC (D/B/A REM RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL INDUSTRIES)),
RAMANJU PROPERTIES, LLC (D/B/A REM RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL
INDUSTRIES)), RAMA BROOKLYN LLC (D/B/A REM RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL
INDUSTRIES)), METROPOLITAN AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC. (D/B/A REM
RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL INDUSTRIES)), 717 NINTH LLC (D/B/A REM
RESIDENTIAL (FKA SONAAL INDUSTRIES)), RAMA P MUKHOPADHYAY, MANJULA
MUKHOPADHYAY, LEOPARDI DOE, and MICHAEL BESSE, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02576 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Campbell v. SCDC
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Chris Florian and David Tatarsky filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Campbell v. South Carolina
Department of Corrections et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-03265-MGL-KFM,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Greenville.

The nature of suit is stated as prisoner - civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit (assigned Case No. 2016-CP-10-04311), was removed
from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, to the District
Court and assigned to Judge Mary Geiger Lewis.

The appellate case is captioned as Marion Campbell v. Chris
Florian, Case No. 19-6417, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MARION CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Baker Allen, Esq.
          Richard Harpootlian, Esq.
          Christopher P. Kenney, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          P. O. Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252 4848
          E-mail: wba@harpootlianlaw.com
                  rah@harpootlianlaw.com
                  cpk@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Berlinsky, Esq.
          RIESEN LAW OFFICE
          3660 West Montague Avenue
          North Charleston, SC 29418-0000
          Telephone: (843) 760-2450
          Facsimile: (843) 767-3282
          E-mail: philipalanlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Cheryl Forest Perkins, Esq.
          Charles W. Whetstone, Jr., Esq.
          WHETSTONE, MYERS, PERKINS & YOUNG, LLC
          601 Devine Street
          P. O. Box 8086
          Columbia, SC 29202-0000
          Telephone: (803) 799-9400
          E-mail: cperkins@attorneyssc.com
                  cwhetstone@attorneyssc.com

Defendants-Appellants CHRIS FLORIAN and DAVID TATARSKY are
represented by:

          Eugene Matthews, Esq.
          Charles Clifford Rollins, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA
          P. O. Drawer 7788
          Columbia, SC 29202-0000
          Telephone: (803) 771-4400
          E-mail: gmatthews@richardsonplowden.com
                  mwilson@richardsonplowden.com


SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Shortchanges Drivers' Overtime Pay, Says Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southern Glazer's, Inc., Southern Glazer's Wine and
Spirits of Arkansas, LLC and Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits of
Arkansas II, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00140 (E.D. Ark.,
February 21, 2019), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendants sell and distribute alcohol to large retailers where
Burns worked as a delivery driver from June of 2018 until January
28, 2019. He claims to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in
excess of 40 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      April Rheaume, Esq.
      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Sanford Law Firm
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
             steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             april@sanfordlawfirm.com


SPC MANAGEMENT: Lopez Brings Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPC Management Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Oscar Lopez individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPC Management Co.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01875 (E.D. N.Y., Apr. 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

SPC Management Co., Inc. operates as a private equity firm. The
Company offers buyouts, recapitalizations, and growth financings in
lower middle-market consumer products companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Fax: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com



STEELMASTER INDUSTRIES: Wooton Seeks to Certify Laborers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TOM WOOTON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. STEELMASTER
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
6:19-cv-00419-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.), seek entry of an order
permitting, under Court supervision, notice to a class of similarly
situated employees:

     All persons employed as hourly paid laborers for Defendant
     for the past three years (plus any applicable tolling) from
     the date of the Complaint to the present who worked more
     than forty (40) hours in one or more workweeks, who were not
     paid full and proper overtime compensation for all hours
     worked due to Defendant's timekeeping practices.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the
putative class members were subjected to the same illegal pay
practices at issue (nonpayment of full and proper overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 during any workweek.  The
Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. SR. 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


