CAR_Public/190416.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 76

                            Headlines

600 HYLAN: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
741 EIGHTH AVENUE: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates FDCPA, Gendelberg Suit Asserts
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes Mohammed Case to N.D. California
AMERICAN HOTEL: Lopez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act

AQUATE CORPORATION: Perry Alleges Gender & Race Discrimination
AUSTIN 88 LLC: Lezama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AWP INC: Kasiotis et al. Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulates VRDO Interest Rates, Baltimore Says
BREATHER PRODUCTS: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MOU Reached in Landers Class Suit
C6 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit
CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Kushnirsky Asserts FDCPA Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Barclay Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
CARE.COM INC: Toussaint Alleges Securities Fraud

CBE GROUP: Zurakov Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
CDJR KNOXVILLE: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Campaign
CITADINES GROUP: Young Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Dangelo Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Alleman's Bid to Certify Classes Denied

COLOUR LLC: Lucero et al. Seek Overtime Compensation
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Class Settlement in Fastrich Suit Approved
CRESCENT DRILLING: Langen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Ct. Tosses Butler's Class Cert. Bid
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Gibson Alleges FDCPA Breach

EARL ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS: Faces Hymes et al Suit over Data Breach
ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend AWA Indigenous Community Suit
ECOPETROL SA: Still Defends Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil Suit
ECOPETROL SA: Suit over BT Energy Incident Underway
EPSI INC: Smith, Grooms Seek Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Untershine Suit
FIRST FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Denied in Honig Suit
GENEX SERVICES: McMann Seeks OT Pay for Medical Case Managers
GURSTEL LAW: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Removes Marron Suit to N.D. California

HILL'S PET: Flanary Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
HOWARD LEE: Dixon Files Class Suit under FDCPA
HW POWERSPORTS: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
IDEAL NAIL: Hernandez, Elvir Seek Overtime Pay and Unpaid Wages
JAMES ROKOS: Flores Gets Court Nod to File First Amended Complaint

JONES DAY: Tolton and Mazingo Allege Gender Discrimination
KIRSCHBAUM NANNEY: Cinelli Brings FDCPA Class Suit in NY
KUMHO TIRE USA: Barnes Files Class Action in E.D. Arkansas
LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Files Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
LINDA RICHARDS: Mako Seeks Overtime Pay for Coordinators

LJ ROSS: Class Certification Under Damasco Sought in Kasper Suit
MAGNUM REAL: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
MARIE NAPOLI: Werner Lima Files Wage-and-Hour Suit
MARKOFF LAW: Certification of Class Sought in Lisiecki Suit
MATTO MGMT: Doncouse Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act

MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Gowans Alleges Violation under FDCPA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ariezaga Asserts FDCPA Breach
MONSANTO COMPANY: Albert Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Baehr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brand Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brownings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hignetts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOVIE GRILL: Langford Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MRS BPO: Callan Files FDCPA Class Action in NY
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Cowan to Recoup Overtime Wages, Damages

NET ELEMENT: Fabricant Sues Over TCPA Violation
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE: Wins Bid to Decertify in Haack Suit
OLIN CORP: Midwest Renewable Alleges Price-Fixing of Caustic Soda
PLOMO LLC: Mora et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
POVERELLO CENTER: Faces Guia Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Hurtado et al. Seek to Certify Class
RAS LAVRAR: Moran Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Beltrez Asserts FDCPA Breach
REGIONAL CARE HOSPITAL: Underpays Nurses, Kurtz Suit Claims
SHAPIRO DICARO: Girardi Asserts Breach of FDCPA

SIMON'S AGENCY: Huber Files FDCPA Class Action in Pa.
SKANSKA USA: Faces Grand Mechanical Class Action in New York
SOPAPILLAS LLC: Class in Stephens Suit Certified Under FLSA
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Court Continues Hearing on Class Certification
SPARK ENERGY: Lechuga Files Class Suit in Illinois Under FCRA

SS & M AUTO: Mahr Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing
STERN RECOVERY: Kornegay Files Consumer Class Action
STOP 1 DELI: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
STRIKE LLC: Faces Kyle Foster Labor Suit
SUTTELL & HAMMER: Armstrong Sues over Debt Collection Protocol

TREASURED NURSE: Eze Obi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIFUND CCR: Connor Files Class Action in Pennsylvania Under FDCPA
URBY LLC: Fischler Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
[*] Canadian Municipalities Mull Climate Change Suits v. Oil Cos.
[*] Law Firm Sees Perfect Storm in Australian Class Action Space

[*] Senate Bill 7 Sparks Controversy in Missouri
[*] Texas Law Exposes Companies to Worker Misclassification Suits

                            *********

600 HYLAN: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
600 Hylan Associates L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 600 Hylan Associates L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01876 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019).

600 Hylan Associates LLC is a company Located at Brooklyn, New
York, providing real estate agents and managers products and
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



741 EIGHTH AVENUE: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
741 Eighth Avenue Owners, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 741 Eighth Avenue Owners, LLC
d/b/a RIU Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02847 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 29, 2019).

741 Eighth Avenue Owners LLC is in the Hotels and Motels industry
in New York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates FDCPA, Gendelberg Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Leonard Gendelberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allied Collection Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01898 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019).

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

Allied Collection Service Inc. operates as an accounts receivable
management company. The Company provides services in contingency
collections, allied accounts management, check recovery, and skip
tracing. Allied Collection Service is based in Columbus,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes Mohammed Case to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. removed the case captioned HASIM A.
MOHAMMED, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV342788
(Filed Feb. 19, 2019), from the Santa Clara County Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on March 25, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01540 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts alleged violations of California's meal and
rest break, recordkeeping, and timeliness of wage payment laws. The
Plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative
"Hourly Employee Class" defined as "all persons employed by
Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third
parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the
Relevant Time Period."[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Robert A. Siegel, Esq.
          Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq.
          Susannah K. Howard, Esq.
          Kristin M. Macdonnell, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: 213-430-6000
          Facsimile: 213-430-6407
          E-mail: rsiegel@omm.com
                  akohsweeney@omm.com
                  showard@omm.com
                  kmacdonnell@omm.com

AMERICAN HOTEL: Lopez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Hotel LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Hotel LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02868 (S.D. N.Y., March 29, 2019).

American Hotel LLC operates in the hospitality business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




AQUATE CORPORATION: Perry Alleges Gender & Race Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER PERRY, the Plaintiff, vs. AQUATE CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00467-LCB (N.D. Ala., March 19, 2019), seeks legal
and equitable relief to redress unlawful gender (pregnancy) and
race discrimination under Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans
With Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a white female citizen
of the United States over the age of 19 years, and was also
pregnant during certain portions of the time relevant to the
dispute. The Plaintiff worked as a custodian from June 2016 until
she was terminated on April 3, 2018. In the beginning of January
2018, the Plaintiff had a baby. The Plaintiff submitted and was
approved for FMLA leave, used sick and vacation time and was
scheduled to return to work in March. The Plaintiff developed
complications post-delivery and it was determined that she needed
surgery to address a hernia. The Plaintiff and her medical
treatment providers kept the company informed of her status. At the
end of her leave, the company refused to allow the Plaintiff any
additional time off for the required surgery.

Allowing the Plaintiff some limited time to allow her to have the
hernia surgery and recover would not be undue hardship on the
company. Rather on April 2, 2019, an AQuate representative and
Perry's employer, without permission, contacted her treating
physician's office (masqueraded as short term disability
representative) and inquired as to whether Perry was intentionally
delaying surgery. The employer was advised the surgery was delayed
to the surgeon's schedule and the surgeon would shortly be making a
decision about a return to work date, pending Perry's follow up
appointment. Not happy with that answer, the AQuate corporation
terminated Perry's employment.

Prior to the surgery, Perry raised issues of race discrimination
with her managers. Perry contended that her supervisor had more
harsh standards and that she received more discipline than the
African-American custodians. Perry put her discrimination
complaints in writing. When she needed the additional leave, the
company was unreceptive and terminated her employment.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated female employees ask
the Court to assume jurisdiction of the action, lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          Two North 20th Street, Suite 1330
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0940
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          E-mail: rcooks@winstoncooks.com
                  lwinston@winstoncooks.com

AUSTIN 88 LLC: Lezama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
MARCO LEZAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUSTIN 88 LLC d/b/a BAREBURGER, and ZIJIE
LIN and HONG JIE LIN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01847-ARR-JO (E.D. N.Y, April 1, 2019) is an action against
Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment.

Although Plaintiff MARCO LEZAMA worked approximately 78 hours or
more per week during his employment by Defendants from in or around
January 2016 until in or around June 2016, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff 1.5 for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MARCO LEZAMA was employed from in or around January 2016
until in or around June 2016 by Defendants.

AUSTIN 88 LLC d/b/a BAREBURGER is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591


AWP INC: Kasiotis et al. Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACK KASIOTIS, DELANO ANGLIN, and SHANTEL RANSOME, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. AWP, Inc., d/b/a AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11825 (Filed Dec. 17, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the  Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Akron). The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00648-JRA to the proceeding.

The case is a collective action instituted by the Plaintiffs as a
result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its
traffic control specialists, including Plaintiffs, for all hours
worked, resulting in unpaid earned wages including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York wage and hour laws.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

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

Counsel for the Defendant:

          John Sandercock, Esq.
          Richard Granofsky, Esq.
          LESTER, SCHWAB, KATZ AND DWYER LLP
          100 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 341-4479
          Facsimile: (212) 267-5916

BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulates VRDO Interest Rates, Baltimore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against _______ targets Defendants'
violations of federal antitrust and state law arising from their
alleged collusion to manipulate variable rate demand obligation
("VRDO") interest rates from on or before August 1, 2007, through
at least June 30, 2016.

