CAR_Public/190418.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 78

                            Headlines

AA GRAND APPAREL: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADELPHI HOTEL: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
AMARIN CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
AMN HEALTHCARE: Barnett Files Class Suit in S.D. California

AMYRIS INC: Mulderrig Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Group Files Securities Class Action
BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Baptiste Suit
BLUESTAR REFRESHMENT: Order Addressing Maston Deal Standing Issued
BRIDGETON HOLDINGS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website

COLDWELL BANKER: Faces Valdes Suit over Autodialed Calls
CONNECTICUT: Skipp Files Class Suit in Connecticut
COTY INC: Phillips Files Securities Class Action in Delaware
CRETE CARRIER: Prieto Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
DICK'S SPORTING: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

DIGNITY HEALTH: Cervantes Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIGNITY HEALTH: Lyon Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
DNC PARKS: Young Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Cusack-Acocella's Bid to Certify Class Denied
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: ABC Ruling Imperils Calif. Freelancers

FORSTER & GARBUS: Perl Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FORSTER & GARBUS: Perl Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
FREEMARK APPAREL: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Georgia Advocacy Office Files Class Action
G6 HOSPITALITY: Sued over Electronically Printed Receipts

GEMINI TRUST: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
GLENCREST HEALTHCARE: Gory Files Suit Over Biometric Data Retention
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Remands Frank Suit to Address Standing
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Review in Liberty Denied
HILL'S PET: Skoog Files Class Action in E.D. Pa.

HUNTER WARFIELD: Gendelberg Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
HYUNDAI: 9th Circuit Has Yet to Rule on Class Action Settlement
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Parent Issues Statement on Quebec Court Ruling
INCIPIO TECHNOLOGIES: Figueroa Alleges ADA Violation
ITS NATIONAL: Settlement in DeWeese FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval

JOHN HANCOCK: Romano et al. Sue over 401(k) Plan
JOHN JORY: Orellana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KKC HOLDINGS: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
L.L. BEAN: Amended Bondi Suit Over Return/Exchange Policy Dismissed
LA SPORTIVA: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION: Removes Russell Suit to S.D. New York
LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Lopez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
LOZANO INSURANCE: Mosley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Class Action Over Civil Commitments
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Alvarez Class Cert. Bid Denied w/out Prej.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Beltran Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brodes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MRS BPO: Mezzo Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letter
NATIONAL GRID USA: MacKenzie Sues Over TCPA Violation
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Weiss Files Consumer Credit Suit in New York

NORTH CAROLINA: Dean's Bid to Certify State Inmates Class Denied
NVR INC: Smith's Bid to Certify Class Cont'd; May 23 Hearing Set
PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS: Huffman Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
PASCHEN MANAGEMENT: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
PLAN BENEFIT: Chavez Seeks Class Action Certification

PORT PIPE: Kostmayer's Bid to Certify Class Under TCPA Denied
PROCOLLECT INC: Pete Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
REAL TIME: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in New York
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Clay Asserts Breach of FDCPA
SAMS DELI: Nestor Victor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Chavez Settlement Has Final OK
SCIL TEXAS: Milan Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. New York
SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Adams Suit
SUNTRUST BANK: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violations
SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS: Ward Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.

TATE & KIRLIN: Miller Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
TAYLOR, MI: Attar 2018's Bid for Class Certification Denied
TB12 INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Becher Suit
UNITED STATES: Rosario Injunction Implementation Issues Resolved

UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Parker Wins Initial Nod of Class Settlement
VIVINT INC: Dorn Files FCRA Suit in Alabama
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Neely Alleges Violation under FDCPA
WARNER CHILCOTT: Teamsters Seeks More Time to File Writ Petition
WEINSTEIN & RILEY: Young Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas


                            *********

AA GRAND APPAREL: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose De Los Santos, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AA Grand Apparel, Inc., a
California corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12112 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 9, 2019) is action against Defendant for California
Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked
(including minimum wages, straight time wages, overtime wages),
failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods, failed
to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest
periods, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff
worked, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when
Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish
accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in Los
Angeles County, California as a machine operator from approximately
January 2018 to March 2019.

Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment
within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
            allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


ADELPHI HOTEL: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adelphi Hotel MT MM 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. Adelphi Hotel MT MM LLC and
Adelphi Hotel Partners, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03130
(S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019).

Adelphi Hotel is home to premier boutique hotel and culinary
experience in the region.[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


AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Akorn, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Akorn from August 1, 2018 through January 8, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws (the "Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities during the
class period, you have until April 22, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Akorn purports to develop, manufacture, and market specialized
generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug
products, and animal health products in the United States and
internationally.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (1) Akorn's management misled
investors concerning the severity of Akorn's manufacturing
violations at its Decatur, Illinois facility; (2) Akorn's responses
to the FDA's Form 483—which  contained a list of observations
made by the FDA during its inspection of Akorn's Decatur, Illinois
facility in April and May 2018—would be deemed inadequate by the
FDA; (3) Akorn repeatedly failed to correct manufacturing
violations at this facility; (4) the foregoing would subject Akorn
to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the FDA; and (5) as a result,
Akorn's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On January 9, 2019, before the market opened, Akorn announced that
it had received a warning letter "dated January 4, from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to an inspection of its
Decatur, Illinois manufacturing facility in April and May of 2018."
The warning letter from the FDA detailed a laundry list of
"significant violations of current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) regulations for finished pharmaceuticals".

On this news, Akorn's shares fell $0.46 per share or over 11.6% to
close at $3.48 per share on January 9, 2019, damaging investors.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


AMARIN CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Amarin
Corporation plc ("Amarin" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between September 24,
2018 and November 9, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 23, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Amarin touted the results of its
REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa, the Company's cardiovascular disease
drug candidate, while knowing the results were not as positive as
it was representing them to be. The placebo given to the control
portion of the trial may have led to an increased rate of
cardiovascular events for those patients. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Amarin, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone:  
           Office: 310-301-3335
           Cell:   424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


AMN HEALTHCARE: Barnett Files Class Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMN Healthcare
Allied, Inc. The case is styled as Jeff Barnett, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMN Healthcare Allied, Inc., a Texas
corporation, AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
AMN Healthcare, Inc., a Nevada corporation, AMN Allied Services,
LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, AMN Services, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company and AMN Staffing Services,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00666-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

Amn Healthcare Allied, Inc. was founded in 2005. The company's line
of business includes providing health and allied services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Alan Ozzello, Esq.
   Capstone Law, APC
   1875 Century Park E., Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (844) 774-2020
   Fax: (844) 774-2020
   Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com



AMYRIS INC: Mulderrig Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Mulderrig and Rony Devorah, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMYRIS, INC., JOHN G.
MELO, and KATHLEEN VALIASEK, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01765-YGR
(N.D. Cal., April 3, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Amyris securities
between March 15, 2018 and March 19, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 13, 2018, the Company reported poor financial results
for third quarter 2018, with $14.9 million revenue compared to
$22.5 million revenue in the prior year period, and attributed the
performance to the "volatility of the Vitamin E market". On this
news, the Company's share price fell $1.76, or nearly 30%, to close
at $4.14 per share on November 14, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume. On March 19, 2019, the Company disclosed that it would be
unable to timely file its annual report due to "significant time
and resources that were devoted to the accounting for and
disclosure of the significant transactions with Koninklijke DSM
N.V. that closed in November 2018". On this news, the Company's
share price fell $0.78, or nearly 20%, to close at $3.10 per share
on March 20, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked sufficient resources to
accurately account for certain transactions; (2) that, as a result,
there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls
over financial reporting; (3) that, as a result, the Company would
be unable to timely file its annual report; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Shane Mulderrig and Rony Devorah purchased Amyris
securities during the Class Period.

Amyris purports to be an industrial biotechnology company that
manufactures and sells natural, sustainably-sourced products in
health and wellness, clean beauty, and flavor and fragrance
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

          - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Group Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO) pursuant or traceable to Arlo's
false and/or misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Arlo's August 3, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Arlo investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Arlo class action, go
to http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/arlo-technologies-inc/or call
Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there was a flaw and/or quality issue with Arlo's newly
designed battery for its Ultra camera systems; (2) this flaw and/or
quality issue with the Ultra battery could result in a shipping
delay of Arlo's Ultra product; (3) such a shipping delay endangered
Arlo's chances of launching the Ultra product in time for the
crucial holiday season; (4) such a shipping delay would allow
Arlo's competitors to capitalize on the Ultra product's missed
launch, thereby increasing their own market share; (5) Arlo's
consumers had been experiencing battery drain issues and other
battery-related issues in connection with recent firmware updates;
(6) because of the foregoing, Arlo's fourth quarter 2018 results
and consumer base would be negatively impacted; and (7) as a
result, Arlo's Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go
to http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/arlo-technologies-inc/or to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Vik Pawar, Esq. of Pawar Law Group toll free at
888-589-9804 or via e-mail at info@pawarlawgroup.com.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. [GN]



BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Baptiste Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dexter Baptiste and Robin Baptiste filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Robin Baptiste, et al. v.
Bethlehem Landfill Company, Case No. 5-18-cv-02691, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 3, 2019, Judge
Chad F. Kenney granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs Robin Baptiste and Dexter Baptiste allege that the
landfill operated by the Defendant emits noxious odors which cause
material injury to their property and seek relief for their claims
of public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence.  The
Plaintiffs also bring the action on behalf of a class of persons,
who are owner/occupants and renters of residential property within
a 2.5-mile radius of the Bethlehem Landfill Company Facility.

The appellate case is captioned as Robin Baptiste, et al. v.
Bethlehem Landfill Company, Case No. 19-1692, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBIN BAPTISTE and DEXTER BAPTISTE, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are represented
by:

          Philip J. Cohen, Esq.
          KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
          194 South Broad Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 394-8585
          E-mail: pcohen@kcrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq.
          KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
          3237 Bristol Road, Suite 104
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 337-4915
          E-mail: kriechelson@kcrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          E-mail: ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
                  sliddle@ldclassaction.com

Defendant-Appellee BETHLEHEM LANDFILL COMPANY, A Delaware
Corporation doing business as IESI PA BETHLEHEM LANDFILL, is
represented by:

          Robert M. Donchez, Esq.
          Robert A. Freedberg, Esq.
          FLORIO PERRUCCI STEINHARDT & CAPPELLI LLC
          60 West Broad Street, Suite 102
          Bethlehem, PA 18018
          Telephone: (610) 691-7900
          E-mail: RDonchez@floriolaw.com
                  RFreedberg@floriolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Murphy, Esq.
          John H. Paul, Esq.
          Nicole B. Weinstein, Esq.
          BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
          477 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-5436
          E-mail: mmurphy@bdlaw.com
                  jpaul@bdlaw.com
                  nweinstein@bdlaw.com

               - and -

          James B. Slaughter, Esq.
          BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
          1350 I Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 789-6040
          E-mail: jslaughter@bdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roy Prather, III, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          2 North Second Street
          Penn National Insurance Plaza, 7th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (215) 851-8100


BLUESTAR REFRESHMENT: Order Addressing Maston Deal Standing Issued
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER MASTON, Plaintiff, v. BLUESTAR REFRESHMENT
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06000-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has issued an order on a recent
decision addressing standing for class settlement.