STEVE MOORE: Reichbart Sues over Unwanted Unsolicited Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC ALAN REICHBART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STEVE MOORE CHEVROLET, LLC
D/B/A AUTONATION CHEVROLET GREENACRES, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80399-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 22, 2019), contends that, to gain an advantage over its
competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy
rights. The Defendant transmits prerecorded messages to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, promoting its services
and goods.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and business. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.533.4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: 954.400.4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          DELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Appeals Ruling in Cadillo Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Stoneleigh Recovery Associates LLC filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Natalie Cadillo v. Stoneleigh
Recovery Associates, et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-07472, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff,
a resident of New Jersey, incurred a financial obligation in the
amount of $1,134.45 to Jersey City Medical Center (JCMC).  JCMC
then referred the obligation to Stoneleigh, a debt collection
company, to collect the amount owed.  The Plaintiff filed suit in
this Court against Defendant for "damages and declaratory relief
arising from Defendant's violation of Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's notice violates Section
1692e(10) of the FDCPA, which prohibits the use of any false,
deceptive, or misleading representations or means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt.  A letter is deceptive when it can
reasonably be read to have two or more meanings, one of which is
inaccurate or contradictory to another requirement.  The Plaintiff
argues that the Defendant's January 5, 2017 letter is misleading
because the instruction regarding how to dispute Plaintiff's debt
"can be read to have two or more meanings."

The appellate case is captioned as Natalie Cadillo v. Stoneleigh
Recovery Associates, et al., Case No. 19-8008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent NATALIE CADILLO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Petitioner STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC is
represented by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Anderson Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
StoneMor Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Anderson v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6111, filed on November 21, 2016, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6275, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2016,
which has been consolidated with this case) brought an action on
behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership units and
allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to investors in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things and in general, failing to clearly disclose
the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings by making
allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a) the
Partnership's strength or health in connection with a particular
quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection between
operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use of cash
from equity offerings and its credit facility.

Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership
unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. Lead plaintiffs
have been appointed in this case, and filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 8, 2017. The motion was granted on October 31,
2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on
November 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December
29, 2017. Oral argument was held before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 1, 2018.

StoneMor said, "The Partnership expects the court to render a
decision in the near future, but there can be no assurance as to
when the court will issue its ruling."

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

StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home
Operations. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Trevose, Pennsylvania.


SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Warciak Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Warciak filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Matthew Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08694, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of
its unlawful telephone calling practices, actual, statutory, and
treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other
and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Subway operates a nationwide chain of fast food sandwich shops.
Subway, through a marketing partner, engaged in a massive text
message campaign offering millions of consumers a free Subway
Sandwich in which the recipients of these promotional text
messages, including the Plaintiff, did not consent to receive
marketing messages sent by or on behalf of Subway.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Warciak v. Subway
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 19-1577, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due today, April 15, 2019;
and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 13, 2019, for
      Matthew Warciak.[BN]

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

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: randrews@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

Defendant-Appellee SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Charles H.R. Peters, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 258-5683
          E-mail: cpeters@schiffhardin.com


T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Chetwood and Sandra Castellon-Gonzalez, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00458 (W.D. Wash., March 28,
2019) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA").

In order to service their customers, Defendant employs hourly
customer service representatives at brick-and-mortar call centers
throughout the country, internally referred to by Defendant as
Customer Service Associate Experts; Customer Service Experts; or
Senior Customer Service Experts ("CSRs").

Defendant requires their CSRs to work a set, full-time schedule.
However, Defendant did not begin compensating CSRs until they have
started up their computers and logged into all of the necessary
computer applications. This policy results in CSRs not being paid
for all time worked and for all of their overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA and the KWPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly CSRs at the
Defendant's call center in Wichita, Kansas.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation,
headquartered in Bellevue Washington and formed in the State of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam J. Berger, Esq.
     SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
     810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: (206) 622-8000
     Email: berger@sgb-law.com

          - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
            crash@sommerspc.com


TAYLOR, MI: Attar 2018 Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ATTAR 2018, LLC; HOPE 2014,
LLC, INVESTMENT REALTY SERVICES, LLC; and those similarly situated
v. CITY OF TAYLOR, Case No. 2:19-cv-10199-LVP-APP (E.D. Mich.), ask
the Court to certify this class:

     All persons and entities who have been charged/levied Fees
     by the City of Taylor under the Weeds Ordinance or Nuisance
     Ordinance from January 21, 2013 through final judgment in
     this matter, or such longer period as may be allowed by law.