The suit concerns Defendants' conspiracy to fix the interest rates
of VRDOs issued by Plaintiff Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
and a proposed Class of similarly situated individuals and entities
in violation of federal antitrust law and in breach of Defendants'
contractual commitments.

VRDOs are tax-exempt municipal securities for which the interest
rate resets on a periodic basis, most commonly weekly. VRDOS are
typically issued by state and local governments, or by housing or
healthcare authorities on behalf of projects such as multifamily
housing, hospitals, and universities, as a means of raising
revenue. VRDOs are primarily held by tax-exempt money market funds,
many of which are owned and managed by Defendants. As a result,
Defendants often stand on both sides of VRDOs, without disclosing
that fact.

VRDOs provide special benefits to both issuers and investors
(bondholders): From investor's perspective, VRDOs function as
short-term securities because they include a "put" feature that
allows the investor at each periodic reset date to tender the
security back at face value ("par") plus any accrued interest,
thereby providing a low-risk, high-liquidity, typically tax-free
investment. And for the issuer, VRDOs behave like long-term
securities because they allow the issuer to borrow money for long
periods of time -- while only paying short-term interest rates.

Because of VRDO's tax-exempt status, investors historically have
been willing to invest in VRDOs at an interest rate significantly
lower than that of commercial paper, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BMO
FINANCIAL GROUP; BMO FINANCIAL CORP.; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.;
BMO CAPITAL MARKETS GKST INC.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK N.A.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED;
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; FIFTH THIRD
BANCORP.; FIFTH THIRD BANK; FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC.;JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
MORGAN STANLEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC; MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC.; THE ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; WELLS FARGO & CO.; WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A.; WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.; WELLS FARGO FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC;
and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02667-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, itself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32 nd Fl
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-336-8330
          Facsimile: 212-336-8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Katherine M. Peaslee, esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-516-3880
          Facsimile: 206-516-3883
          E-mail: kpeaslee@susmangodfrey.com

BREATHER PRODUCTS: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Breather Products US Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Breather Products US Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02760 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2019).

Breather Products Inc. creates and curates a network of on-demand
private spaces that a client can reserve and unlock via its web and
mobile apps. It has spaces in New York, New York; San Francisco and
Los Angeles, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois;
Washington, District Of Columbia; Toronto and Montreal, Canada; and
London, United Kingdom. Breather Products Inc. was founded in 2012
and is based in Montreal, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MOU Reached in Landers Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 4, 2019, that a
memorandum of understanding has been entered in the case entitled,
Elizabeth Landers, et al. v. Giovanni Caforio, et al., C.A. No.
2019-0125.

On January 2, 2019, Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS") and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of BMS ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which,
among other things, on the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into Celgene, with
Celgene surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of BMS (the
"Merger").

A complaint styled as a putative class action captioned Elizabeth
Landers, et al. v. Giovanni Caforio, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0125 was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf
of the BMS shareholders, naming members of the BMS board of
directors as defendants.

This complaint alleges that each of the members of BMS board of
directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to BMS and its
shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the
Merger.

On April 4, 2019, BMS and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum
of understanding (the "memorandum of understanding") in which the
plaintiff agreed to dismiss her claims with prejudice, and to
dismiss claims asserted on behalf of the putative class without
prejudice, in return for BMS's agreement to make a supplemental
disclosures.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2uRPTTX.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. The company offers drugs in oncology,
immunoscience, cardiovascular, and fibrotic diseases. The company
was formerly known as Bristol-Myers Company and changed its name to
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in 1989. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


C6 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
C6 Disposal Systems, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Texas common law. The case is captioned
CHARLES TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. C6 DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00347 (W.D. Tex., April 3, 2019).

Plaintiff Charles Taylor asserts that C6 has knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate him and the Putative Class
Members for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week on a routine
and regular basis. In addition, C6 also does not compensate Taylor
and the Putative Class Members for all hours spent working while
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are in line at the
landfill. Accordingly, Plaintiff seek to recover all unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages owed under the FLSA
as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), and to
recover all damages owed under the Texas class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

C6 Disposal Systems, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation,
organized under the laws of the State of Texas. The company
provides garbage collection and recycling services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
     Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
     ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com


CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Kushnirsky Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calvary Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ivan Kushnirsky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01391-CFK (E.D. Pa., April 2, 2019).

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

Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collector in Hawthorne,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Arkady Eric Rayz
   Kalikhman & Rayz LLC
   1051 County Line Road, Suite A
   Huntingdon Calley, PA 19006
   Tel: (215) 364-5030
   Fax: (215) 364-5029
   Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Barclay Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A. The case is styled as Heather M. Barclay, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02188
(N.D. Ill., March 29, 2019).

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

Credit One Bank offers credit cards with cash back rewards, online
credit score access, and fraud protection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com




CARE.COM INC: Toussaint Alleges Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------
A securities class action has been filed against Care.com, Inc.,
its chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The case
is captioned LESEDI TOUSSAINT, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CARE.COM, INC., SHEILA LIRIO
MARCELO, AND MICHAEL ECHENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10628
(D. Mass., April 3, 2019).

Plaintiff Lesedi Toussaint, on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Care.com, Inc. common
stock between the class period of March 27, 2015 and April 1, 2019,
alleges that Care.com violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S. Code Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, 17 Code of Federal Regulations Section
240.10b-5.  During the class period, and unbeknownst to investors,
Care.com made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Care.com leaves it to its customers to vet the
caregivers and day-care providers listed on its website.

Defendant Care.com, Inc., is incorporated in the State of Delaware
and has its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. The Company's
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"CRCM". Sheila Lirio Marcelo is Care.com's Founder, Chairwoman and
Chief Executive Officer.  Michael Echenberg has been Care.com's
Chief Financial Officer since April 2015. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 398-5600
     Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com


CBE GROUP: Zurakov Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Zurakov moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled RYAN ZURAKOV, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE CBE GROUP INC., Case
No. 2:19-cv-00480-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CDJR KNOXVILLE: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE RENFROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CDJR KNOXVILLE, LLC d/b/a SECRET CITY
CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, a Tennessee limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00092 (E.D. Tenn., March 19, 2019),
seeks redress from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Secret City owns and operates a new and used car dealership in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. In order to gain an unfair advantage over its
competitors and to promote its goods and services, the Defendant
engaged in an unsolicited telemarketing campaign without any regard
for individual privacy rights, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.  The Defendant transmits prerecorded messages to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
order to solicit and promote its goods and services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Bank
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 39729
          Telephone: 865 247 0080
          Facsimile: 865 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  will@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          Facsimile: 786 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

CITADINES GROUP: Young Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citadines Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Citadines Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02862 (S.D. N.Y., March 29, 2019).

Citadines Group LLC is a privately held company in New York,
categorized under Business Consultants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Dangelo Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Paul Dangelo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc. and
CSI Interco, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01915 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 3, 2019).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Alleman's Bid to Certify Classes Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled GAIL ALLEMAN v.
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09294 (N.D.
Ill.).

"In sum, Alleman has not carried her burden to show that common
questions predominate over individual questions in this proposed
class action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), and we therefore deny her motion for class
certification," Judge Aspen wrote in the Court's memorandum opinion
and order.

The Court also rules that the status hearing currently scheduled
for April 25, 2019, remains set.  At that time, the parties shall
be prepared to present their proposal for further proceedings in
this matter.

Plaintiff Gail Alleman brought this action alleging Defendant
Collection Professionals, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Illinois Collection Agency Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act by charging her fees for an online payment
towards a health care debt on which the Defendant has been
attempting to collect, because the underlying agreement giving rise
to the debt did not authorize such a fee.

Ms. Alleman proposes three classes:

   1. The FDCPA class:

      (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a
      fee for handling an online or telephone payment (c) on or
      after a date 1 year prior to December 27, 2017, the date of
      filing of the action;

   2. The ICAA class:

      (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a
      fee for handling an online or telephone payment (c) on or
      after a date 5 years prior to December 27, 2017, the date
      of filing of the action; and

   3. The ICFA class:

      (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) who paid defendant a
      fee for handling an online or telephone payment (c) on or
      after a date 3 years prior to December 27, 2017, the date
      of filing of the action.[CC]


COLOUR LLC: Lucero et al. Seek Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Federico Lucero, Rodrigo G. Avad, and Yeiki E. Fernandez,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Colour, LLC, Steve Elliot, and Jan Elliot, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01686 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, 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, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, he was paid an
hourly rate of $23.00 in cash; however, the Plaintiff did not
receive proper overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40
hours per week. The Defendants did not keep a time sheet or punch
system to track the hours worked by Plaintiff and instead paid him
according to his set schedule, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Ave., Suite No. 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com

CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Class Settlement in Fastrich Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan J. Dlott grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit
entitled JOHN FASTRICH and UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. and
REGINALD J. GOOD D/B/A REGINALD J. GOOD AGENCY v. CONTINENTAL
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCE, INC.,
AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-00615-SJD (S.D. Ohio).