At the hearing on Maston's motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement, the Court instructed the parties that any question of
Maston's Article III standing must be resolved before approval
would be granted.  To the extent that there might have been any
doubt as to that requirement at the time of the hearing, the
Supreme Court has now conclusively addressed the issue.

The Supreme Court held that they have an obligation to assure
themselves of litigants' standing under Article III.  That
obligation extends to court approval of proposed class action
settlements.  In ordinary non-class litigation, parties are free to
settle their disputes on their own terms, and plaintiffs may
voluntarily dismiss their claims without a court order.  By
contrast, in a class action, the claims, issues, or defenses of a
certified class -- or a class proposed to be certified for purposes
of settlement -- may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or
compromised only with the court's approval.  A court is powerless
to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction
over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named
plaintiff has standing.

Magistrate Judge Spero holds that the parties are therefore
reminded that any supplemental submissions in support of Maston's
motion for preliminary approval must show that Maston has Article
III standing to bring his claims.  Moreover, if the parties are
able to show affirmatively that Maston has standing, the parties
must address whether the previously-proposed settlement value --
which, according to the motion, reflected a significant discount to
account for the unresolved issue of standing -- remains a "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" settlement of the claims.

His Order, issued in light of the recent decision by the Supreme
Court and focused narrowly on the standing issue addressed therein,
is not intended as a complete restatement of all issues identified
at the previous hearing for the parties to address.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Y6tWtV from Leagle.com.

Christopher Maston, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, Ariel J.
Stiller-Shulman, Kingsley and Kingsley, APC, Emil Davtyan, Davtyan
Professional Law Corporation & Kelsey M. Szamet --
kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley and Kingsley, APC.

Bluestar Refreshment Services, Defendant, represented by Lyle M.
Chan -- lmchan@wolfewyman.com -- Wolfe and Wyman LLP.


BRIDGETON HOLDINGS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGETON HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03152 (S.D. N.Y., April 9, 2019) asserts claims under
the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human
Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL")
against Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's website,
http://bridgetonholdings.com/fails to identify and describe
accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through
its reservations service on its Website in enough detail to
reasonably permit individuals with disabilities such as the
Plaintiff to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest
room meets his or her accessibility needs, it violates the
provisions of the ADA including certain regulations promulgated
thereunder.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will include information as to accessibility
features in their hotels and guest rooms to reasonably permit
individuals with disabilities, including Plaintiff, to assess
independently whether Defendant's hotels or guest rooms meet his or
her accessibility needs so that Defendant's hotels become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.

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

Defendant owns and operates numerous hotels in the City of New York
as well as many other hotels in different parts of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: 212.228.9795
     Fax: 212.982.6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


COLDWELL BANKER: Faces Valdes Suit over Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Defendants Coldwell
Banker Real Estate LLC and NRT, LLC to stop both Defendants from
directing realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by making unsolicited autodialed calls to consumers without
their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the
national Do Not Call registry. The case is captioned JORGE VALDES,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE, LLC, a California limited liability
company, and NRT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01763-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2019).
The complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by the conduct of Defendants.

Headquartered in Madison, New Jersey, Coldwell Banker and NRT LLC
are limited liability companies engaged in residential real estate
brokerage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Ratner, Esq.
     DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP
     33 Julianne Court
     Walnut Creek, CA 94595
     Telephone: (917) 900-2868
     Facsimile: (925) 891-3818
     E-mail: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com

          - and -

    Stefan Coleman, Esq
    LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
    201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
    Miami, FL 33131
    Telephone: (877) 333-9427
    Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
    E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

          - and –

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


CONNECTICUT: Skipp Files Class Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connecticut. The case
is styled as Susan Skipp, those similarly situated and their
children, Plaintiff v. State of Connecticut, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00498-KAD (D. Conn., Apr. 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Connecticut is a U.S. state in southern New England that has a mix
of coastal cities and rural areas dotted with small towns.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COTY INC: Phillips Files Securities Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COTY INC., PETER HARF, PIERRE LAUBIES,
SABINE CHALMERS, JOACHIM FABER, OLIVIER GOUDET, ANNA-LENA
KAMENETZKY, ERHARD SCHOEWEL, ROBERT SINGER, and PAUL S. MICHAELS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00628-UNA (D. Del., April 3, 2019) is
an action on behalf of Plaintiff and the public stockholders of
Coty Inc. against the Company and Coty's Board of Directors  for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Coty by JAB Holdings Company through JAB affiliate
Cottage Holdco.

On February 12, 2019, the Company announced that JAB, through its
affiliate Cottage, intended to commence an all cash tender offer in
which JAB would seek to acquire 150 million shares of Company
common stock at a purchase price of $11.65 per share. The Tender
Offer commenced on February 13, 2019 when JAB filed a Tender Offer
Statement on Schedule TO with the SEC. The Company filed a Schedule
14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "14D-9") with the
SEC on February 27, 2019, without the recommendation of a Special
Committee that had been formed to consider the Tender Offer. On
March 18, 2019, the Company amended the 14D-9 (the "14D-9/A")
recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares
for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on
April 15, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9/A is materially false and/or
misleading because it fails to disclose certain material projected
internal financial information about the Company, relied on by the
Individual Defendants to recommend the Tender Offer and certain
inputs underlying certain valuation methodologies employed by the
Company's financial advisor Centerview Partners LLC in their
financial analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by
Centerview. These omissions render the projected financial
disclosures and the summary of the fairness opinion in the 14D-9/A
incomplete and/or misleading.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act, among other reasons,
because Coty stockholders are entitled to such information in order
to make a fully-informed decision regarding whether to tender their
shares in connection with the Tender Offer, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of
shares of Coty common stock.

Coty is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located at 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10118.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


CRETE CARRIER: Prieto Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crete Carrier
Corporation. The case is styled as Yanelle Prieto, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crete
Carrier Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-60903-BB (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2019).

Crete Carrier Corporation provides transportation services in the
United States. It offers dry van services; coast-to-coast
temperature-sensitive truckload services to candy, confection, and
beverage industries; and flatbed, drop-deck, RGN, and curtain side
transportation services for agricultural and construction
materials/equipment, and commodity that requires flatbed equipment.
The company also provides tractors and trailers to transport
commodities made up of food, paper goods, and consumer products.
Crete Carrier Corporation was founded in 1966 and is based in
Lincoln, Nebraska. It has a division in Lincoln, Nebraska; and a
subsidiary in Omaha, Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
   Shamis, Gentile, P.A.
   7241 SW 118 St
   Pinecrest, FL 33156
   Tel: (305) 298-2253
   Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com

      - and -

   Jordan David Utanski, Esq.
   Edelsberg Law P.A.
   19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite #607
   Aventura, FL 33180
   Tel: (305) 773-6732
   Email: utanski@edelsberglaw.com

      - and -

   Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
   Edelsberg Law PA
   19495 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 607
   Aventura, FL 33180
   Tel: (305) 975-3320
   Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

      - and -

   Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
   14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (404) 797-9696
   Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com



DICK'S SPORTING: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DICK'S SPORTING
GOODS, INC. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00374-PJP (W.D. Pa., April 3, 2019).

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

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retail
company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Cervantes Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health
Medical Foundation. The case is styled as Rivie Cervantes on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dignity
Health Medical Foundation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC19575072 (Cal. Super., April 5, 2019).

Dignity Health Medical Foundation is a not-for-profit organization
providing award-winning, patient-centered health care throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric Andrew Grover, Esq.
   Keller Grover LLP
   1965 Market St
   San Francisco, CA 94103
   Tel: (415) 543-1305
   Fax: (415) 543-7861
   Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com





DIGNITY HEALTH: Lyon Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
Richelle Lyon on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dignity Health, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defndants, Case No. CGC-19-575002 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 3, 2019) is an action on behalf of a proposed
class of hourly registered nurses who worked in the emergency room
and electrophysiology departments at Mercy General Hospital in
Sacran1ento, California to challenge Defendants' (a) policy and
practice of violating California Labor Code, and IWC Wage Order by
failing to provide any, timely and/or complete meal periods to
employees; (b) policy and practice of violating California Labor
Code and IWC Wage Order by failing to authorize and permit third
(and, if applicable, fourth) rest periods to employee who worked
more than 10 hours in a day; and (c) policy and practice of
violating California Labor Code by failing to pay former employees
all wages due and owing at the time of discharge or voluntary
quit.

During the period in which Plaintiff was employed by DIGNITY HEALTH
as a nurse in the emergency room and electrophysiology departments,
she was required to work shifts longer than 10 hours. When DIGNITY
HEALTH required Plaintiff and members of the proposed class to work
shifts longer than 10 hours, it had a policy and practice of
failing to authorize and permit putative class members to take
discrete third and, if applicable, fourth rest periods of at least
10 minutes as required by Labor Code.

The Defendants had a policy and practice of violating California
Labor Code  by failing to pay Plaintiff and putative class members
all wages due and owing at the time of discharge or voluntary quit,
adds the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an operator and then a
registered nurse in the emergency room and electrophysiology
departments from approximately May 2008 through August 4, 2017.

DIGNITY HEALTH operates hospitals throughout California, including
Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ERIC A. GROVER, ESQ.
     ROBERT W. SPENCER, ESQ.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415) 543-1305
     Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
     Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
            rspencer@kellergrover.com


DNC PARKS: Young Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------
DNC Parks & Resorts at Gideon Putnam, 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. DNC Parks & Resorts
at Gideon Putnam, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03128 (S.D.
N.Y., April 8, 2019).