This matter involves the Defendant's enforcement of the
International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) as adopted under the
Home Rule City Act and other ordinances adopted by the City related
to weed and debris removal and the fees assessed as tax liens
regarding same.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michelle D. Champane, Esq.
          H. William Burdett, Jr., Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD, PLLC
          450 W. Fourth St.
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 723-0467
          E-mail: Mdc@h2law.com
                  bb2@h2law.com


TENARIS SA: Faces 2 Class Suits over Argentine Court Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
two putative class action suits related to its November 27, 2018
announcement that its Chairman and CEO Paolo Rocca was included in
an Argentine court investigation known as the Notebooks Case.

The Company is aware that, following its November 27, 2018
announcement that its Chairman and CEO Paolo Rocca was included in
an Argentine court investigation known as the Notebooks Case, two
putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of Tenaris securities from May 1, 2014 through November
27, 2018.

The individual defendants named in the complaint are Tenaris's
Chairman and CEO and Tenaris's CFO. Each complaint alleges that
during the class period (May 2014-November 2018), the Company and
the individual defendants inflated the Tenaris share price by
failing to disclose that sale proceeds received by Ternium (in
which Tenaris held an 11.46% stake) when Sidor was expropriated by
Venezuela were received or expedited as a result of alleged
improper payments made to Argentine officials. The complaint does
not specify the damages that plaintiff is seeking.

Tenaris said, "Management believes the Company has meritorious
defenses to these claims, however, at this stage the Company cannot
predict the outcome of the claim or the amount or range of loss in
case of an unfavorable outcome."

Tenaris S.A., through its subsidiaries, produces and sells seamless
and welded steel tubular products; and provides related services
for the oil and gas industry, and other industrial applications.
The company operates in North America, South America, Europe, the
Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Tenaris S.A. was
founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Luxembourg City,
Luxembourg. Tenaris S.A. is a subsidiary of Techint Holdings S.a
r.l.


TEXAS FARM: Class of Contractors Certified in English FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alan D. Albright grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class as an FLSA Collective Action and for Court-Authorized Notice
in the lawsuit titled HEATHER ENGLISH, et al. v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU
BUSINESS CORPORATION, TEXAS FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TEXAS FARM BUREAU
UNDERWRITERS, FARM BUREAU COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS,
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE, INSURANCE COMPANY, and TEXAS FARM
BUREAU, Case No. 6:17-cv-00323-ADA (W.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs Heather English, Joe Hawley, and Robin Broussard, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated filed this
suit to recover unpaid back wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
have violated the FLSA by misclassifying their insurance agents as
independent contractors and not paying them for overtime hours
worked.

The Class is conditionally certified for purposes of providing
notice to potential class members and allowing potential class
members to opt-in to this suit:

     All former and current independent contractors of Texas Farm
     Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual
     Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters, Farm
     Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, Southern
     Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, and Texas Farm Bureau,
     who within the past three years have worked in the position
     of insurance agent in the State of Texas.

Judge Albright also:

   -- approves the Plaintiffs' proposed supplemental notice and
      reminder notice;

   -- directs the Defendants to, within 14 days of the date of
      this order, provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the full
      name, last known address, and e-mail address of each Class
      member.  If the Defendants cannot provide a Class member's
      current e-mail address, they must provide a current
      telephone number;

   -- approves the Plaintiffs' proposed call script; and

   -- authorizes the Plaintiffs' counsel to contact by telephone
      any Class member for whom no e-mail address is provided by
      the Defendants, but may do so only once and must strictly
      adhere to the Call Script.