The Court, for the purposes of its Order, adopts all defined terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

For settlement purposes only and contingent upon Final Approval of
the Settlement Agreement, the Court provisionally certifies a
Settlement Class, as defined as:

     all persons or entities that, from October 25, 2011 through
     the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, lost or
     otherwise were not paid commissions that were or would have
     been payable on, or attributable to, insurance policies or
     products issued or sold by the Defendants or Releasees as a
     result of Defendants or their affiliates': (1) failing to
     pay Commissions on premiums paid by policyholders due to
     premium rate increases on long-term care insurance policies;
     (2) failing to properly calculate and/or pay Commissions in
     accordance with the vesting provisions of any agreement(s)
     with any Defendants; or (3) replacing any person or entity
     as the agent of record in connection with a sale of any
     insurance policy; provided, however, that Settlement Class
     or Class Members shall not include: (i) persons or entities
     that previously released any of the Claims raised in the
     Nebraska Action or the Producer Class Action; (ii)
     Defendants; or (iii) Releasees. Also excluded from the
     Settlement Class are the persons and/or entities who request
     exclusion from the Settlement Class within the time period
     set by this Order.

The Court appoints John Fastrich, Universal Investment Services,
Inc., and Reginald J. Good D/B/A Reginald J. Good Agency as the
Settlement Class Representatives.  The Court also appoints the
Plaintiffs' counsel as Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held on July 23, 2019, at
10:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the Settlement.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  marty@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCALAW LLC
          23250 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 100
          Cleveland, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 570-0097
          E-mail: arosca@roscalaw.com

               - and -

          Lydia Floyd, Esq.
          James Booker, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 589-9280
          E-mail: lfloyd@pwcklegal.com
                  jbooker@pwcklegal.com


CRESCENT DRILLING: Langen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Langen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Crescent Drilling & Production, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00320-FB (W.D. Tex., March 29, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Langen, and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled
for 12 plus hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time. But
CD&P did not pay Langen or the other workers like him overtime.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, CD&P paid these
workers a day-rate and improperly classified them as independent
contractors. CD&P failed to pay Langen and the Day Rate Workers
overtime for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, says the complaint.

Langen worked for CD&P as a Flowback Coordinator approximately
September 2015 to November 2017.

Crescent Drilling & Production, Inc. CD&P) is a private company
engaged in the management of oil and natural gas properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100  
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            rschreiber@mybackwages.com

          - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-877-8788
     Facsimile: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Ct. Tosses Butler's Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Feldman entered an order regarding Consent Motion
to Postpone Submission Date and to Extend Time to Oppose Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned Juanea L. Butler,
individually and as Representative of all others similarly situated
v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-06685-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La.).

Judge Feldman ruled that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, presently set for April 10, 2019, is dismissed
without prejudice, to be re-filed and re-noticed for hearing, if
necessary, after the ruling upon the Plaintiff's pending Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The motion to postpone submission date is denied as moot.[CC]



DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Gibson Alleges FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Gibson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00966 (D. Colo.,
April 1, 2019).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


EARL ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS: Faces Hymes et al Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAUL HYMES and ILANA HARWAYNE-GIDANSKY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EARL ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS, INC, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00644 (M.D. Fla, April 3, 2019), Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant Earl Enterprises failed to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding its customers' sensitive personal
information (SPI), including the names, payment card numbers,
payment card expiration dates, and payment card security codes.
They claim that the data breach was the result of Defendant's
inadequate approach to data security and protection of SPI that it
collected during the course of its business. They note that the
deficiencies in Defendant's data security were so significant that
the malware installed by hackers remained undetected and intact in
Defendant's systems for months.

Earl Enterprises Holdings, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business at 4700 Millenia Blvd., Suite 400,
Orlando, Florida 32839. Through its subsidiaries, the company
operates restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
     E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

            - and -

     Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: 212/545-4600
     Facsimile: 212/545-4653
     E-mail: guiney@whafh.com

            - and –

     Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: 312/984-0000
     Facsimile: 212/545-4653
     E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend AWA Indigenous Community Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the AWA
Indigenous Community class action are currently waiting for the
evidentiary stage to start.

On April 2, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Ecopetrol and CENIT by the Inda Guacaray and Inda Sabaleta
reservations of the AWA Indigenous community who claim damages to
their communities by environmental contamination and damage to
natural resources that the defendants supposedly caused by act or
omission during various environmental incidents.

In August 2018 Ecopetrol answered the complaint. The parties are
currently waiting for the evidentiary stage to start.

Ecopetrol said, "Although the plaintiffs did not clearly determine
the amount of their claims, Ecopetrol and the National Agency for
Legal Defense (Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado or
ANDJE) have initially calculated the amount to be up to
COP$358,201,371,800.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


ECOPETROL SA: Still Defends Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit related to
the Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil
Pipeline Spill is still in evidentiary stage.

On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline ruptured
and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of crude oil
into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita River
that provides water to the city of Cucuta. The incident did not
cause any fatalities or injuries.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in the
probatory stage.

The Regional Environmental authority of Norte de Santander, or
Corporacion Autonoma Regional de la Frontera Nororiental (CORPONOR)
has filed a lawsuit against Ecopetrol at the Administrative Court
of Norte de Santander claiming for (i) the environmental loss
caused by the incident and (ii) for compensation costs relating to
the environment damage for approximately COP$33 billion.

Ecopetrol's legal counsel filed to dismiss the lawsuit on June 2,
2014, based on three grounds: (i) there is no proof of
environmental loss, (ii) CORPONOR does not have the authority to
file this lawsuit and (iii) CORPONOR's petition for direct
compensation is not the proper legal action according to the
applicable procedural rules. Currently this lawsuit is in the
evidentiary stage.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogotá, Colombia.


ECOPETROL SA: Suit over BT Energy Incident Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit related to
the loading incident in the BT Energy Challenger vessel, is still
pending.

On October 22, 2014, the company was served with a class action
suit against it seeking monetary damages of approximately COP$7.4
trillion related to an incident that occurred on August 21, 2014,
during the loading operations of the BT Energy Challenger vessel.

The claimants alleged possible damage to the port area of
Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine and submarine
areas and beaches that form the geographical area of the
Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under investigation
by the Harbor Master of Covenas.

Ecopetrol filed a motion requesting the judge to require the
claimants to amend their claim to more precisely set forth the
facts and evidence it believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability.

On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol filed its statement of defense arguing
the exclusive fault of a third party. On October 20, 2015, the
Court denied a class action of more than 100 informal traders in
the region because there is no common identity with the initial
class (hotel employees). However, during 2016 the Sucre
Administrative Tribunal accepted another 1,208 informal traders and
fishermen as claimants.

On March 10, 2017, a mandatory conciliatory hearing was held in
order to seek an agreement but it failed.

In January 2018, a judicial order was issued to commence the
evidence gathering process, a decision which was objected by the
parties.

In September 2018, all the ordered statements were made, the
evidentiary stage was finalized and the parties filed their final
closing briefs.

As of the date of this annual report the case remained pending.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogotá, Colombia.


EPSI INC: Smith, Grooms Seek Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
EPSI, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is
captioned ROBERT SMITH and LOUIS GROOMS, JR., Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EPSI, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00124 (E.D. Tex, April 3, 2019).
Plaintiffs Robert Smith and Louis Grooms Jr. assert that EPSI, Inc.
failed to pay them the required minimum wage. They also claim that
the Defendant uniformly fails to reimburse its delivery drivers at
any reasonable approximation of the cost of owning and operating
their vehicles for Defendant's benefit.

EPSI, Inc., is a Texas corporation.  It owns and operates
approximately 36 Domino's Pizza franchises in Texas, Oklahoma, and
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     M. Shane McGuire, Esq.
     Daniel A. Cook, Esq.
     THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
     102 N. College, Suite 301
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Telephone: (903) 630-7154
     Facsimile: (903) 630-7173
     E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com
             daniel@mcguirefrrm.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Untershine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Untershine moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled RONALD UNTERSHINE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00477-JPS (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Denied in Honig Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks denied the request of plaintiffs for
more time to file a renewed motion for class certification.

On April 9, plaintiffs John Hertvik, Carla Honig, Paul Honig,
Carolyn Lippman, David Lippman, Hemant Nanavaty and Gerald Roy
filed their Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Renew Motion
for Class Certification.

Judge Middlebrooks had denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice.  The Court said the Plaintiffs may
renew their motion for class Certification on or by April 1, 2019.
The Defendants shall respond to any such renewed motion on or by
April 8, 2019, and the Plaintiff may reply on or by April 10,
2019.

Plaintiffs sue Defendants Barry M. Kornfeld, Ferne E. Kornfeld,
First Financial Tax Group, Inc., FEK Enterprises, Inc., and GBH
CPAS, PC based upon the Plaintiffs' personal knowledge and
investigations conducted through counsel, including a review of
filings and publications of the Securities Exchange Commission,
certain transcripts of SEC testimony, media reports, social media,
and other analysis and information.  Plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of a class of all those who purchased investments from
Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC d/b/a Woodbridge Wealth or their
affiliated entities.  Woodbridge was in fact operated as a Ponzi
scheme
by Woodbridge's owner and operator, Robert H. Shapiro.

Plaintiffs were marketed promissory notes, fund equity units and
other offerings as low-risk, high-yield investments backed by high
interest rate loans made to commercial borrowers.  Investors were
promised that they would be repaid from high interest rates that
Shapiro's companies were earning on loans made to third-party
borrowers. However, nearly all the purported third-party borrowers
were actually companies affiliated with Shapiro, which had no
revenue, no bank accounts, and never paid any interest under the
loans. Because Shapiro was not receiving any actual interest
payments from purported borrowers, Shapiro used new investor funds
to pay the interest and dividends owed to earlier investors, i.e.,
the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme.