DNC Parks & Resorts At Gideon Putnam, LLC was founded in 2007. The
company's line of business includes operating public hotels and
motels.[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



DUAL DIAGNOSIS: Cusack-Acocella's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY
CUSACK-ACOCELLA, ET AL. V. DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER, INC.,
ET AL., Case No. 8:18-cv-01009-AG-KES (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Kimberly Cusack-Acocella, Scott Langer, Michael Henry,
Janice Smothers, and Grace Oudin all sued their former employer,
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. (which does business as
Sovereign Health), along with three Sovereign executives, under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The Plaintiffs asked the
Court to certify this class: "all participants in the 2017
Sovereign Health Employee Benefits Plan, except the individual
defendants."

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, Judge Guilford denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion, at least for now, on the issue of class
definition.

"Ultimately, class certification is likely appropriate here.  But
Plaintiffs' proposed class, as it is currently drafted, casts too
wide a net.  If Plaintiffs wish to bring another motion for class
certification, the Court notes that, in this case, it would
probably be willing to certify a smaller, more narrowly defined
class," Judge Guilford rules.[CC]


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: ABC Ruling Imperils Calif. Freelancers
----------------------------------------------------------
James Joyner, writing for Outside the Beltway, reports that Sarah
Feldberg in CJR ("'This could ruin us': A class-action suit
imperils California freelancers"):

Dynamex is shorthand for a class-action lawsuit in California about
the employment status of delivery truck drivers. Last April, the
state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Dynamex Operations West,
a package delivery company, had misclassified its drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees. The ruling also
covers exotic dancers, hairdressers, freelance reporters, and
anyone else who works as an independent contractor (IC) in the
Golden State. Heralded by labor groups as protecting the rights of
vulnerable workers and confronting the abuses of the gig economy,
Dynamex has also created widespread confusion about who's exempt,
who's in trouble, and what the ruling will mean for freelancers. To
say that it's having an impact would be an understatement. People
are freaking out.

One would think it easy to figure out who was an "employee" versus
an "independent contractor." But it's actually quite complicated.

The ruling established an ABC test whose three parameters must be
met for a worker to be independent under California wage orders
that govern things such as minimum wage and overtime. Part A says
that an IC must be "free from the control and direction of the
hirer in connection with the performance of the work." Part C
requires the "worker is customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
the work performed." But it's part B that presents a problem for
freelance journalists: someone is an independent contractor only if
they perform work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's
business." In the archetypal example, a plumber fixing a restaurant
toilet clearly qualifies. A freelancer journalist writing a column
for a magazine? Not so much.

"B" seems like an unnecessary and harmful addition. In the case of
a restaurant, there's no sense in which a waitress could be an
"independent contractor." They could be full-time or part-time,
based on whether they meet a time threshold. But it's hard to
fathom a test where they meet condition "A."  But, surely, a
cleaning crew that does jobs all over the city but comes to the
restaurant for two hours every night can, in fact, be independently
contracted even though the restaurant's management sets conditions
such as time.

A magazine columnist is indeed harder to fit into the framework.
But there are plenty of people who have other jobs and yet turn in
a column on a set schedule. A Paul Krugman, for example, can work
as an economics professor by day and also turn in periodic columns
for the New York Times. So long as he's allowed to write for other
publications, he's surely a freelancer.

Yet, apparently, it's not that simple.

While many media companies and publications seem unaware or unfazed
by the ruling, others are severing ties to California writers to
ensure compliance. Bell's client, New Jersey-based Northstar Travel
Media, which produces travel industry trade journals, has stopped
working with a number of California freelancers. San Diego
journalist Randy Dotinga lost a potential public broadcasting
client that suddenly announced a no-freelance policy post Dynamex.
They didn't specify the cause, according to Dotinga, but the timing
suggested they might be spooked.

Cecilia Hae-Jin Lee, an LA-based writer and photographer, hadn't
given the ruling much thought until one of her long-time editors
emailed to say they couldn't keep working with her. "I lost a
regular client because of this," she says. "They just blanket
decided not to hire any California freelancers."

Joyner reached out to Northstar, Thomson Reuters, and the Editorial
Freelancers Association to ask about Dynamex, but all three
declined to comment for this piece. The Los Angeles Times,
Freelancers Union, and News Guild didn't reply at all.

California isn't the only state with an ABC test. The ruling was
based on a Massachusetts statute that sets roughly the same
parameters, but when I tried to find a Massachusetts writer who was
aware of the law—let alone affected by it—I came up empty.
Boston University School of Law Professor and employment law expert
Michael Harper attributes that to alarmism in response to the new
standard. Among "high-skill" industries, he says, "it would have to
be used by the workers against employers. If it's a relationship
that people are happy with. . . they're not going to bring a
case."

Dotinga is alarmed. A former newspaper reporter who has freelanced
full time for the past 20 years and previously served as the
president of the American Society of Journalists and Authors,
Dotinga has been working with a coalition of 16 national non-profit
groups that represent professional creatives to draft a letter to
legislators explaining the impact of Dynamex. "For all of us who
are freelancers, this could ruin us," Dotinga says. "We could be
unable to find work. It's potentially really devastating."

Exemptions to the wage orders -- and therefore Dynamex -- already
exist, granted to some "professionals" such as doctors and
architects and "creatives" such as artists. Writers fall into a
sort of gray zone -- not explicitly exempt and not explicitly
subject. Brigid O'Farrell, with the Northern California chapter of
the National Writers Union, says the organization supports the
Dynamex ruling, but is also concerned about its effect on freelance
creatives who satisfy all but Part B of the new test. Along with
Dotinga, the NWU is working on specific language that would protect
independent writers who are truly independent.

Obviously, there's plenty of room for abuse in a "freelance"
system, even for creatives. Lots of web-based media companies rely
on very-low-paid writers and want to keep them classified as
part-time or contract labor to avoid paying expensive benefits. But
the "A" part of the test would seem sufficient there: if the outlet
is requiring full-time production, directing the content of the
work, demanding X number of pieces per day/week/month, then the
workers aren't true freelancers.

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who's sponsoring a bill
that would codify Dynamex as law, has met with the group. Gonzalez
says she's concerned that workers are covered with protections like
health insurance, disability, and worker's compensation; that
employers aren't shifting those costs to the state; and that
contractors have the power to dictate the terms of their work. If
freelancers satisfy those stipulations, then Gonzalez gives it a
green light. "In those situations they're acting like a tiny little
business, and I think that's how independent contractors are
supposed to work," she says. When it comes to a blanket exemption,
though, she's less convinced, pointing to the potential for
freelancers to break a union or for companies to hire permalancers
in place of employees.

The most coveted freelance gigs -- recurring columns or features
that journalists can count on month after month -- seem especially
vulnerable. Gonzalez says she's less concerned about journalistic
piece-work. However, when a magazine uses a freelancer to write
weekly movie reviews or a photographer shoots exclusively for a
single paper, she asks, "Doesn't that start to feel like they're
actually misclassified?"

Yes and no.

The weekly movie reviewer seems straightforward enough: unless
you're Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin, writing a weekly column seems
like the classic freelance assignment. We're talking a very small
commitment of time and extreme flexibility.

A photographer (or anyone, really) who is only allowed to work for
one employer is almost by definition not a freelancer. A Peter
Parker making a few bucks on the side selling photos to the Daily
Bugle to make some spending money while in school wouldn't expect
to be paid a full-time salary or benefits. But one would presume he
could take his pics to the Daily Globe if he got tired of J. Jonah
Jameson's attitude -- or sell the ones that Jameson didn't want.

"Freelancing gets a bad rap," Dotinga says. "The fact is a lot of
us do really well, and we do have a lot of job security. I'm sure
if I had been a newspaper reporter for the last 20 years, I would
have been laid off a few times. For me, being a freelancer is the
way I've been able to continue being a journalist."

I'm not sure I've ever seen "freelancing" and "job security" in the
same sentence, at least not in a positive sense. But one presumes
that the very best have enough demand for their work that they can
keep the money rolling in. It strikes me as a brutal way to make a
living but they ought to have a right to do it.

In the wake of massive media layoffs earlier this year, the same
thing is true for many former newsroom staffers, though the ability
to outsource content—and the accompanying payroll taxes—could
also be a factor in declining editorial jobs.

That, of course, is the flip side of the coin. Demanding that all
journalists be freelancers is to remove job security for all but
the very top tier.

Harper, meanwhile, wants to apply his own ABC test to me and this
assignment.

"When you say you're writing a story, does that mean they're paying
you?" he asks.

Yes, I tell him. I pitched the story, agreed upon a rate, and set a
deadline, made a one-time deal for this article without
restrictions on what I can write for anybody else. CJR could kill
the story, or I could pull it myself with no repercussions beyond a
bridge burnt and a missing paycheck.

Satisfied, Harper says that I sound like an independent contractor.
"But," he sighs, "I understand how lawyers could make them
nervous."

Obviously, this isn't the sort of thing that should be sorted out
on an ad hoc, post hoc basis through the courts. The laws are
simply behind the times, not having kept up with the changes in the
economy over the last quarter century or so.

While I've done quite a lot of freelance writing over the years,
little of it is paid. Even prestige outlets tend not to pay for
public policy commentary. There's a lot of controversy over that
fact, in that it means that people like myself—who are paid a
living wage by a university, think tank, or other institution—are
driving down the price that independently freelancers are able to
charge for their work.

In my main line of work, university teaching, we've seen over the
course of a generation or more the driving out of full-time
professors with adjuncts. Once upon a time, adjuncts were
essentially freelancers. Usually, they had a full-time job in
business, government, a think tank, or whathaveyou and taught an
occasional class on the side in an area of especial expertise. For
example, when I was teaching at Tennessee-Chattanooga way back in
1995-96, our small political science department had a longtime
local politician teach a local government course and a sitting
judge teach a constitutional law course. They supplemented the
curriculum teaching classes none of the existing policy were
especially qualified to teach for whatever satisfaction they gained
from "giving back" and interacting with young people and made a few
bucks for their efforts.

Gradually, though, university bean counters realized there was a
veritable army of people out there with PhDs who couldn't find
full-time employment and would be happy to have a few bucks thrown
their way to keep the bills fed while they built their CVs with
teaching experience. Many adjuncts were teaching a
more-than-full-time load at a number of schools in a given area at
a well-below-full-time wage. They were clearly independent
contractors by the A and C parts of the test but, rather clearly,
not B.

Now, more than three-quarters of university teachers are
"non-contingent" -- a term that encompasses all faculty in
positions not eligible for tenure. More than half of those are
adjuncts, who are part-time at a given institution (but may be
full-time or more-than-full-time when cobbling all their gigs
together).