After the Defendants have complied with their obligation to provide
the Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information, the counsel must
send the approved Notice form to all identified Class members by
first-class mail and e-mail (where available) within ten days.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel shall notify the Court once delivery of the
Notice is complete.   Class members may opt in to this collective
action only if: (1) they have mailed, faxed, or e-mailed their
Consent Form to Plaintiffs' counsel within sixty days after the
Notice and Consent Forms are transmitted by Plaintiffs' counsel; or
(2) they show good cause for delay.

The Plaintiffs' counsel may send the approved Reminder Notice by
first class mail and e-mail (if available) to any Class member who
has not already returned his or her consent form by the
twenty-fifth day before the close of the sixty-day opt-in window.
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties shall submit
to the Court a joint proposed scheduling order for the completion
of discovery.  The joint proposed order will include any discovery
deadlines, a briefing schedule for the Defendants' motion(s) to
decertify the class, and, if necessary, a hearing on the
decertification motion(s).[CC]



TOYOTA MOTOR: Class of Camry Purchasers Certified in Salas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned ALFRED SALAS, et al. v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-08629-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies the Rule 23(b)(3) Class defined as:

     (1) A California-only class consisting of all persons in
     California who purchased or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry
     XV 50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer; (2) a
     California CLRA sub-class consisting of all members of the
     California class who are "consumers" within the meaning of
     California Civil Code Section 1761(d).

The Court hereby appoints Alfred Salas and Gloria Ortega (with
exception as to the implied warranty claims) as the representatives
of the certified class.  The Court appoints Capstone Law APC as
class counsel.

On October 21, 2016, Alfred Salas and Gloria Ortega, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed the operative
Second Amended Complaint against Toyota asserting claims for, among
other things, violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.[CC]



TRANSPORT-U: Taylor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Transport-U-Transportation LLC for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act. The case is captioned CANDICE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TRANSPORT-U-TRANSPORTATION LLC and MELANIE ROSS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00241-MRB (S.D. Ohio, April 2, 2019). Taylor alleges
that the policies and practices of Defendant have violated the FLSA
and Ohio Wage Act.  Plaintiff has been denied proper overtime
compensation due to Defendant's company-wide policy and practice of
misclassifying employees as independent contractors and not
compensating the class members at the proper overtime rate during
workweeks when they worked more than 40 hours per workweek, in
violation of the Ohio Wage Act.

Transport-U-Transportation LLC is an Ohio limited liability
company, with its principle place of business located in Hamilton
Ohio. It provides non-emergency medical transportation services.
Melanie Ross is the founder, president and owner of Transport-U.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: (216) 230-2955
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
             clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


UNITED AIR: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Johnson BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants United Airlines, Inc. and United Continental Holdings,
Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:17-cv-08858, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 2017-CH-14832) was removed on December 8, 2017,
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the District
Court.

On November 7, 2017, Mr. Johnson filed a class-action complaint
against the Defendants, alleging that they have violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by implementing a
timekeeping system that relied on the collection, storage, and
usage of employees' fingerprints and biometric information without
informed consent.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants violated BIPA by
not making available a written policy addressing retention and
destruction of such information and not obtaining consent for any
transmission of such information to third parties.

The appellate case is captioned as UAL, et al. v. David Johnson,
Case No. 19-8008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com

Defendants-Petitioners UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          Ada W. Dolph, Esq.
           SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5922
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: tahlering@seyfarth.com
                  adolph@seyfarth.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cole Sues over Arbitrary Medical Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against United Healthcare
Insurance Company (UHC) for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
improper denial of health care benefits. The case is captioned
Richard Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21258-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2019).
Richard Cole brings this class action on behalf of beneficiaries of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans administered by UHC
who were denied Proton Beam Radiation Therapy (PBRT) because of
UHC's uniform application of an arbitrary medical policy to deny as
experimental or investigational such treatment for prostate cancer,
despite PBRT being recognized for decades by the medical community
as an established, medically appropriate treatment for cancer,
including prostate cancer.