The Defendants each participated in this Ponzi scheme, which raised
more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors
nationwide, many of whom reside in Florida and in the Southern
District of Florida.

The case is captioned, PAUL HONIG, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs.
BARRY M . KORNFELD, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 18-80019-CV
(S.D. Fla.).[CC]

GENEX SERVICES: McMann Seeks OT Pay for Medical Case Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH MCMANN, individually, and on behalf of all others that are
similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. GENEX SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00515-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla., March 25,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ms. McMann worked for Defendant Defendant as a medical case
manager. The Defendant provides case management services to its
clients, which include various employers and workers' compensation
insurers.

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals employed by
Defendant as medical case managers, or in similarly titled
positions, provided case management and care coordination services.
As case managers, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
individuals' primary job was the performance of non-exempt work,
including, among other things, scheduling appointments for injured
workers, assisting with referrals to specialists, attending
appointments with injured workers, developing care plans,
requesting medical records, documenting case activity, maintaining
phone contact with the client, and completing mandatory reports
for
insurance carriers.

The Defendant did not require the Plaintiff or the similarly
situated individuals to be licensed as Registered Nurses and
individuals without a background in nursing were employed by
Defendant as case managers. The Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated
individuals were paid a salary with no overtime pay, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 E. Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com
                  civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

GURSTEL LAW: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit TOMAS BORGES, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GURSTEL LAW
FIRM, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00344-LSC-MDN (D.
Neb.), the Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Class for settlement purposes;

   2. certifying the Plaintiff as representative of the Class and
that Plaintiff's attorneys as counsel for the Class; and

   3. approving the Settlement in all respects and granting final
judgment.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer who allegedly became
delinquent on his consumer debt. The Defendant is a multi-state law
firm that attempted to collect such debt from Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that, in attempting through litigation to
collect consumer debts from him and the Class he seeks to
represent, the Defendant served discovery instructions that
allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant shall pay $20.00 to each member of the Class, and an
additional $20.00 to each member of the FDCPA sub-class. Both of
the distributions shall be made without the need for a proof of
claim. All distribution checks to the Class will expire after 120
days of issuance, and any undistributed funds represented by any
uncashed checks will be distributed as a cy pres distribution to
Legal Aid of Nebraska for use in consumer representation and/or
consumer education.

The Defendant will also pay Plaintiff Tomas Borges, Jr. for his
individual claims under the FDCPA and the  Nebraska Consumer
Protection Act (NCPA) the total amount of $2,000.00, and in
consideration of Plaintiff's service to the Class Defendant will
pay to him an additional $1,500.00.

The Defendant shall bear the costs of printing and distributing the
Class Notice and of distributing all payments provided for under
the settlement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 E Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312- 372-8822
          Facsimile: 312-372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Manuel H. Newburger, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          7320 N. MoPac Expy., Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 649-4022
          Facsimile: (512) 279-0310
          E-mail: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com

HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Removes Marron Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. removes case, DAVID H. MARRON,
on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG18925126 (Filed Oct. 18, 2018), from the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 25, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-01534-KAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts class claims for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay hourly wages, and failure to indemnify under Labor
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
          Brian S. Fong, Esq.
          Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415 434 9100
          Facsimile: 415 434 3947
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                  bfong@sheppardmullin.com
                  abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com

HILL'S PET: Flanary Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Janice Flanary, Ashli Rogers and Robert
Stapleton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00243-MRB (S.D. Ohio, April 2, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as fraud.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The
company offers cat and dog food/care products. It offers its
products to pet owners, veterinary professionals, and other key pet
professionals. The company sells products through veterinary
clinics and hospitals, pet specialty stores, feed stores, and pet
grooming facilities in the United States and internationally, as
well as authorized online pet stores. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.
was formerly known as Hill Packing Company. The company was founded
in 1939 and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas. Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive
Co.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
   Goldenberg Schneider, LPA
   One West Fourth Street
   18th Floor
   Cincinnati, OH 45202
   Tel: (513) 345-8291
   Fax: (513) 345-8294
   Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com






HOWARD LEE: Dixon Files Class Suit under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices Howard
Lee Schiff, P.C. The case is styled as Richard Dixon, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law
Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00452 (D. Conn.,
March 27, 2019).

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

Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. operates as a legal firm. The
Company offers attorneys, collections, litigation, and client
services. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff serves clients in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com




HW POWERSPORTS: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
HW Powersports, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Cedric Bishop, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HW Powersports, LLC d/b/a Jersey Shore
Powersports, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02728 (S.D. N.Y., March
27, 2019).

HW Powersports, LLC is a Motorcycle dealer in Middletown, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDEAL NAIL: Hernandez, Elvir Seek Overtime Pay and Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ideal Nail Spa,
Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned PATRICIA HERNANDEZ
and LESLY ELVIR, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JUN MIN TAN, and IDEAL NAIL SPA INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01917 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2019).

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees of Ideal Nail, and Jun Min Tan individually, who
performed work at Ideal Nail as non-exempt manicurists, seek
recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum
wage and overtime hours worked, while employed by Defendants.
Throughout the course of Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants failed
to compensate its non-exempt manicurists with overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40 per workweek. In addition, Defendants have
failed to monitor and/or properly record the actual hours worked by
its non-exempt employees. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek these
damages under the applicable provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL.

Ideal Nail Spa, Inc. is a New York corporation and operates at
87-78A Sutphin Blvd., Jamaica, NY 11435. Jun Min Tan owns Ideal
Nail. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     39 Broadway Suite 1530
     New York, NY 10006
     Telephone: (212) 344-9022
     Facsimile: (212) 344-0301


JAMES ROKOS: Flores Gets Court Nod to File First Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ALEXIS FLORES and VIRGINIA GOOLD, for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JAMES ROKOS, MARIA
ROKOS, MARKO ROKOS, and ZISI ROKOS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01206-AB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Anita B. Brody granted as unopposed the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

Judge Brody also ruled that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Order
Authorizing Notice to Similarly Situated Persons under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(B) is denied without prejudice in consideration of the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Class and Collective
Action Settlement Approval, which proposes an intervening
preliminary certification "for settlement purposes only."

Judge Brody noted that she has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Class and Collective Action
Settlement Approval.[CC]



JONES DAY: Tolton and Mazingo Allege Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related lawsuit has been filed against Jones Day for
its alleged systemic gender discrimination. The case is captioned
NILAB RAHYAR TOLTON, 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800, Irvine, CA
92612, and ANDREA MAZINGO, 1200 Duke Lane, Walnut CA 91789, and
JANE DOES 1-4, c/o Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 111 S Calvert St.,
Suite 1950 Baltimore, MD 21202, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. JONES DAY, a General
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00945-RDM (D.D.C., April
3, 2019). The Plaintiffs assert that female attorneys or associates
in Jones Day have fewer opportunities for mentorship, are promoted
in smaller numbers, and earn less for equal work.  The Plaintiffs
also note that female associates who get pregnant often get fired
and those who speak up often suffer retaliation. They claim that in
Jones Day's fraternity culture, male brotherhood is affirmed and
strengthened by comments and conduct that derogate women, leaving
female associates to choose between capitulation and exclusion.

Jones Day is one of the world's largest international business and
litigation firms. According to its website, Jones Day is a general
partnership with offices on five continents. Jones Day transacts
substantial business in Washington, DC. The firm's DC office is the
seat of power from which its Managing Partner Stephen J. Brogan is
the final decision-maker on virtually every matter of significance
for the firm, according to the complaint. The firm employs
approximately 250 attorneys in Washington, DC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
     111 S. Calvert St, Suite 1950
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Telephone: (410) 834-7420
     Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
     E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com

            - and -

     David W. Sanford, Esq.
     Russell L. Kornblith, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
     1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (646) 402-5650
     Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
     E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
             rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com


KIRSCHBAUM NANNEY: Cinelli Brings FDCPA Class Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschbaum, Nanney,
Keenan & Griffin, P.A. The case is styled as Peter Cinelli,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kirschbaum, Nanney, Keenan & Griffin, P.A., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01920 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

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

Kirschbaum, Nanney, Keenan & Griffin, P.A. is a Law firm in
Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com




KUMHO TIRE USA: Barnes Files Class Action in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kumho Tire USA Inc.
The case is styled as Bud Barnes, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. Kumho Tire
USA Inc, a California corporation, Hyundai Translead Inc, a
California corporation and Hyundai de Mexico SA, a foreign
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-DPM (E.D. Ark.,
March 29, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Diversity-Other
Contract.

Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc. designs and manufactures tires. The company
provides tires for cars, light trucks, SUVs and CUVs, competition
racing, and medium commercial trucks. It markets and sells its
products through dealers in California and Illinois. The company
was founded in 1975 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Kumho Tire
U.S.A., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Kumho Tire Co., Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Frank L. Watson , III, Esq.
   Watson Burns, PLLC
   253 Adams Avenue
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 529-7996
   Fax: (901) 529-7998
   Email: fwatson@watsonburns.com

      - and -

   William F. Burns, Esq.
   Watson Burns, PLLC
   253 Adams Avenue
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 529-7996
   Fax: (901) 529-7998
   Email: bburns@watsonburns.com

      - and -

   William E. Routt, Esq.
   Watson Burns, PLLC
   253 Adams Avenue
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 529-7996
   Fax: (901) 529-7998
   Email: wroutt@watsonburns.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Sosenko Files Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SOSENKO, DIANE TERRY, and MICHAEL BURRAGE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG
ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00610 (C.D.
Cal., April 1, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of
California consumers who purchased refrigerators manufactured by LG
that are equipped with linear compressors.