Some of these developments, in both journalism and academia, are
lamentable. It's not obvious to me to what extent they need to be
addressed by new laws, let alone what those laws should look like.
As the Dynamex outcome demonstrates, attempts to make things better
can have unintended consequences that are exactly the opposite of
the desired effect. At the same time, employers shouldn't be able
to skirt the intent of employment laws by creating pretend "exempt"
or "contract" workers who are anything but. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Perl Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Israel Perl individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-02966 (S.D. N.Y., Apr. 3, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORSTER & GARBUS: Perl Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Israel Perl, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02068 (E.D. N.Y., April 9, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREEMARK APPAREL: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freemark Apparel Brands Group USA Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freemark Apparel Brands
Group USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03203 (S.D. N.Y., April
10, 2019).

Freemark Apparel Brands Inc. was founded in 2003. The Company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of men's and
boys' apparel and furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal






FULTON COUNTY, GA: Georgia Advocacy Office Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against police officers of
Fulton County, Georgia. The case is styled as Georgia Advocacy
Office, M.J. and K.H., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Theodore Jackson, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Fulton County, Mark Adger, in his official capacity
as Chief Jailer, Meredieth Lightbourne, in her official capacity as
Medical Director, Tyna Taylor, in her official capacity as
Detention Captain and Pearlie Young in her official capacity as
Detention Lieutenant, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01634-WMR-JFK
(N.D. Ga., April 10, 2019).

The lawsuit asserts Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Aaron Michael Littman, Esq.
   Southern Center for Human Rights
   83 Poplar Street, N.W.
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 688-1202
   Email: alittman@schr.org

      - and -

   Anne Jessamyn Isham Kuhns, Esq.
   Georgia Advocacy Office, Inc.
   One West Court Square, Suite 625
   Decatur, GA 30030
   Tel: (404) 885-1234
   Email: akuhns@thegao.org

      - and -

   Devon Orland, Esq.
   Georgia Advocacy Office, Inc.
   One West Court Square, Suite 625
   Decatur, GA 30030
   Tel: (404) 885-1234
   Fax: (404) 378-0031
   Email: dorland@thegao.org

      - and -

   Ryan Primerano, Esq.
   Southern Center for Human Rights
   83 Poplar Street, N.W.
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 688-1202
   Fax: (404) 688-9440
   Email: rprimerano@schr.org

      - and -

   Sarah E. Geraghty, Esq.
   Southern Center for Human Rights
   83 Poplar Street, N.W.
   Atlanta, GA 30303-2122
   Tel: (404) 688-1202
   Email: sgeraghty@schr.org


G6 HOSPITALITY: Sued over Electronically Printed Receipts
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WATSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. G6 Hospitality LLC, d/b/a Motel 6, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00507 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by knowingly or recklessly providing the Plaintiff
and Class members with electronically printed receipts that bear 10
of the 16 digits instead of last 5 digits.

The FACTA states that "no person that accepts credit cards or debit
cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the
last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any
receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction." By printing 10 of 16 digits, the Defendant risked
that Plaintiff's 15 and Class members’ credit card numbers would
be compromised.

Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class suffered concrete and actual
harm because Defendant's FACTA violation caused them annoyance that
their credit card information could be compromised and forced them
to take the time and effort to save receipts in a secure place to
ensure that their credit card information would not be stolen in an
age when identity thieves have increasingly sophisticated methods
and technology, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

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

              - and -

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

GEMINI TRUST: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Gemini Trust Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gemini Trust Company, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03163 (S.D. N.Y., April 9, 2019).

Gemini Trust Company, LLC (Gemini) is a digital currency exchange
and custodian that allows customers to buy, sell, and store digital
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


GLENCREST HEALTHCARE: Gory Files Suit Over Biometric Data Retention
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Gory, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Glencrest Healthcare and Rehabilitation
Centre, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04326 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., Ill., April 3, 2019) is a class action complaint against
Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") expressly
obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an
individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry
scan, and biometric information derived from it.

The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/ or
otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric
information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without
properly obtaining written executed release, and without making the
required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or
destruction of biometric identifiers or information. Additionally,
upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the Class members are
aggrieved because Defendant improperly disclosed employees'
biometric data to out-of-state third party vendors in violation of
the BIPA.

Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant in on or about 2015.

Defendant Glencrest Healthcare and Rehabilitation Centre, Ltd. is
an Illinois corporation located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wis, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklcg:al.com
            plesko@.pwcklegal.com


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Remands Frank Suit to Address Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States remanded the case, THEODORE
H. FRANK, ET AL., Petitioners, v. PALOMA GAOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL, Case No. 17-961
(U.S.), for the courts below to address the Plaintiffs' standing in
light of its ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Three named Plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google
for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act ("SCA").
The parties negotiated a settlement agreement that would require
Google to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and
would distribute more than $5 million to cy pres recipients, more
than $2 million to the class counsel, and no money to absent class
members.  The Court granted certiorari to review whether such cy
pres settlements satisfy the requirement that class settlements be
"fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Google operates an Internet search engine.  The search engine
allows users to search for a word or phrase by typing a query into
the Google website.  Google returns a list of webpages that are
relevant to the indicated term or phrase.  The complaints alleged
that when an Internet user conducted a Google search and clicked on
a hyperlink to open one of the webpages listed on the search
results page, Google transmitted information including the terms of
the search to the server that hosted the selected webpage.  This
so-called referrer header told the server that the user arrived at
the webpage by searching for particular terms on Google's website.

Paloma Gaos challenged Google's use of referrer headers.  She filed
a complaint in Federal District Court on behalf of herself and a
putative class of people who conducted a Google search and clicked
on any of the resulting links within a certain time period.  Gaos
alleged that Google's transmission of users' search terms in
referrer headers violated the SCA.  

Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing three times.  Its
first attempt was successful.  The District Court reasoned that
although a plaintiff may establish standing through allegations of
violation of a statutory right, Gaos had failed to plead facts
sufficient to support a claim for violation of her statutory
rights.

After Gaos filed an amended complaint, Google again moved to
dismiss.  That second attempt was partially successful. The
District Court dismissed Gaos' state law claims, but denied the
motion as to her SCA claims.  The court reasoned that because the
SCA created a right to be free from the unlawful disclosure of
certain communications, and because Gaos alleged a violation of the
SCA that was specific to her (i.e., based on a search she
conducted), Gaos alleged a concrete and particularized injury.  
The court rested that conclusion on Edwards v. First American Corp.
-- a Ninth Circuit decision reasoning that an Article III injury
exists whenever a statute gives an individual a statutory cause of
action and the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated the
statute.

After the District Court ruled on Google's second motion to
dismiss, the Court granted certiorari in Edwards to address whether
an alleged statutory violation alone can support standing.  In the
meantime, Gaos and an additional named Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint against Google.

Google once again moved to dismiss, arguing that the named
Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their SCA claims because
they had failed to allege facts establishing a cognizable injury.
But because the Court had agreed to review Edwards, Google
explained that it would continue to challenge the District Court's
conclusion.  The Court eventually dismissed Edwards as
improvidently granted, and Google then withdrew its argument that
Gaos lacked standing for the SCA claims.

Gaos' putative class action was consolidated with a similar
complaint, and the parties negotiated a classwide settlement.  The
terms of their agreement required Google to include certain
disclosures about referrer headers on three of its webpages.
Google could, however, continue its practice of transmitting users'
search terms in referrer headers.  Google also agreed to pay $8.5
million.  None of those funds would be distributed to absent class
members.  Instead, most of the money would be distributed to six cy
pres recipients.  The rest of the funds would be used for
administrative costs and fees, given to the named Plaintiffs in the
form of incentive payments, and awarded to the class counsel as
attorney's fees.

The District Court granted preliminary certification of the class
and preliminary approval of the settlement.  Five class members,
including petitioners Theodore Frank and Melissa Holyoak, objected
to the settlement on several grounds.  They complained that
settlements providing only cy pres relief do not comply with the
requirements of Rule 23(e), that cy pres relief was not justified
in the case, and that conflicts of interest infected the selection
of the cy pres recipients.  After a hearing, the District Court
granted final approval of the settlement.

Frank and Holyoak appealed.  After briefing before the Ninth
Circuit was complete, but prior to decision by that court, the
Court issued its opinion in Spokeo.  In Spokeo, it that Article III
standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a
statutory violation.  Google notified the Ninth Circuit of the
Court's opinion.

A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, without addressing
Spokeo.  The Court granted certiorari to decide whether a class
action settlement that provides a cy pres award but no direct
relief to the class members satisfies the requirement that a
settlement binding class members be "fair, reasonable, and
adequate."

In briefing on the merits before the Court, the Solicitor General
filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting neither party.  He urged
the Court to vacate and remand the case for the lower courts to
address standing.  The Government argued that there is a
substantial open question about whether any named Plaintiff in the
class action actually had standing in the District Court.  Because
Google withdrew its standing challenge after the Court dismissed
Edwards as improvidently granted, neither the District Court nor
the Ninth Circuit ever opined on whether any named Plaintiff
sufficiently alleged standing in the operative complaint.

When the District Court ruled on Google's second motion to dismiss,
it relied on Edwards to hold that Gaos had standing to assert a
claim under the SCA.  The Court's decision in Spokeo abrogated the
ruling in Edwards that the violation of a statutory right
automatically satisfies the injury-infact requirement whenever a
statute authorizes a person to sue to vindicate that right.  Since
that time, no court in the case has analyzed whether any named
plaintiff has alleged SCA violations that are sufficiently concrete
and particularized to support standing.  After oral argument, the
Court ordered supplemental briefing from the parties and Solicitor
General to address that question.

After reviewing the supplemental briefs, the Court concludes that
the case should be remanded for the courts below to address the
Plaintiffs' standing in light of Spokeo.  The supplemental briefs
filed in response to its Oorder raise a wide variety of legal and
factual issues not addressed in the merits briefing before us or at
oral argument.  Resolution of the standing question should take
place in the District Court or the Ninth Circuit in the first
instance.  It therefore vacated and remanded for further
proceedings.  Nothing in its Opinion should be interpreted as
expressing a view on any particular resolution of the standing
question.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/PxhKg9 from Leagle.com.

Theodore Harold Frank, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Attorneys
for Petitioner, Theodore H. Frank, et al.

Donald Manwell Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Andrew John Pincus
Mayer Brown LLP, Attorney for Respondent, Google LLC.

Kassra Powell Nassiri, Nassiri & Jung LLP, Jeffrey Alan Lamken --
jlamken@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, Attorney for Respondent,
Paloma Gaos, et al.

Lori B. Andrews -- landrews@kentlaw.iit.edu -- Chicago-Kent College
of Law, for Law Professors.