UHC is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of
business in Hartford, Connecticut. UHC is a global health care
benefits company, which, along with its wholly owned and controlled
subsidiaries, offers, insures, underwrites, and administers health
benefits plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dean Colson, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
     Lazaro Fields, Esq.
     COLSON HICKS EIDSON
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 476-7400
     Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
     E-mail: eservice@colson.com
             dean@colson.com
             scasey@colson.com
             laz@colson.com


URBANICA MANAGEMENT: Coutin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned AMALIA COUTIN, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. URBANICA MANAGEMENT LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 2019-005366-CA-01 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-21225-MGC.

The Plaintiff filed this case on February 29, 2019, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
     2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 448-9292
     Fax: (786) 309-9978
     Email: em@eddymarbanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
     Law Offices of Santiago J. Padilla, P.A.
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 967-6304
     Email: sjp@padillalawoffice.com



US XPRESS: Faces Stein Suit over Initial Public Offering
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Express
Enterprises, Inc., for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws. The case is captioned LEWIS STEIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. XPRESS, INC.,
ERIC FULLER, ERIC PETERSON, JASON GREAR, MAX FULLER, and LISA QUINN
PATE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00098 (E.D. Tenn., April 2,
2019).

Plaintiff Stein brings this action under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons and entities,
other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of U.S. Xpress pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's initial public offering (IPO) completed
in June 2018. To the detriment of Plaintiff and all those who
bought the shares in or traceable to the IPO, the negligently
prepared Offering Documents omitted material information regarding
the company's business prospects and financial health. As such,
said documents contained untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state the facts necessary to make the statements made
therein not misleading, thus violating the rules and regulations
governing its preparation.

On November 1, 2018, U.S. Xpress issued a press release announcing
the Company's financial and operating results for the third fiscal
quarter and nine months ending September 30, 2018.  Therein, and in
a conference call discussing the results, U.S. Xpress disclosed how
unusual shipping patterns were impacting its segments and how
market challenges for drivers resulted in a year-to-year tractor
count decrease.  The Company and its executives further disclosed
higher driver wages and independent contractor costs, lower than
expected recruitment levels, and a higher insurance expense.  On
this news, U.S. Xpress’s stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
nearly 30%, to close at $7.10 per share on November 2, 2018.

Stein seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's
violations of the Securities Act.

U.S. Xpress is a publicly traded company incorporated in Nevada
with its principal executive offices located at 4080 Jenkins Road,
Chattanooga, TN 37421. Following the U.S. Xpress IPO, the company's
common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol USX.

The company describes itself as the fifth largest asset-based
truckload carrier in the U.S. by revenue. It provides services
using both its own truckload fleet and third-party carriers. Its
fleet consist of more than 6,800 tractors and approximately 16,000
trailers. Eric Fuller is the President and CEO and a director of
U.S. Xpress. Fuller, along with U.S. Xpress's Chief Financial
Officer Eric Peterson and directors Jason Grear, Max Fuller, Lissa
Quinn Pate, signed and authorized the signing of the Registration
Statement filed with Securities and Exchange Commission. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
    Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
    BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
    P.O. Box 150734
    Nashville, TN 37215-0734
    Telephone: (615) 248-2828
    Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
    E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
            Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

             - and –

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

            - and -

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


VL DELIGHTS: Cafe Worker Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Raul Gonzalez Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. V L Delights LLC (a.k.a. V L Deights LLC,
d/b/a Bel Ami Cafe), Vanessa Laplaud and Claudio Doe, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02796 (S.D. N.Y., March 28, 2019) seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law
("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor codified, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed as a food preparer and a dishwasher
at the Defendants' cafe.