According to the complaint, LG's linear compressors have caused
consumers problems for many years. When an LG compressor fails, the
refrigerator warms and the perishables within it spoil. Many
similar complaints of malfunctioning refrigerators, dating back
years, have been made directly to LG on its website and on social
media pages that LG regularly monitored. These complaints
demonstrate LG's longtime knowledge of the defect. LG, moreover,
has had exclusive and direct knowledge of the scale of the
compressor problems from its communications with its authorized
repair personnel, who have been inundated by repair requests for
years.

LG knew that the LG Refrigerators were defective and knew that
Plaintiffs and class members did not have that knowledge. Despite
reasonable diligence on their part, Plaintiffs and class members
were kept ignorant by LG of the factual bases for the claims for
relief LG actively concealed the compressor defect by touting the
LG Refrigerators' high quality and functionality without disclosing
their defective nature. LG's concealment prevented Plaintiffs and
class members from discovering their injuries and pursuing legal
relief from LG. Plaintiffs did not discover and could not
reasonably have discovered the compressor defect until their
refrigerators prematurely failed, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased LG Refrigerators.

LG designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells refrigerators
throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Jordan Elias, Esq.
     Adam E. Polk, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
            jelias@girardsharp.com
            apolk@girardsharp.com
            sgrille@girardsharp.com


LINDA RICHARDS: Mako Seeks Overtime Pay for Coordinators
--------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE MAKO, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LINDA RICHARDS
INC., and LINDA BARRY a/k/a LINDA BRETTI, individually, and FRANK
BRETTI, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-02660
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages and equitable
relief resulting from Defendants' willful violations of Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to her by the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
a women's clothing boutique located in Westchester -- as an "Office
Logistics Coordinator" from October 22, 2018 until December 7,
2018.

According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime wages for her hours worked in a week over
forty in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, despite
Plaintiff working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendants
paid Plaintiff a weekly salary, which was intended to cover only
the first forty hours that she worked per week, and thus failed to
compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the
statutorily-required overtime rate for any hours that she worked
per week in excess of 40, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

LJ ROSS: Class Certification Under Damasco Sought in Kasper Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Kasper moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned JEROME KASPER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. L.J. ROSS ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00478-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff argues.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGNUM REAL: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Real Estate Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Magnum Real Estate Group LLC doing
business as: 100 Barclay, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02762 (S.D.
N.Y., March 27, 2019).

Magnum Real Estate Group LLC develops and manages condominiums and
residential properties. The company is based in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


MARIE NAPOLI: Werner Lima Files Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
WERNER MEJIA LIMA, the Plaintiff, vs. MARIE NAPOLI and PAUL NAPOLI,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01699 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired and fired
Plaintiff, sets his rate and method of pay, determined his work
schedule, and appear to maintain employment records. The Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees,
has been employed by Defendants to work as a laborer within the
last six years.

The Defendants failed to pay proper overtime compensation required
by federal and state law and regulations to Plaintiff, who worked
in 40 hours per week. The Defendants have knowingly and willfully
engaged in a policy, pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and
NYLL, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER T AUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

MARKOFF LAW: Certification of Class Sought in Lisiecki Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lisiecki moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE LISIECKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MARKOFF LAW, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00479-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
asserts.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATTO MGMT: Doncouse Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matto Mgmt NY LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Graciela Doncouse, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Matto Mgmt NY LLC and Matto Franchise LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02801 (S.D. N.Y., March 28, 2019).

Matto is an Italian Espresso Bar chain offering a range of coffees,
espresso, tea, bakeries, sandwiches & snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Gowans Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Adjustment
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Gowans, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Merchants Adjustment Service, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00144-WS-CAS (N.D. Fla., March 27, 2019).

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

Merchants Adjustment Service, Inc. provides medical, commercial,
and consumer bad debt collection services. It offers
pre-collection, contract billing, skip tracing, reporting, and
online payment services. Additionally, the company conducts
educational seminars on topics including telephone collections,
office collections, and legal collections. Merchants Adjustment
Service, Inc. is based in Mobile, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   zeig Law Firm LLC - Hollywood FL
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: zlf@zeiglawfirm.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Ariezaga Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Ariezaga, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management Inc, Midland Funding LLC and Encore
Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01797 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 28, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



MONSANTO COMPANY: Albert Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ALBERT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00608 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Baehr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BAEHR, individually and on behalf of WAYNE BAEHR,
(deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00597 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brand Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANNA BRAND, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00628 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brownings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA BROWNING and GREG BROWNING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00606 (E.D. Mo., March
25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hignetts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HIGNETT and FAITH HIGNETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00619 (E.D. Mo., March
25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MOVIE GRILL: Langford Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Movie Grill Concepts
XX LLC. The case is styled as David Langford, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Movie Grill Concepts XX
LLC an unknown business entity and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00253482-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super, Sacramento County, March
28, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as other
employment.

Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC filed as a Domestic Limited Liability
Company (LLC) in the State of Texas on Monday, January 28, 2013 and
is approximately six years old, as recorded in documents filed with
Texas Secretary of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
   410 Arden Ave Ste 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021
   Email: edwin@lfjpc.com


MRS BPO: Callan Files FDCPA Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Frank Callan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01919 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

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

MRS BPO LLC is a debt collection agency located in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com






NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Cowan to Recoup Overtime Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
MYRA COWAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01225-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 1,
2019) is a collective action to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and pursuant to the law of the State of Florida.

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Nationwide knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours
worked and the proper amount of overtime each workweek on a routine
and regular basis during the relevant time period, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Cowan has been employed by Nationwide in a customer
service call-center position in Gainesville, Florida since
approximately February 2017.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is an Ohio corporation licensed
to and doing business in the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 221-4221
     Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
     Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

          - and -

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
            austin@a2xlaw.com


NET ELEMENT: Fabricant Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NET ELEMENT, INC. d/b/a UNIFIED PAYMENTS
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02451 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

One of the Defendant's strategies for marketing its services and
generating new customers is telemarketing. The Defendant's strategy
for generating new customers involves the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to solicit business. The
Defendant uses ATDSs that have the capacity to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called. The Defendant's ATDSs also include
predictive dialers. Recipients of these calls, including Plaintiff,
did not consent to receive them.

Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the telemarketing
robocalls from, or on behalf of, Defendant. The calls were an
annoying, harassing nuisance, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is an individual residing in California.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation that sells electronic payment
services to businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
     PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
     8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
     San Diego, CA 92123
     Phone: 619-683-7971
     Email: chrisr@prato-reichman.com



NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE: Wins Bid to Decertify in Haack Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 IMWL class action in the
lawsuit styled ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY, and RYAN BANTA, and all
other employees similarly situated v. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE,
COMPLETE FENCE, U.S. INSTALLERS, and RAYMOND HOHE, Case No.
1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court grants the Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA
collective action.

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Guzman opines that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there are common
questions of law or fact that bind all of the plaintiffs together,
let alone that common questions predominate over individual issues.
The Court concludes that this case cannot proceed as an FLSA
collective action or as a Rule 23 class action.

Roman Haack, Cody Clay, and Ryan Banta brought this action against
Northern Illinois Fence, Complete Fence, U.S. Installers, and
Raymond Hohe under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law to recover allegedly unpaid regular and overtime
wages on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals.
The Plaintiffs, who were formerly employed by one or more of the
defendants as fence installers, allege that Hohe is an "owner and
shareholder" of the other defendants and "moves employees around
and attributes them" variously as employees of those entities.

In November 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action (to which the Court will
refer for simplicity's sake as an "FLSA class") consisting of
"[a]ll individuals who were employed by, or who are currently
employed by, one or more of the Defendants named in this action,
who have performed work as a fence installer of either commercial
or residential fences, at any time during the five-year period of
[April 2014 to the date of the notice]."

The Defendants did not object to conditional certification, and the
Court granted Plaintiffs' motion.  The Court notes that it appears
that the Plaintiffs sent notices of the action to approximately 39
potential members of the class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b). Nine of those recipients opted to join the FLSA class.[CC]


OLIN CORP: Midwest Renewable Alleges Price-Fixing of Caustic Soda
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief arising
out of the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in sodium
hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by manufacturers that
include Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., and
Occidental Petroleum Corporation -- all of whom are direct
competitors and leading manufacturers of Caustic Soda in the United
States -- during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015,
to the present.

But for Defendants' and their co-conspirators' alleged collusive
conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the class the Plaintiff seeks
to represent would not have paid -- and would not continue to pay
-- artificially inflated prices for Caustic Soda, the lawsuit
says.

Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms
that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the
electrolysis of brine or salt water. Caustic Soda is consumed by
customers in a variety of industries, including paper, pulp and
cellulose; chemical production; soaps and detergents; aluminum;
food processing; water treatment; textiles; mineral oils;
recycling; and pharmaceuticals.  The Defendants are estimated to
control at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic Soda.