John Richard Annand -- jannand@ntlakis.com -- NT Lakis, LLP, for
Center for Workplace Compliance.

William B. Rubenstein, for Pro Se.

Oramel Horace Skinner, Arizona Attorney General's Office, for
Attorney General of Arizona, et al.

Gerson H. Smoger, Smoger & Associates, P.C., for Civil Justice
Research Institute.

Leslie M.F. Spencer -- Leslie.Spencer@ropesgray.com -- Ropes &
Gray, LLP, for The Center for Democracy and Technology, The
Electronic Frontier Foundation, and The National Consumers League.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, United States Department of
Justice, for United States


GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Review in Liberty Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIBERTY SALAD, INC. and 18TH STREET SALAD, INC., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a MERCHANT LYNX SERVICES,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-226 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald J.
Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (i) denied as untimely  Merchant Lynx's motion for
reconsideration of Judge Ditter's order granting the Plaintiffs'
for summary judgment, and (ii) denied its request for certification
for interlocutory review.

Liberty Salad and 18th Street Salad are two Philadelphia
restaurants that sued their debit and credit card payment
processing company, Groundhog, which does business as Merchant Lynx
Services, for charging unauthorized rates and fees.

Liberty Salad and 18th Street Salad filed their five-count class
action Complaint on Jan. 17, 2017.

In Counts One and Two, they alleged that no binding contract
existed between the parties and, as a result, Merchant Lynx was
unjustly enriched.  In the remaining three counts, the Plaintiffs
pled an alternative theory of liability: if a contract existed,
then Merchant Lynx breached it as well as the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, certain provisions of the contract
were unenforceable and Merchant Lynx committed common law fraud.

On Feb. 7, 2017, the case was reassigned from Judge Savage to Judge
Ditter.  Merchant Lynx filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for
failure to state a claim.  On July 7, 2017, Judge Ditter denied
Merchant Lynx's Motion and deferred class certification, informing
the parties that he would set a discovery schedule aimed at
narrowing the issues early so that the parties will be able to
focus on one theory or the other -- contract or no contract.  The
parties then conducted discovery accordingly.

At the end of discovery, the parties both moved for summary
judgment.  On Sept. 21, 2018, Judge Ditter ruled in the Plaintiffs'
favor on that issue.  He found that the written Agreements between
the parties required the signatures of Wells Fargo and its credit
card processor, iPayment.  However, because they were not timely
signed, the Agreements "never took effect."  After determining
there was no written contract between the parties, Judge Ditter
held that an implied contract was created" and set forth its
terms.

Sixty-one days after Judge Ditter's ruling, Merchant Lynx filed its
Motion seeking reconsideration or, in the alternative,
interlocutory review.  It filed its Motion pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(g).  The Plaintiffs argue that the Motion is untimely because
it was filed 61 days after Judge Ditter entered his Order granting
summary judgment in their favor.  Second, Merchant Lynx argues that
if the Court allows the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to add
new Plaintiffs and iPayment as a Defendant, reconsideration of the
Court's prior order permits iPayment to defend itself from the
contention that an implied contract was formed with the Plaintiffs
and to defend the express written contract's viability.
Alternatively, Merchant Lynx requests that the Court certifies an
order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).

Judge Pappert finds that Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that motions
for reconsideration or reargument will be served and filed within
14 days after the entry of judgment, order, or decree concerned,
other than those governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
The Motion is therefore untimely.  He also finds that Merchant
Lynx cannot use the Plaintiffs' request to include iPayment as a
Defendant as a sword to relitigate the case.

Even had Merchant Lynx requested certification under Section
1292(b) sooner, it is nonetheless inappropriate.  A district court
may certify an interlocutory order for immediate appeal if it: (1)
involves a "controlling question of law;" (2) there is "substantial
ground for difference of opinion" as to its correctness and (3) "an
immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation."

The Judge finds that (i) Judge Ditter's decision does not present
the "pure" question of law that interlocutory appeals were designed
to address; (ii) there is no controlling law governing Judge
Ditter's approach in requiring the parties to engage in early
focused discovery on contract formation and then for Judge Ditter
to act as factfinder regarding the intent of the express
agreements, the formation of the implied contract, and the terms of
the implied contract; and (iii) the action is nearly two years old,
extensive discovery has been taken, summary judgment has been
entered as to the threshold legal issue and the necessary next
steps involve the filing of a class certification motion and the
fashioning of an appropriate remedy, an order certifying a matter
for interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the case's
ultimate termination.

The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks fees and costs associated with filing
their responses to Merchant Lynx's Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief.  While Merchant
Lynx's Motion was neither timely nor meritorious, the case has a
unique factual and procedural history and he does not find that
Merchant Lynx acted in bad faith.

based on the foregoing, Judge Pappert (i) denied as untimely
Merchant Lynx's motion for reconsideration of Judge Ditter's order,
and (ii) denied its request for certification for interlocutory
review.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/v0UUyN from Leagle.com.

LIBERTY SALAD, INC. & 18TH STREET SALAD, INC., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com --
GOLOMB & HONIK PC., DAVID J. STANOCH -- dstanoch@golombhonik.com --
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. & RICHARD M. GOLOMB -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com
-- GOLOMB & HONIK.

GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as MERCHANT LYNX
SERVICES, Defendant, represented by EDWARD M. KOCH --
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP, MARC
PENCHANSKY -- penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com -- WHITE & WILLIAMS
LLP & NELSON E. CANTER -- ncanter@mclaughlinstern.com -- CANTER LAW
FIRM PC.


HILL'S PET: Skoog Files Class Action in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HILL'S PET NUTRITION,
INC. The case is styled as LEE SKOOG, MICHELLE BLACK, TIFFANY
MILLER, BARBARA WERTMAN, CANDICE HOWARTH-GADOMSKI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HILL'S
PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01421-CMR (E.D.
Pa., Apr. 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc, marketed simply as "Hills", is an
American pet food company that produces dog and cat foods. The
company is a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     CHARLES E. SCHAFFER, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 500
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Gendelberg Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield. The
case is styled as Leonard Gendelberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02017 (E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019).

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

Hunter Warfield, Inc. provides debt collection and asset
investigation services. It specializes in multi-housing,
commercial, funeral care, and educational markets, as well as
serves educational-student housing and student loans, military
housing, utility billing, building and medical supply, and auction
bid defaults. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in
Tampa, Florida.[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


HYUNDAI: 9th Circuit Has Yet to Rule on Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Cariño, Esq. -- ecarino@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that consumer advocates,
defense attorneys, tort reformists, and trial judges are all
eagerly awaiting a decision by the Ninth Circuit which all hope
will clarify the process for certifying a nationwide settlement
class in the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, an en banc Ninth Circuit
panel will decide whether "variations in state law can defeat"
predominance in class action litigation.

By way of background, 'predominance' is required to certify a
putative class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P. 23"). A plaintiff must demonstrate:
"that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3).

Uncertainty arose in the Ninth Circuit after automakers were sued
in connection with statements about their fuel efficiency estimates
for certain vehicles.  Individuals who owned or leased these models
brought various consumer protection lawsuits. These were ultimately
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation. A California federal
district court certified a nationwide settlement class in 2013, and
the district court preliminarily approved a $210 million settlement
in 2015.  Objectors to the settlement challenged the certification
order, and they took issue with the district court's "failure" to
employ a choice of law analysis. The Ninth Circuit was persuaded
and vacated the certification order on these grounds.

The Ninth Circuit's reversal imposed a new standard that split from
existing authority. A nationwide settlement class could now only be
approved "after a rigorous analysis to ensure that the
prerequisites of Rule 23 have been met." Particularly, courts need
to consider the "impact of potentially varying state laws" on
consumer protection because these differences "may swamp any common
issues and defeat predominance." For example, one of the
defendant's briefing in this case included a thirty-four page chart
of the "numerous differences in the burden of proof, liability,
damages, statutes of limitations, and attorneys' fees awards under
different state consumer protection laws and common law fraud
actions."

Briefing for en banc reconsideration ensued because this
"heightened" predominance analysis departed from well-settled
precedent. The Ninth Circuit ultimately granted the petition.  An
eleven-judge panel heard oral argument in September 2018. Legal
practitioners and journalists expect this important en banc Ninth
Circuit opinion will soon be issued in 2019.

Many agree the current framework now "increases the expense and
uncertainty of nationwide settlements." Proponents of reversal
argue this current framework creates more burdens for trial judges
and will delay the resolution of cases. Others maintain the Ninth
Circuit panel got it right and the process to settle nationwide
class actions should change. Further guidance from the court is
also apropos given some of the recent December 2018 amendments to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which outline new factors for courts to
consider when approving class settlements.

The case is In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation. [GN]


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Parent Issues Statement on Quebec Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The judgment in the two Quebec Class Action lawsuits against our
subsidiary, Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., has been publicly issued
by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal on March 1, 2019.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Superior Court's decision of May
2015.

A British American Tobacco spokesperson said:

"We are extremely disappointed that the Quebec Court of Appeal did
not overturn the trial court's judgment against our Canadian
subsidiary, Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. We are still of the view
that this decision is wrong -- ignoring the reality that both adult
consumers and government have known about the risk associated with
smoking for decades. As a result, we believe it should be
overturned.

"Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. needs to review the court's decision
in more detail and will decide on next steps over the coming days
and weeks. Given the significance of the judgment, they have said
that they fully intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
of Canada."

Following the release of the judgment from the Quebec Court of
Appeal, the plaintiffs requested immediate release of the funds on
deposit, which was refused. They then filed a formal motion to
release the funds. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. filed a motion to
prevent the release of the funds in question.

British American Tobacco was not a party to the proceeding and is
not a party to the judgment, only its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd.

The judgment follows an almost 20-year legal challenge against
British American Tobacco's Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. as well as Philip Morris International's and Japan
Tobacco International's Canadian subsidiaries.

The cases were brought against the three Canadian tobacco
manufacturers on behalf of two groups of Plaintiffs: smokers, who
smoked a minimum of 12 pack-years and who were diagnosed with lung,
throat and laryngeal cancer or emphysema prior to 12th March 2012;
and smokers who were addicted to nicotine at the time the
proceedings were commenced (September 1998) and remained addicted
until at least 21st February 2005.