Defendants own, operate, or control a French cafe, located at 30
East 68th Street, New York, New York 10065 under the name "Bel Ami
Cafe".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOCATIONAL TRAINING: Underpays Instructors, Karna Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour class action lawsuit has been filed against
Vocational Training Institute Inc. doing business as Pima Medical
Institute (PIMA). The case is captioned VERONICA KARNA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTES, INC., an Arizona
corporation doing business as Pima Medical Institute; DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00016838 (Cal. Super., San Diego
County, April 2, 2019). For at least the past four years, PIMA has
saved itself thousands in labor costs by requiring its instructors
to perform all prep work off the clock. Rather than pay its
employees for the hours they actually work, PIMA compensates its
instructors for their prep work by paying them Prep Time Pay, which
is a small fee based on the number of classes and students of the
instructor. Accordingly, the complaint is raised against PIMA for
its unpaid overtime, breach of contract, failure to pay minimum
wage, record-keeping violations, waiting time penalties and
violation of California's Business and Professions Code.

PIMA is an Arizona Corporation that owns and operates two
for-profit post-secondary schools in San Diego County. The San
Marcos campus is approximately 40,000 square feet and is divided
into 10 major instructional areas, which are taught by an estimated
12 full and part time instructors. The Chula Vista campus occupies
approximately 24,000 square feet and is divided into nine major
instructional areas, which are taught by an estimated 23 full and
part time instructors. Both campuses offer its estimated 800 plus
student body, morning, afternoon and night classes and labs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Miller, Esq.
     Carlos Americano, Esq.
     MILLER LAW FIRM
     Historic Louis Bank of Commerce Building
     835 Fifth Avenue, Suite 301
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 687-0143
     Facsimile: (619) 687-0136


WAL-MART STORES: Bakov Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Bakov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02178 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2019) seeks damages and
injunctive relief resulting from the illegal actions of Wal-Mart in
contacting Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone
for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message or
artificial voice in direct contravention of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Neither Plaintiff nor the other Class members ever consented in
writing, authorized, desired or permitted Wal-Mart to make
telephone calls to their cellular telephones. By making such
unauthorized telephone calls, Wal-Mart caused Plaintiff and each of
the class members actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited
calls, and the monies paid to their cellular carriers for the
receipt of such calls, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Angel Bakov, is an individual and is a resident and a
citizen of Cook County, Illinois.

Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation that maintains its headquarters
at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
     Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.
     221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312.789.9700


WUXI PHARMATECH: Faces Altimeo Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Altimeo Asset Management, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wuxi Pharmatech (Cayman) Inc., Ge
Li, Edward Hu, Ning Zhao, Xiaozhong Liu, Zhaohui Zhang, New Wuxi
Life Science Holdings Limited, New Wuxi Life Science Limited, Wuxi
Merger Limited, G&C Partnership L.P., ABG II-WX Limited, Boyu
Capital Fund II, L.P., Hillhouse Capital Fund II, L.P., Ping An
Life Insurance Company Of China. Ltd., Temasek Life Sciences
Private Limited, G&C IV Limited, Yinfu Capital Management Co.,
Yunfeng II WX Limited, Sequoia Capital China Growth Fund III, L.P.,
Constant Cypress Limited, and SPDB International Holdings Limited,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01654, (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2019),
seeks to recover damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Wuxi Pharmatech is a holding company for numerous pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical device research and development services
companies operating in the United States and China through its
subsidiaries, WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics and WuXi Next Code.

On April 30, 2015, Li and Ally Bridge Group Capital Partners  moved
to acquire all outstanding shares of Wuxi for $46.00 in cash per
share. Defendants allegedly issued numerous false and misleading
statements, designed to undervalue the company by omitting their
intentions to spin-off and publicly list shares of its various
subsidiaries in the People's Republic of China. After WuXi was
delisted from the NYSE on December 10, 2015, Defendants spun-off
its subsidiaries and completed an IPO of its former subsidiaries
which made a killing in China's stock market nearly 7 times greater
than the initial merger valuation, relates the complaint.

Altimeo Asset Management is an independent portfolio management
company based in France. It claims that it was deprived of future
financial growth after the change of equity of the WuXi Group when
it was divested of its WuXi shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***