From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic
Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins
were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These
conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to
restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and
to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. section 1. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the
Defendants announced Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated
fashion and began increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish
demand, stable or declining costs, and excess capacity. They also
at times refused to supply customers, put them on allocation, or
refused to bid on contracts while falsely claiming supply was tight
or scarce.  The Defendants' market shares have been relatively
stable since 2015, with customer turnover lower in the years since
the fourth quarter of 2015 than before that quarter. In sum, the
Defendants entered into an agreement or understanding to increase
prices of Caustic Soda and not to compete on price for the business
of each other's customers.

The alleged conspiracy was facilitated by secret co-producer supply
agreements; by exchanges of nonpublic, commercially sensitive
information (including future strategy, supply, capacity, and price
information) between and among Defendants and their agents, both
directly with each other, and indirectly through third parties; by
manipulation of a price index; and by the characteristics of the
industry: high market concentration, high barriers to entry,
interchangeability of the Defendants' products, inelastic demand,
weak demand, a larger number of purchasers with limited buying
power, and relatively easy information exchanges among the
Defendants.  The Defendants, as alleged, have formed a cartel and
are cooperating as an industry, having reached an agreement or
understanding to limit and manage production and supply, maintain
and increase already artificially-inflated prices, and maximize
revenues to improve
industry profits, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have been injured
and have suffered damages, and they continue to suffer such
injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions.

The case is captioned as MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, On Behalf
of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
OLIN CORPORATION; K.A. STEEL CHEMICALS, INC.; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (D/B/A OXYCHEM);
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD.;
SHINTECH INCORPORATED; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION; FORMOSA
PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00392 (W.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267-507-6085
          Facsimile: 267-507-6048
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

PLOMO LLC: Mora et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS E. MORA, JORGE E. ESCOBAR, and other similarly-situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. PLOMO, LLC a/k/a PLOMO TEQUILA &
TACO BAR, IOANNIS SOTIROPOULOS, and EFTHYMIOS PALIOURAS,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21134-RNS (S.D.
Fla., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant and
were required to work many hours over 40 in a workweek without
receiving extra payment for overtime hours at the rate of time and
a half his regular rate, as required by the FLSA.

The Defendant owns and operates a Mexican restaurant and bar.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

POVERELLO CENTER: Faces Guia Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GUIA, and all others similarly situated under, Plaintiff v.
THE POVERELLO CENTER, INC., THOMAS S. PIETROGALLO, individually,
and TANIA TAVERAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60855
(S.D. Fla., April 1, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover all wages owed to
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to Plaintiff, during the
course of their employment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff
proper compensation for overtime compensation at the federally
mandated rate of time and one half for work exceeding 40 hours per
week. Moreover, Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff at the
proper overtime rate required by the FLSA for all hours worked in
excess of 40 during the relevant time period, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants on or about October 2015,
and continued to do so until on or about January 18, 2019.

Defendant, TPC, is a company that provides nutritious food, health
services and basic living essentials to individuals with critical
and chronic illnesses in the State of Florida since at least
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan Richards, Esq.
     Melissa Scott, Esq.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jill@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com


RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Hurtado et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Antonio Hurtado et al, the Plaintiff,
v. Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
Committee, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01605-JLS-DFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order
taking under submission Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification, according to the civil minutes on March 22,
2019.[CC]

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

          Joseph Creitz, Esq.
          Robert Barton, Esq.
          CREITZ & SEREBIN, LLP
          100 Pine St, Ste 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5235
          Telephone:  (415) 466-3090
          Facsimile: (415) 513-4475

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

          Sara Pikofsky, Esq.
          Nicole Wurscher, Esq.
          Larry Walraven, Esq.
          David Scheidemantle, Esq.
          Dylan Rudolph, Esq.
          Joseph Faucher, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202 429-3000
          Facsimile: 202 429-3902
          E-mail: www.steptoe.com

RAS LAVRAR: Moran Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAS LaVrar, LLC. The
case is styled as James Moran, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAS LaVrar, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01896 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019).

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

RAS LaVrar, LLC is a collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Beltrez Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivable Solutions,
Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Beltrez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Receivable
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01865 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 1, 2019).

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

Receivable Solutions, Inc. is a collection agency in Columbia,
SC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


REGIONAL CARE HOSPITAL: Underpays Nurses, Kurtz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
RegionalCare Hospital Partners, Inc (RCCH) and its subsidiaries.
The case is captioned MYLA KURTZ, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REGIONALCARE HOSPITAL
PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a RCCH HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, RCCH TRIOS HEALTH,
LLC, RCCH TRIOS PHYSICIANS, LLC, and RCCH LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-05049 (E.D. Wash., April 3, 2019).

Plaintiff Myla Kurtz brings this class and collective action on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals who have
worked for RCCH as nursing staff, nurse aides, nurse assistants,
and other non-exempt hourly employees and been subject to
Defendants' policy and practice of automatically deducting time
from recorded hours for meal periods. Throughout the relevant time
period, Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff have been
denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and have
been denied meal and rest periods that comply with Washington law.
Defendants' policies and practices result in nursing staff being
denied wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington
law. Under these policies and practices, non-exempt nursing staff
involved in patient care were not completely relieved of duties
during meal periods and were denied pay for those on-duty meal
periods. Defendants continue to require nursing staff responsible
for patient care to remain on duty and subject to interruptions
during meal breaks.

Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. is a foreign corporation,
with its principal office located at 103 Continental Place, Suite
200, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027. RCCH operates a network of
hospitals that provide healthcare services throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com


SHAPIRO DICARO: Girardi Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shapiro, Dicaro &
Barak, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Girardi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shapiro,
Dicaro & Barak, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01860 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 1, 2019).

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

Shapiro, Dicaro & Barak, L.L.C. operates as a law firm. The Company
offers legal services in the field of foreclosure, bankruptcy,
litigation, evictions, closings, title curative, deed in lieu, and
loss mitigation services. Shapiro, Dicaro & Barak serves customers
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



SIMON'S AGENCY: Huber Files FDCPA Class Action in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon's Agency, Inc.
The case is styled as Jamie Huber, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simon's Agency, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01424-AB (E.D. Pa., April 3, 2019).

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

Simon's Agency, Inc. is a Debt collection agency in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


SKANSKA USA: Faces Grand Mechanical Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skanska USA Building
Inc. in the New York Supreme Court
New York County, on March 21, 2019. The case is styled as Grand
Mechanical Corp., on behalf of itself and all other persons
similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of lien law trusts
of which Skanska USA Building Inc., is trustee, Plaintiff v.
Skanska USA Building Inc. et al, Defendants, Case No. 651674/2019.

Skanska USA Building Inc. provides construction services to the
building construction sector in the United States. The company's
services include program management, construction management,
design-build, general contracting, job order contracting, and
leaseback delivery approaches. It has operations in New York,
Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, Atlanta, and Houston.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SOPAPILLAS LLC: Class in Stephens Suit Certified Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eli Richardson grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited
Court Supervised Notice to the Putative Class and for Conditional
Certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act in the
lawsuit styled SUSANNA STEPHENS v. SOPAPILLAS, LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:18-cv-00296 (M.D. Tenn.).

In addition, the Court directs the parties to comply with the
Court's additional orders regarding the disclosure of contact
information and notice forms set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum.[CC]


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Court Continues Hearing on Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Carolyn Miller, the Plaintiff, vs.
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18−cv−04088 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order continuing a motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on  March 18, 2019,
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued
for briefing. Response to be filed is set April 18, 2019. Reply to
be filed is set on May 10, 2019. Ruling is set for May 22, 2019 at
9:30 a.m.  The Status hearing set for March 26, 2019 was stricken
and re−set to May 22 at 9:30 a.m.[CC]

SPARK ENERGY: Lechuga Files Class Suit in Illinois Under FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spark Energy, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Lechuga, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spark Energy, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02176 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2019).

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. As of December 31, 2018, it operated in 94 utility
service territories across 19 states and the District of Columbia,
and had approximately 908,000 residential customer equivalents. The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


SS & M AUTO: Mahr Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------
GAYLE MAHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SS & M AUTOMOTIVE, INC. D/B/A KIA OF
VERO BEACH, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-14109-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2019), seeks to secure
redress arising from Defendant's knowing and willfully violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Acording to the complaint, to gain an advantage over its
competitors and increase its revenue, Defendant engages in
unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy
rights. The case arises from Defendant's transmission of
prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and
others, promoting Defendant’s services and goods.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal
conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies. Over the last four years, Defendant caused
numerous automated calls and numerous automated calls with
prerecorded messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 2004.

At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her
express consent to be contacted with a prerecorded call. The
Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 2004 Number and is
financially responsible for phone service to the 2004 Number.

Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded call caused Plaintiff actual
harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant's
prerecorded call also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused
disruption to her work-day as she received the prerecorded messages
while at work.[BN]

Counsel for 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 79 2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          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.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

STERN RECOVERY: Kornegay Files Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stern Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lashunda R. Kornegay,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Stern Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00153 (W.D. N.C., March 28, 2019).

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

Stern Recovery Services, Inc. is a collection agency located in
Greensboro, NC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
   Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
   631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
   Mooresville, NC 28117
   Tel: (704) 997-9529
   Fax: (704) 230-0413
   Email: arthur@lawahp.com



STOP 1 DELI: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAUL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STOP 1 DELI & 99 CENT PLUS CORP.
(D/B/A STOP ONE DELI & 99 CENTS), MOHAMED AHMED ALAZAB (A.K.A.
MEKDAD ALAZAB), IBRAHIM SAIDI, MOHAMMED ALSADI, SAM DOE, and EFRAIN
ALSADI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02662 (S.D.N.Y., March 25,
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 deli/grocery store, located at 75 West 115th
Street New York, NY 10026 under the name "Stop One Deli & 99 Cents.
The Plaintiff Martinez worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked.