About British American Tobacco

British American Tobacco (BAT) is one of the world's leading,
multi-category consumer goods companies, providing tobacco and
nicotine products to millions of consumers around the world. It
employs over 55,000 people, with market leadership in over 55
countries and factories in 48. Its Strategic Portfolio is made up
of its global cigarette brands and a growing range of potentially
reduced-risk products. These include vapour, tobacco heating
products, modern oral products including tobacco-free nicotine
pouches, as well as traditional oral products, such as snus and
moist snuff. In 2018, the Group generated revenue of GBP24.5
billion and profit from operations of GBP9.3 billion. [GN]


INCIPIO TECHNOLOGIES: Figueroa Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Incipio Technologies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Incipio Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03205 (S.D. N.Y., April 10, 2019).

Incipio Technologies Inc. designs and manufactures mobile device
accessories. The Company produces and markets travel bags, nylon
cases, sleeves, universal travel kits, headphones, audio visual
solutions, and power solutions for personal computers and mobile
devices. Incipio Technologies offers its products and services
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


ITS NATIONAL: Settlement in DeWeese FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENN DEWEESE and JOSHUA HOLTOM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ITS
NATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00375-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the
Application for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement.

Judge Du granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
Settlement Classes based upon the terms set forth in the Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release between the parties.  She
approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Hearing Date for
Court Approval.  She also approved the procedure for the Class
Members to participate in, to opt out of and to object to, the
Settlement as set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action.

The Judge Court directed the mailing of the Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement, and the Claim and Exclusion
Forms by first class mail to the Class Members in accordance with
the Implementation Schedule.

It is ordered that the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified
for settlement purposes only.

The Judge confirmed Plaintiffs Glenn DeWeese and Joshua Holtom as
the Class Representatives; Thierman Buck, LLP as the Class Counsel;
and CPT Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.

The Judge ordered the following Implementation Schedule for further
proceedings:

      a. Deadline for Defendant to Submit Class Member Information
to Settlement - April 3, 2019 (10 business days after Order
granting Administrator Preliminary Approval)

      b. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Mail the Notice
and the Claim Form to Class - April 4, 2019 (14 calendar days after
Order granting Members Preliminary Approval)

      c. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Claims Form - May
6, 2019 (30 calendar days after mailing of the Notice of
Settlement)

      d. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Requests for
Exclusions - May 6, 2019 (30 calendar days after mailing of the
Notice of Settlement)

      e. Deadline for Receipt by Court and Counsel of any Objection
to Settlement -  May 6, 2019 (30 calendar days after Order granting
Preliminary Approval)

      f. Deadline for Parties to file Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, Costs - June 13, 2019 (seven business
days before Final Approval and Enhancement Award Hearing)

      g. Deadline for Class Counsel to File Declaration from Claims
Administrator of Due Diligence -  June 13, 2019 (seven business
days before Final Approval and Proof of Mailing Hearing)

      h. Final Fairness Hearing and Final Approval - in Reno
Courtroom 5 on June 24, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

      i. Deadline for Defendant to Fund Settlement Account
maintained by the Settlement - July 1, 2019 (five business days
after Effective Date)

      j. Administrator Deadline for Settlement Administrator to
wire transfer the Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Class - July 8, 2019
(five calendar days after Defendant Counsel (if Settlement is
Effective) Funds Settlement Amount)

      k. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail the
Settlement Awards and Enhancement Award to Class Members and to
Class Representative - July 8, 2019 (5 calendar days after
Defendant Funds the Settlement Amount] (if Settlement is Effective)


      l. Settlement Administrator to File Proof of Payment of
Settlement Awards, Enhancement Award, Attorneys' Fees and Costs -
Sept. 25, 2019 - 90 calendar days after Effective (if Settlement
Date is Effective))

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pH0WLv from Leagle.com.

Glenn DeWeese & Joshua Holton, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R.
Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Joshua D.
Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Leah Lin
Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

ITS National, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jill Irene Greiner --
jillgreiner@att.net -- Dotson Law & Robert A. Dotson, Dotson Law.


JOHN HANCOCK: Romano et al. Sue over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------
ERIC ROMANO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21147-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2019), seeks damages and
equitable relief on behalf of themselves and the Class resulting
from the Defendant's violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are the trustees of the
Romano Law, PL 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiffs, as trustees of the
Plan, purchased a Group Variable Annuity Contract from the
Defendant. The Defendant is a fiduciary of the Plan pursuant to
ERISA, and as such, owes the Plan a duty of loyalty and has a duty
not to engage in prohibited transactions. The Defendant breached
these duties by improperly retaining, for its own benefit, foreign
tax credits or deductions arising from assets and investments held
for the benefit of the Plan. As a result of these breaches,
Defendant was overpaid for services rendered under the Contract,
and the Plan's assets were diminished by the amount of the foreign
tax credits retained by Defendant but not credited to the Plan and
the income those overcharges would have earned had they been
properly credited to the Plan's Account.

The amount of benefits received by each Participant in the Plan is
not set by contract but rather, depends upon the amount of money
invested in the Participant's account, the performance of the
account's investments, and -- critically -- the fees charged by the
companies who manage the money. The Plan is a typical 401(k)
retirement plan, similar to those offered by employers and
administered or serviced by the Defendant throughout the country,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One Southeast 3rd Ave, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com
                  adelriego@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Christian D. Searcy, Esq.
          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          Boris L. Zhadanovskiy, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART
            & SHIPLEY P.A.
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9467
          E-mail: searcyteam@searcylaw.com
                  scarolateam@searcylaw.com
                  zhadanovskiyteam@searcylaw.com

JOHN JORY: Orellana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Orellana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. John Jory Corporation, a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV12109 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019) his
action against Defendant for California Labor Code violations and
unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay
minimum and regular rate wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked
and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked
(including minimum wages, straight time wages, overtime wages),
failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods, failed
to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest
periods, failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff
worked, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when
Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish
accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Josue Orellana is a California resident that worked for
Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a
metal stud framer and dry wall installer from approximately
September 2018 to January 2019.

Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment
within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
            allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


KKC HOLDINGS: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Nakieta Robinson and Bridgette Catron On Behalf of Herself and All
Other Similarly Situated Individuals PLAINTIFFS, v. KKC Holdings,
Inc. d/b/a The Catwalk of Memphis SERVE: LEGALINC CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:19-cv-02221-TLP-dkv (W.D.
Tenn., April 9, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

At no time during Plaintiffs' period of employment did Defendant
ever pay Plaintiffs or any other exotic dancers any wages for hours
that Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers worked each week. At all
times relevant, Defendant totally failed to pay wages to Plaintiffs
and all other exotic dancers for work duties performed. The
Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs and all other exotic dancers at
The Catwalk of Memphis as independent contractors and not as
employees, says the complaint.

For at least the past 10 years, gentlemen's clubs like The Catwalk
on Memphis have publically been sued for misclassifying exotic
dancers as independent contractors and failing to pay minimum wage
compensation to exotic dancers as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiffs were each employed by Defendant as exotic dancers at
Defendant's "The Catwalk of Memphis" gentlemen's club in Memphis,
Tennessee.

Defendant was in the business of operating a night club featuring
exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alan G. Crone, Esq.
     Laura Bailey, Esq.
     The Crone Law Firm, PLC
     88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
     Memphis, TN 38103
     Phone: (844) 445-2387 (ph)
     Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
            lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com

          - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg Esq.
     Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373 (ph)
     Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


L.L. BEAN: Amended Bondi Suit Over Return/Exchange Policy Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR BONDI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.L. BEAN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 18 C 1101 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Bondi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, has
brought a five count amended putative class action complaint
against the Defendant L.L. Bean, Inc. alleging: (1) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (2) breach of express
warranty; (3) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act 815
ILCS 505/2 ("ICFA"); (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) declaratory
relief.

The Plaintiff claims to have been a loyal customer of the Defendant
for years.  He has purchased "Bean Boots" in 2017, "Maine Hunting
Boots" in 2011, and a belt and brimmed hat in 2017.  He claims that
the Defendant's warranty, that allowed him to return his purchases
at any time if he was not completely "satisfied," formed the basis
of the bargain for all of his purchases.  He alleges that he would
not have purchased the items without the Defendant's "100%
Satisfaction Guarantee."

According to the complaint, the Defendant has built a brand and
cultivated a reputation for outstanding customer service based on
its comprehensive Guarantee.  On Feb. 9, 2018, the Defendant issued
a statement to its customers that the Plaintiff describes as
terminating the old warranty and announcing that, effective
immediately, the customers will have one year after purchasing an
item to return it, accompanied by proof of purchase.

Three days after the Defendant's Feb. 9, 2018 announcement, the
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.  He seeks to represent a
national class of all persons and entities who purchased goods from
L.L. Bean prior to Feb. 9, 2018; and an Illinois subclass
consisting of all persons or entities who reside in Illinois and
who purchased goods from L.L. Bean prior to Feb. 9, 2018.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, or, in the alternative, under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Judge Gettleman concludes that the "injuries" alleged in the
amended complaint are no more actual, imminent or concrete than the
speculative injuries alleged in the original complaint that the
Court has already held insufficient to support standing.  Nothing
much has changed.  The instant complaint has added nothing to
establish that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact.  His
claims remain based on the remote possibility that at some unknown
time in the future he might become dissatisfied with a purchase,
and that defendant might deny him a refund.

In particular, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff still fails to
allege that the Defendant will not honor his guarantee should he
become dissatisfied with a purchase.  He does not allege that he is
dissatisfied, and has alleged no facts to suggest that he is likely
to become dissatisfied in the future.  He has not alleged that he
has ever been dissatisfied with a product he has purchased from the
Defendant.

Finally, the Judge notes that the Court is not the only court that
has faced claims based on the Defendant's Feb. 9, 2018
announcement.  To the Court's knowledge, every court faced with
such claims has held that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

For these reasons, Judge Gettleman granted the Defendant's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/chGAPD from Leagle.com.

Victor D. Bondi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul
Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Assoc., PC & Anthony
L Parkhill -- aparkhill@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates,
P.C.

L.L. Bean, Inc., a Maine corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony J. Anscombe -- aanscombe@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, Meegan Bay BROOKS -- mbrooks@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie A SHERIDAN -- ssheridan@steptoe.com --
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, pro hac vice, Darlene Kay Alt --
dalt@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP & Mary E. Buckley --
mbuckley@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


LA SPORTIVA: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
LA Sportiva N.A. Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA Sportiva N.A. Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03164 (S.D. N.Y., April 9, 2019).

Sportiva is a popular brand of footwear for mountaineering,
climbing, and skiing. Their products are widely available in Europe
and North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal





LAMOTHERMIC PRECISION: Removes Russell Suit to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TRAVIS RUSSELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMOTHERMIC
PRECISION CASTING CORP.; MICHAEL STEELE; and DANA CIULLO,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess (Case No.
2018-53999) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on March14, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern
District of New York assigned Case No. 7:19-cv-02310. The case is
assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.