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

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff 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.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 0165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcomliance.com

STRIKE LLC: Faces Kyle Foster Labor Suit
----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Strike LLC for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is
captioned KYLE FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. STRIKE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01207 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2019).

Plaintiff Kyle Foster alleges that Strike, LLC failed to pay him
and other assistant superintendents the lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Strike LLC is a for-profit, domestic limited liability company
created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Texas,
registered to do business in the State of Texas, providing products
and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United
States. Its principal address is 1800 Hughes Landing Blvd., Suite
500, The Woodlands, Texas 77380. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUTTELL & HAMMER: Armstrong Sues over Debt Collection Protocol
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Suttell & Hammer,
P.S. and Autovest, LLC. over the defendants' actions of using
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is
captioned DONALD ARMSTRONG, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., a Washington corporation;
and AUTOVEST, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00092-SAB (E.D. Wash., March 25,
2019). Plaintiff Armstrong alleges the Defendants' actions violated
Sec. 1692 of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred
to as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
practices.  Accordingly, Armstrong seeks damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Suttell & Hammer is a Washington corporation that regularly
conducts business in the Eastern District of Washington. It
provides debt collection services and serves a creditors-rights law
firm.  Meanwhile, Autovest LLC is a debt collection agency based in
Southfield Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
     Shayne J. Sutherland, Esq.
     Brian G. Cameron, Esq.
     MILLER LAW FIRM
     421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Telephone: (509) 413-1494
     Facsimile: (509) 413-1724
     E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

TREASURED NURSE: Eze Obi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
EZE OBI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. A TREASURED NURSE, INC. and SASHA ROVIN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019) is a
collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants,
arising, inter alia, from Defendants' willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code
("Labor Code"), and the California Business & Professions Code.

The Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay overtime wages
to Plaintiff and the Professional Caregivers for work performed
beyond 40 hours in a workweek (under the FLSA) and nine hours in a
workday (under the Labor Code). Nevertheless, Defendants refused to
pay such premium overtime wages. The Defendants' conduct in that
regard amounts to a willful violation of the FLSA and Labor Code,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a certified nursing assistant (CNA) who worked for
Defendants as an hourly Professional Caregiver from May 2014 until
July 2018.

Defendants operate an In Home Supportive Care Agency that employs
home healthcare workers such as certified nursing assistants
(CNAs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), licensed vocational
nurses (LVNs), home health aides, and registered nurses (RNs) to
provide in-home services to Defendants' clients/patients with the
goal of enabling the patient to remain at home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 230-8380
     Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
     Email: david@yeremianlaw.com

          - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
     Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
            rjohnston@sommerspc.com


UNIFUND CCR: Connor Files Class Action in Pennsylvania Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC. The
case is styled as Veronica Connor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unifund CCR, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01375-MMB (E.D. Penn., April 1, 2019).

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

Unifund CCR, LLC purchases, sells, and manages under-performing and
distressed consumer receivables in the United States. It offers
debt sales of distressed debts, such as future home
liens(guaranteed debtor home ownership), future
garnishments(guaranteed debtor employment), judgments and liens,
and litigation-ready accounts for law firms, distressed asset
investors, collection agencies, financial institutions, real
estate/mortgage firms, resellers, and title companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


URBY LLC: Fischler Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Urby LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Urby LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01942
(E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

Urby combines boutique hotel personality with imaginative
architectural design to create a fresh new standard of apartment
living.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


[*] Canadian Municipalities Mull Climate Change Suits v. Oil Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray Queen, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Toronto should follow the lead of a handful of U.S. municipalities
and sue major oil companies for the billions of dollars in extra
costs the city could incur in coming decades from floods and storms
caused by climate change, Councillor Mike Layton says.

"We could be on the hook for an enormous amount of money, into the
billions as a city," Mr. Layton said in an interview. "I am a firm
believer in the notion that polluters should pay."

Mr. Layton, a downtown politician and the son of the late former
federal NDP leader Jack Layton, is moving a motion at the council
session that asks city bureaucrats to look into how much climate
change is expected to cost the city and whether a lawsuit, similar
to those launched by governments across North America against
tobacco companies, is worthwhile.

The motion, seconded by Councillor Mike Colle, calls only for a
staff report to come before council's infrastructure and
environment committee by the end of the year. Any legal action
would be subject to subsequent votes.

The motion to at least study the idea has the approval of Mayor
John Tory, although he has not yet endorsed moving toward a
lawsuit.

"Councillor Layton's motion asks for a report on the long-term cost
implications of climate change to the City – the Mayor supports
understanding those costs and sees no downside to understanding
possible options to recover those costs," Tory spokesman Don Peat
said in an e-mail.

Several cities in the United States, including New York and San
Francisco, have launched similar climate-change lawsuits against
large oil companies. But U.S. judges have handed recent defeats to
those cities, in cases already regarded by many as long shots. Last
July, a federal judge rejected New York's case, ruling that
governments, not courts, needed to address climate change. Lawyers
for New York and San Francisco have launched appeals.

Other Canadian municipalities have also been exploring the idea of
climate-change litigation. In January, Victoria's city council
voted to ask the Union of BC Municipalities to consider launching a
class-action lawsuit against oil-and-gas companies over
climate-change costs.

According to Mr. Layton's motion before Toronto's city council, the
Insurance Bureau of Canada says the Greater Toronto Area has faced
six "100 year storms" since 2005 -- storms that have caused
millions in flooding another damage.

The storm that swamped much of Toronto in July, 2013, and saw GO
trains stranded in the flooded Don Valley caused $940-million in
insurance claims, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada,
making it the province's most expensive insured natural disaster.
City of Toronto bureaucrats at the time pegged the municipal
government's own costs due to the storm at more than $60-million.

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada,
which has been campaigning for cities to launch climate-change
lawsuits, said recent revelations about how major oil companies
sought to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change for
decades means filing legal action over greenhouse gases would be
more than just a political statement.

"This is absolutely a real thing. When you look at what New York,
San Francisco, Oakland are doing, they are basically building this
all on the tobacco precedent," Mr. Stewart said. "Ontario is suing
the tobacco industry for $50-billion. That's real money." {GN}


[*] Law Firm Sees Perfect Storm in Australian Class Action Space
----------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that independent Australian
commercial law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth sees a "perfect storm"
on the horizon for the class action market down under. The
impending release of the Australian Law Reform Commission report,
increasing competition amongst litigation funders, and affirmation
that courts can indeed make common-fund orders in open class
actions may combine to make 2019 a watershed year for class actions
in Australia. [GN]


[*] Senate Bill 7 Sparks Controversy in Missouri
------------------------------------------------
Yue Yu, writing for Missourian, reports that having sparked
controversy and an overnight debate on the Senate floor, Senate
Bill 7, which would restrict the ability for multiple plaintiffs to
sue jointly, is shaping up as the first major success for those who
wish to limit lawsuits in Missouri.

The bill language incorporates a recent state Supreme Court ruling
in State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison. The court ruled
that if there is a lawsuit in a court, plaintiffs can only join if
they have standing in that jurisdiction, such as living there or
having been injured there.

While the court's decision sets a precedent for future judges to
refer to, legislators seek to incorporate the decision into
statutory law.

Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, who has supported Senate Bill 7, said siding
with the court decision is "the cleanest way" to shape the bill and
to "take away the risk of the court later maybe changing its
mind."

Robert Jerry, a law professor at MU, agreed that codifying the
court's ruling "prevents the court from reversing its precedents in
a future case raising the same issues."

Under the current law, plaintiffs can sue anywhere in Missouri as
long as one of them has the standing to sue there, which is
described by longtime lobbyist Rich AuBuchon, who frequently speaks
in support of tort reform bills, as a loophole exploited by
out-of-state plaintiffs to "hop a ride."

Luetkemeyer, R-Parkville, said plaintiffs both in and outside of
Missouri are joining cases in the city of St. Louis, where they
didn't reside or get injured.

"We're using taxpayer dollars to fund litigation that has no real
nexus or connection to the city of St. Louis," Luetkemeyer said.

Sen. Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, said during a press conference that
the debate over joinder rules should have already been settled by
the court's opinion. He said the decision has brought Missouri back
to a "middle ground" where courts will not be "clogged up by
out-of-state plaintiffs who are here where they are not supposed to
be."

Sen. Scott Sifton, D-Affton, expressed frustration with the court's
decision but said once the court ruled, "our first order of
business was to make sure that the bill didn't go any farther than
the case did."

Beside including the court's decision, the bill specified that the
restrictions also applied to suing insurance companies.

The bill would grandfather in joint cases that are already in
process or close to a trial, but would limit future plaintiffs who
wish to bring their claims under a single lawsuit against the same
product or service arising out of the same series of transactions.

The bill has met staunch opposition from some Democrats. During its
first House committee hearing, the bill drew ire from Rep. Gina
Mitten, D-St. Louis.

Mitten questioned the bill's restriction on plaintiffs' ability to
sue over the same product "failing in the same way" even if they
are purchased separately.

Other opponents, such as Sifton, said current joinder rules allow
lawsuits of the same nature to be bundled together and tried in an
effective manner.