Lamothermic Corp. manufacture metal casting products. The Company
offers investment casting, automation, alloys, carbon and tool
steel, and other related products. Lamothermic serves customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edmund C. Grainger, III
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 340
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 949-6400
          E-mail: egrainger@mgslawyers.com


LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Lopez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lodgeworks Partners, L.P. 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. Lodgeworks Partners, L.P. and
Lodgeworks Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03126 (S.D.
N.Y., April 8, 2019).

LodgeWorks Partners is a hotel management company developing
upscale brands and managing a diverse portfolio of premier
hotels.[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




LOZANO INSURANCE: Mosley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Mosley individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc., Frank
Lozano, Lisette Lozano, Anchor Insurance Holdings, Inc., and
Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00379-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., April 3, 2019) seeks to compel
Defendants to pay Mosely and a class of similarly situated
employees all of the wages they earned and to return the monies
they paid for business expenses that the Defendants were obligated
to pay.

Plaintiff and the other insurance claims handlers regularly worked
far in excess of 40 hours in a week. Despite the long hours,
Defendants did not pay Mosley or the other insurance claims
handlers overtime wages. Instead, Defendants told Mosley and the
other insurance claims handlers that they were independent
contractors, notes the complaint.

The Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
by failing to pay their employees proper overtime compensation and
have unjustly enriched themselves at the Plaintiffs' expense by
misrepresenting the Plaintiffs' employment status and requiring
them to pay Defendants' business costs. These violations arose out
of Defendants' company-wide policies and pattern or practices, says
the complaint.

Mosley was employed by Defendants as an insurance claims handler at
Defendants' offices in Jacksonville, Florida from approximately
March 2017 to November 2018.

Lozano Insurance Adjusters ("LIA") is a for-profit Florida
corporation that provides insurance adjustment services to insurers
such as Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and Anchor
Insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adina L. Pollan, Esq.
     POLLAN LEGAL
     301 W. Bay Street, Suite 1454
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone (904) 475-2187
     Facsimile (904) 903-5123
     Email: apollan@pollanlegal.com

          - and -

     Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
     GETMAN, SWEENEY& DUNN, PLLC
     260 Fair Street
     Kingston, NY 12401
     Phone: (845) 255-9370
     Fax (845) 255-8649
     Email: msweeney@getmansweeney.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Faces Class Action Over Civil Commitments
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe DiFazio, writing for The Patriot Ledger, reports that ten men
who say they were involuntarily committed to a Plymouth prison
instead of a drug and alcohol treatment facility are suing several
state agencies and officials, claiming their rights were violated.

The men, housed deep within Myles Standish State Forest in a
facility called the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Center, allege widespread mistreatment, "appalling conditions" and
inadequate treatment.

The class action lawsuit claims that a civil commitment for
addiction treatment to a prison under a law known as Section 35 is
a violation of due process, an unlawful disability discrimination
and an unlawful discrimination against gender since the state
passed a law prohibiting sending civilly committed women to
correctional facilities in 2016.

Section 35, considered a tool of last resort, allows family
members, police officers and doctors to ask a judge to force
someone into substance abuse treatment for up to 90 days, usually
against their will. The majority of civilly committed men in
Massachusetts end up at the low-security prison in Plymouth. The
facility, run by the state Department of Correction, houses about
200 men being treated for substance use and a small number of
prisoners.

The lawsuit blasts the state Department of Public Health for
allegedly failing to provide enough inpatient facilities for
committed men in Massachusetts. The state reported more than 6,000
forced commitments for drug addiction in both fiscal 2016 and
2017.

The lawsuit claims that men travel to Plymouth shackled and
handcuffed in a prison van, strip searched, monitored mainly by
corrections officers and given prisoner-like jumpsuits, despite
entering treatment involuntarily and not being convicted of a
crime.

"(The facility) is dominated and controlled by corrections
officers. This creates a pervasively oppressive environment that is
punitive, humiliating and detrimental to treatment," the lawsuit
reads.

The men, identified only as John Doe and a corresponding number in
the lawsuit, say the facility has not helped them recover and in
some cases made their problems worse. The lawsuit claims that some
men who have served jail time say that treatment at the Plymouth
prison is worse.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plymouth prison is dirty and has
abusive staff and sub-par treatment.

The plaintiffs say corrections officers at the facility use
solitary confinement as punishment and call them names such as
"junkie" or "retard." The lawsuit claims that men who come to the
facility go through detoxification without much medication to
stanch the symptoms of withdrawal, which can include vomiting,
cramping, muscle pain and diarrhea. The lawsuit claimed the detox
area was "filthy and stinking of the vomit, urine and excrement of
patients in the throes of cold-turkey withdrawal," and described
the rest of the facility as "generally dirty."

The lawsuit was brought by the Prisoners' Legal Services, a
nonprofit that provides legal help for the incarcerated, and filed
in Suffolk Superior Court. In a statement on March 17, James
Pingeon, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the state
should not punish the committed.

"Massachusetts is the only state that uses civil commitment to send
people to prison for alcohol or substance use disorders. Other
states understand that these are serious medical conditions that
cry out for treatment, not punishment," Pingeon said. "Prisons are
for criminals. No one should be sent to a prison just because they
have a disease."

The Plymouth prison was converted to a treatment center in 2017
after decades as a minimum-security prison camp that served as a
prerelease program designed to prepare inmates to re-enter life on
the outside.

The lawsuit claims that men committed to the Plymouth facility
receive much fewer hours of treatment than those at a Section
35-specialized Brockton facility called the Men's Addiction
Treatment Center, run by the Department of Public Health. The
lawsuit claims that men there get at least 28 hours of treatment
per week compared with 17 hours or less in Plymouth. It describes
the difference between the Brockton facility and the Plymouth
prison as "night and day."

The lawsuit names as defendants the state Department of Correction
and its commissioner, Carol Mici; the state Department of Public
Health and its commissioner, Monica Bharel; Thomas Turco, secretary
of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security; Marylou
Sudders, secretary of the state Office of Health and Human
Services; and Pamela MacEachern, superintendent of the Plymouth
prison.

Spokespeople for the departments of public health and correction
said on March 17 that they can't comment on pending litigation.
Other officials could not be reached for comment. [GN]


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Alvarez Class Cert. Bid Denied w/out Prej.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose E. Martinez denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with Prejudice in the
lawsuit styled NATASHA ALVAREZ, et al. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Case No. 1:17-cv-22556-JEM (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Martinez also denied without prejudice, with leave to
refile:

   * the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

   * the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Bifurcation of this
     Proposed Class Action;

   * the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time for the
     Parties to Exchange Expert Witness Summaries and Reports and
     Rebuttal Witness Summaries and Reports; and

   * the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Exchange
     Rebuttal Expert Witness Report to Plaintiffs' Expert Witness
     Report.

The Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the
Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc to File
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification are denied
as moot.

Judge Martinez stayed all remaining pretrial deadlines that have
not lapsed.

In light of the Plaintiffs filing their Second Amended Complaint in
this matter, Judge Martinez directs the parties to submit a Joint
Motion to Revise Scheduling Order, indicating whether any pre-trial
deadlines need to be reset by the Court and a proposed trial date.
The parties shall submit their Joint Motion to Revise Scheduling
Order by April 29, 2019.[CC]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Beltran Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Beltran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore
Capital Group, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10, inclsuive, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00648 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 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:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



MONSANTO COMPANY: Brodes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND BRODE AND DEBORAH BRODE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00651 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 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

MRS BPO: Mezzo Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Paula Mezzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09245-JHR-JS (D. N.J., April 3, 2019) seeks to recover for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt. The Debt was primarily
for personal, family or household purposes. Sometime after the
incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell behind on payments owed.
Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was
assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection. In
its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by
letter dated April 6, 2018. The Letter was the initial
communication Plaintiff received from Defendant. The Letter states
in part: "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after
receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or
any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid".

The Letter fails to properly inform the least sophisticated
consumer that to effectively dispute the alleged debt, such dispute
must be in writing. The Letter also did not convey the notice
clearly from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer.
The Defendant violated the FDCPA by using a false, deceptive and
misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Paula Mezzo is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New Jersey residing in Somerset County, New Jersey.

MRS BPO, LLC, is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company with a
principal place of business in Camden County, 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
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


NATIONAL GRID USA: MacKenzie Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Kristin MacKenzie on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01916 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019) is
action on behalf of Plaintiff and Classes of persons who received
calls to their cellular telephone numbers without their prior
express consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Federal Communication Commission
rules promulgated thereunder.

The Defendant and its agent debt collectors and other agents used
automated telephone dialing systems and/or automated or prerecorded
voice to call Class members' cellular telephone numbers. That
conduct violates the TCPA. The Defendant directed its debt
collectors and other agents to make "outbound calls" to obtain
monetary payments from call recipients.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were injured as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's and its agents' TCPA violations.
Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief and statutory
damages resulting from Defendant's illegal actions and to
permanently enjoin Defendant's violations of the TCPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Kristin MacKenzie is a resident of Quincy,
Massachusetts.

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. is organized under the laws
of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
     John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
     Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
     LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Email: jselbin@lchb.com
            dcuthbertson@lchb.com
            jnicolaou@lchb.com
            ahalfon@lchb.com

          - and -

     Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
     TUSA P.C.
     P.O. Box 566
     Southold, NY 11971
     150 Motor Parkway, Ste. 401
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Phone: (631) 407-5100
     Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Weiss Files Consumer Credit Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as David Weiss Individually and On Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., Transworld Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01939
(E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West
     12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: dan@cml.legal


NORTH CAROLINA: Dean's Bid to Certify State Inmates Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Dever, III, denies the Plaintiffs' motions to
certify class and for appointment of counsel in the lawsuit titled
WILLIE JAMES DEAN, JR., et al. v. JOHNNIE HAWKINS, et al., Case No.
5:19-ct-03028-D (E.D.N.C.).

Johnny Hawkins is the administrator of Polk Correctional
Institution, in Butner, North Carolina.

On January 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs, state inmates proceeding pro
se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  On January 24, 2019, Magistrate Judge Numbers entered an
order of deficiency, notifying each Plaintiff they were responsible
for paying their own filing fee or filing an individual motion to
proceed without the prepayment of fees.  The Magistrate Judge gave
each Plaintiff 21 days to correct their own deficiency, and
notified them that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of
this action without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Tyshon McRae, Ban Freeman, Rashee Mason, and Cory
Stanfield did not respond to the order of deficiency, and the time
for doing so has expired.  Accordingly, the Court dismisses McRae,
Freeman, Mason, and Stanfield as Plaintiffs in this action.