"My biggest concern with Senate Bill 7 was that it made it harder
to be efficient about the process," Sifton said.

Sifton said he proposed three amendments, but only one made it
through. His adopted amendment offers protection to out-of-state
plaintiffs whose lawsuits are already filed in Missouri. Even after
reaching the compromise, Sifton said he stands opposed to the
bill.

Sen. Lauren Arthur, D-Kansas City, said during a press conference
that there has been abuse of Missouri's court system, but she
thinks what the bill does is beyond just closing the loophole.
Arthur said the bill limits Missourians' ability to hold
corporations accountable.

"While (the bill) was watered down compared to previous years'
versions," Arthur said, "it was much more expansive than just
dealing with venue and joinder, and in my opinion there were some
provisions . . . that were major giveaways to, for example,
insurance companies."

More tort reform bills down the road
Sponsored by a handful of Republican lawmakers, dozens of Senate
and House bills proposing additional restrictions on how and when a
lawsuit can be filed are moving down the pipeline.

Senate Bill 30, sponsored by Sen. Dan Hegeman, R-Cosby, was the
second tort reform bill to pass the Senate. The bill would admit
failure to wear a seat belt as evidence when allocating plaintiffs'
recoverable damages.

Several Republican lawmakers expressed confidence in the issue
remaining of high priority in both chambers. Many of them are
placed in critical positions to oversee the traffic flow of tort
reform.

Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, sponsor of Senate Bill 7, chairs the senate
Government Reform Committee, where most tort reform bills are
heard. Other members on the committee, such as Sens. Eric Burlison,
R-Battlefield, and Luetkemeyer, also carry similar bills.

In the House, Rep. Bruce DeGroot, R-Chesterfield, serves as the
vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and chairs the
Subcommittee on Litigation Reform, both of which are major venues
for tort reform.

Labeling himself as "a tort reformer," DeGroot said he was elected
and appointed to these positions to fix the problem. He alone is
carrying five tort reform bills this year.

"Two years ago, the worst place on the planet to be in court (for
businesses was) the city of St. Louis, Missouri," DeGroot said.
When asked for proof, DeGroot referred to the "judicial hellhole"
list published by the American Tort Reform Association.

DeGroot said plaintiffs win awards of hundreds of millions of
dollars in Missouri, which he described as winning "the lottery."
He said Missouri's judicial climate would deter businesses from
coming to the state and therefore stifle the economy.

Rowden, who is the majority leader on the Senate floor, said Senate
Bill 7 was the priority compared to other tort reform bills, most
of which are laid aside for the time being.

"We were focused on venue . . . we wanted to get that done," Rowden
said. "I think you'll see a pretty healthy and steady dose of other
tort bills post-spring break." [GN]


[*] Texas Law Exposes Companies to Worker Misclassification Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Observer reports that in December, seemingly out of nowhere,
the Texas Workforce Commission tentatively approved a new rule that
looked like a favor to giant on-demand companies such as Uber.
Labor advocates suspected that some shadowy Silicon Valley behemoth
was pulling the strings.

But the agency, which oversees all state workplace regulations,
denied any backroom deals. "Neither staff nor the commissioners use
outside sources when drafting proposed rules," the commission's
spokesperson Lisa Givens told the Observer at the time.

That was not true. As early as December 2017, lobbyists for Handy,
an app-based cleaning and maintenance company, were secretly
working with Texas Workforce Commission Chair Ruth Hughs to draft a
new "marketplace contractor" rule. The new directive would make it
clear that workers for "marketplace platforms" like Handy aren't
employees, exempting those companies from having to pay into the
state's unemployment insurance fund. After successfully pushing to
enact similar legislation in several other states, Handy seems to
have opted for a stealth strategy in Texas, one that avoids the
spotlight and the costly lobbying that comes with the legislative
process.

The Observer obtained a trove of emails that provide an inside look
at how the company's lobbyists got Hughs, a Governor Greg Abbott
appointee who is charged with representing employers on the
commission, to advance a regulation highly favorable to Silicon
Valley, all while keeping Handy's fingerprints off the rule. The
records, which were made public in response to an open records
request from the Workers Defense Project, also show that the
agency's proposed rule was lifted almost entirely verbatim from
suggested language provided to the commission by Handy's
lobbyists.

The agency denies that they lied to the Observer. "When I provided
my response to you on Jan. 29, 2019, I was not aware of meetings
referenced in email records," Givens said in a statement. She also
said rules often closely mirror industry recommendations. "When
drafting rules, TWC program staff may rely on their knowledge and
expertise, their own professional research, stakeholder input, and
review of legislation in other states. This was the process staff
used in drafting TWC's proposed rules on digital marketplace
platforms."

Handy also insisted it was committed to transparency. "Our
discussions with the Texas Workforce Commission, similar to those
we've had in other states, were never intended to be kept secret,"
a Handy spokesperson said in a statement.

Handy has used Tusk Strategies, a high-powered New York lobbying
firm, to get state legislatures to pass laws defining gig workers
on "marketplace platforms" as independent contractors. Arizona,
Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee and Utah have all
approved similar "marketplace contractor" laws.

"What is ultimately a better business decision? To try to change
the law in a way that you think works for your platform, or to make
sure your platform fits into the existing law?"
However, the emails show that two Texas lobbyists, Jerry Valdez and
Mackenna Wehmeyer, orchestrated Tusk's lobbying of Hughs' office.
But neither disclosed to the Texas Ethics Commission that they were
working for Tusk until 2019, more than a year after Valdez appeared
to first make contact with Hughs. Texas law says "it is necessary
to disclose publicly and regularly the identity, expenditures, and
activities of certain persons who, by direct communication with
government officers, engage in efforts to persuade" state agencies
to take an action. Tusk Strategies did not respond to requests for
comment. Nor did Valdez or Wehmeyer.

Per the records, Valdez seemingly made initial contact with Hughs
on December 19, 2017, when he sent her an email with a memo that
complained that the booming on-demand service sector -- companies
such as Uber, Lyft, InstaCart and Handy -- is being held back by
"outdated and vague" rules about who is and isn't an employee.
These companies contend that the people who work for their apps are
independent contractors, not regular employees entitled to
protections such as a minimum wage, overtime and unemployment
insurance. They argue that state and federal law has failed to keep
up with the modern gig economy, leaving app-based companies
vulnerable to lawsuits from workers who say they're being
misclassified.

In his December 2017 email, Valdez included a model regulation that
he wanted the commission to enact as a way to provide gig employers
with the legal certainty that their app workers are, in fact,
independent contractors. Two days later, the emails show that Hughs
held a conference call with Valdez and Tusk Strategies.

As Bradley Tusk, the notoriously shrewd political operator who runs
Tusk Strategies, told CNN in March 2018: "What is ultimately a
better business decision? To try to change the law in a way that
you think works for your platform, or to make sure your platform
fits into the existing law?"

In May 2018, Valdez sent Hughs a memo detailing dozens of
class-action lawsuits against on-demand companies that allege they
misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The memo
lamented that plaintiff lawyers, specifically prominent Boston
labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, have "made a cottage industry
out of suing" the so-called on-demand platforms. Handy alone has
been the target of four lawsuits and a complaint from the National
Labor Relations Board.

"It is important for the companies to have clear rules to follow,
and to have security that if they comply with those requirements,
they will not be forced to face years of costly litigation to
establish that they're doing things the right way," the memo
stated.

In short, Texas would be doing Handy a big favor by providing legal
shelter through a "marketplace contractor" rule.

In early June, Valdez tried to set up another phone call with
Hughs, the records show. She was out of town but wrote in an email
that her chief of staff, Brian Owens, and senior legal counsel,
Tommy Simmons, would be available. "Any updates on the status of
the legislation in other states? I did see some states have laws
kicking in this summer," Hughs said. Two days later, Owens and
Simmons held a call with Valdez and other Tusk Strategies
representatives.

After the call, Valdez introduced the two Hughs staffers to another
Texas lobbyist, Mackenna Wehmeyer, who is also on the Tusk payroll:
"[S]he can arrange to get the handy.com folks lined up once you
have briefed Comm. Hughs," he wrote in an email.

Wehmeyer continued to correspond with Hughs' staff, providing
amended language that, as Handy had learned while passing
marketplace legislation in Arizona, would ensure that the
regulation would be in compliance with federal unemployment tax
law. "Thank you very much for referring that information to us. I
am sure it will be informative regarding the matters discussed,"
Simmons, the counsel for Hughs, told Wehmeyer.  

Tusk Strategies lobbyists also assured Hughs' team that the Texas
Workforce Commission wouldn't be the only state agency making an
end-run around the legislative process. They were also in the
process of advancing similar rules with the labor regulators in
Colorado and Illinois. Simmons told Wehmeyer, "We'll be sure to
include the Illinois proposal in our discussions."

During the more than seven months that Hughs was coordinating with
Handy and its lobbyists, the only hint of such backroom chatter
came during a July 2018 commission meeting. Hughs alluded to
"receiving interest" from unnamed sources that wanted the agency to
provide "some clarity on the gig economy and the classification of
workers in that particular industry, and the marketplace contractor
industry." She ordered the commission's staff to begin drafting a
rule along those lines.

She didn't explain that Handy had apparently already taken care of
that. Several on-demand companies offered their support for the
rule during the public comment period in January. Handy, however,
remained behind the scenes. The agency has said that it may offer
potential revisions before the commission makes its final vote.
That vote could come at any time now. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***