Judge Dever also denies Dean's motion for appointed counsel because
the facts of this case and his abilities do not present exceptional
circumstances.  Judge Dever also explains that Mr. Dean cannot
represent other inmates in a class action, and accordingly, his
motion for class certification is denied.[CC]


NVR INC: Smith's Bid to Certify Class Cont'd; May 23 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Gary Feinerman entered and continued the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Paul Smith,
et al. v. NVR, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.).

Status hearing was held and continued to May 23, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiffs' motion to
extend deadlines is granted in part and entered and continued in
part.[CC]


PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS: Huffman Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Christopher Huffman, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC, a California limited liability
company; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19-CIV-00412 (Filed
on Jan. 18, 2019), was transferred from Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of San Mateo on April 3, 2019.
The United States District Court Northern District of California
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01791 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Christopher Huffman asserted several causes of
action including for failure to pay overtime premium wages.
However, the complaint did not expressly enumerate any claim under
federal law, and it omits that terms and conditions of Plaintiff's
employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement. In
addition, the facts demonstrated by the Declaration of Gabriel
Aviles filed concurrently in support of the notice of removal, the
complaint alleges a cause of action arising under federal law,
section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, despite that on
its face the complaint purports only to allege causes of action
arising under California law.

Based in South San Francisco California, Pacific Gateway
Concessions LLC operates retail stores in the San Francisco
airport. It provides travel and accessories, news, and apparel
stores, as well as wineries. [BN]

Attorney for Defendant:

     
     Kyle L. Schriner, Esq.
     SCHRINER LAW FIRM, PC
     2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 1105
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Telephone: (415) 321-4924
     Facsimile: (415) 520-6450
     E-mail: kyle@schrinerlaw.com


PASCHEN MANAGEMENT: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as COBY MORALES, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PASCHEN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation;
MCDONALD'S USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 56-2019-00525405-CU-OE-VTA
was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of
Ventura to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 3, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02505.

The Complaint alleges nine causes of action for: (1) failure to pay
overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to
provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5)
inaccurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay due wages at
termination; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses in
violation of Labor; (8) Unlawful Business Practices, and (9) Unfair
Business Practices. The Complaint also seeks to allege UCL claims
for failure to pay split-shift premiums due, failure to maintain
records under Cal. Labor Code, failure to timely pay wages under
Cal. Labor Code, requiring execution of a release in exchange for
payment of wages due in violation of Cal. Labor Code, and requests
injunctive and declaratory relief, says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
     ASHLEY FARRELL PICKETT, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
     Phone: 310-586-7700
     Fax: 310-586-7800
     Email: kemplem@gtlaw.com
            farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com

          - and -

     Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq.
     Eugue Hao, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     633 West 5th St., Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213-580-7940
     Fax: 213-580-7900
     Email: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
            Eugene.Hao@lewisbrisbois.com


PLAN BENEFIT: Chavez Seeks Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for the case captioned Heriberto Chavez;
Evangelina Escarcega, as the legal representative of her son, Jose
Escarcega; and Jorge Moreno v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.; Fringe
Insurance Benefits, Inc.; and Fringe Benefit Group, Case No.
1:17-cv-00659-SS (W.D. Tex.), to be certified as a class action.

The memorandum of law in support of the Motion will be filed under
seal in accordance with Local Rule CV-5.2 and the Confidentiality
and Protective Order entered in this case, the Plaintiffs
contend.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catha Worthman, Esq.
          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
                  catha@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Eileen B. Goldsmith, Esq.
          Megan Wachspress, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: dleonard@altshulerberzon.com
                  egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com
                  mwachspress@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matt Dow, Esq.
          Jonathan Neerman, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 236-2230
          E-mail: mdow@jw.com
                  jneerman@jw.com

               - and -

          Tess Ferrera, Esq.
          Al Holifield, Esq.
          HOLIFIELD, JANICH FERRERA PLLC
          700 12TH NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 440-3809
          E-mail: tferrera@holifieldlaw.com
                  aholifield@holifieldlaw.com


PORT PIPE: Kostmayer's Bid to Certify Class Under TCPA Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay denies the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled KOSTMAYER
CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. PORT PIPE & TUBE, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01012-UDJ-KK (W.D. La.).

Judge Kay opines that although the Plaintiff's expert foresees no
problem in ascertaining the identities of the recipients of the
Defendant's fax transmissions, like the Fifth Circuit in Gene and
Gene LLC v. Biopay LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir.2008), "we do not
perceive [plaintiff's] arguments to provide any sensible method of
establishing consent or the lack thereof via class-wide proof."

Kostmayer filed a punitive class action alleging that the Defendant
had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, and regulations promulgated under
the Federal Communications Commission by sending the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons facsimile advertisements that did
not include an JFPA mandated "Opt-Out Notice" notifying recipients
of their right to stop future junk faxes.

On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to certify
class.  The Plaintiff asks that the Court (1) certify it as the
class representative, (2) assign Chehardy, Sherman, Williams,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum, & Hayes, LLP as class counsel and, (3)
certify as a class:

     All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone
     numbers to which within four years of the filing of this
     Complaint, Defendant sent facsimile transmissions with
     content that discusses, describes, promotes products and/or
     services offered by Defendant, and does not contain the
     opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C. Section
     227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E), (d)(2) or
     47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)-(vii).[CC]


PROCOLLECT INC: Pete Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect
Incorporated. The case is styled as Heron Pete individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ProCollect
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00175-B (S.D. Ala., Apr.
3, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

ProCollect Incorporated is a premier debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Schoen, Esq.
     2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6
     Montgomery, AL 36106
     Phone: (334) 395-6611
     Fax: (917) 591-7586
     Email: DSchoen593@aol.com


REAL TIME: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as John Truckenbrodt, Anne
Truckenbrodt individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01926 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("RTR") is a
full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in
mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Clay Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services LP. The case is styled as William Clay, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent
Capital Services LP, Pinnacle Credit Services LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-01004-BHH (D. S.C., April 5,
2019).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. manages and services domestic and
international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers. It manage accounts across the credit spectrum, including
performing accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts, secured
accounts, and unsecured accounts. The company also provides credit
reporting services; and performs collection activities on accounts
directly, or outsources the recovery activities to other
independently owned collection agencies and law firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
   505 Pettigru Street
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 756-1153
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com



SAMS DELI: Nestor Victor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Nestor Victor, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sams Deli Grocery Corp. (d/b/a
Sam's Deli), Sameer Ali, Walid Mohamed Seidi, and Lou Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02965 (S.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019) is an
action on behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

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

Plaintiff Nestor is a former employee of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 7 East 170th
Street, Bronx, New York 10452 under the name "Sam's Deli".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Chavez Settlement Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN CHAVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05277-RMI (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Eureka Division, granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On Feb. 27, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Motion.  The matter
came before the Court for a hearing on March 14, 2019.  

Magistrate Judge Illman finds that a majority of the factors favor
settlement, and that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; and the reaction of the class members to the settlement
further supports for final approval.

Next, he finds that the agreed-upon award of $1.6 million for fees
and expenses is fair and reasonable.  The Plaintiffs' counsel has
extensive experience in prisoners' rights litigation and complex
class action litigation.  The fee request reasonably reflects the
time and labor required to litigate the matter and was calculated
pursuant to the lodestar method.  It also fairly reflects the
novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, the skill
required in litigating this complex case, and the fact that the
Plaintiffs' counsel litigated the matter on a contingency basis and
expended significant hours and out-of-pocket expenses doing so.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Illman granted the Joint Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8V8QjE from Leagle.com.

Brian Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Donald H. Specter, Prison
Law Office, Addison Mills Litton -- alitton@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Kendall Dawson Wasley -- kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com -- Margot
Knight Mendelson, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld, Mark Anthony
Zambarda -- mzambarda@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Rita Katherine
Lomio -- rlomio@prisonlaw.com -- Prison Law Office, Sara Linda
Norman, Prison Law Office, Thomas M. Nosewicz, Prison Law Office &
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria -- jvs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Brandon Bracamonte, Plaintiff, represented by Donald H. Specter,
Prison Law Office, Sara Linda Norman, Prison Law Office, Addison
Mills Litton, Cooley LLP, Margot Knight Mendelson, Rosen Bien
Galvan and Grunfeld, Mark Anthony Zambarda, Cooley LLP, Rita
Katherine Lomio, Prison Law Office, Thomas M. Nosewicz, Prison Law
Office & Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Aryn Paige Harris,
Office of County Cousel, Santa Clara, Douglas Michael Press, Office
of the County Counsel, Emily L. Fedman, Office of the County
Counsel & Ling Yang Lew, Santa Clara County Counsel's Office.

David Cole, Miscellaneous, represented by Lisa Adrienne Ells --
lells@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.


SCIL TEXAS: Milan Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCIL Texas, LLC. The
case is styled as Allissa Milan on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. SCIL Texas, LLC doing
business as: www.speedycash.com, Ivy Funding Eight, LLC doing
business as: Ivy Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01938
(E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Speedy Cash offers a variety of convenient, easily-accessible
financial services. This includes payday loans, title loans,
installment loans, lines of credit and check cashing, and we are
the exclusive provider of Opt+ prepaid debit cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Adams Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, #K67019, Plaintiff, v.
SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, WARDEN OF SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
JOHN DOE, and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-37-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (i)
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and (ii)
granted the Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by
April 17, 2019.

Adams, a former inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
("IDOC") and current detainee at Cook County Jail, brings the
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.  In the SAC, the Plaintiff alleges he was
released from prison without appropriate winter clothing in January
2018, resulting in exposure to cold and wet conditions that caused
discomfort.  He brings the action against the IDOC, Shawnee
Correctional Center, Shawnee's warden, and Shawnee's clothing room
supervisor.  He seeks to bring a class action for money damages
against the Defendants.

The case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the SAC
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  The Plaintiff makes the
following allegations in his SAC: The Plaintiff was released from
Pinckneyville without appropriate winter clothing on Jan. 7, 2018.
At the time, he was wearing a shirt, pants, and cloth shoes issued
by Cook County Jail.  He was given no winter coat, thermal
underwear, gloves, hat, scarf, or boots.  The Plaintiff lacked the
resources to obtain these items.  He had to walk through snow and
slush to the bus station, train station, and eventually a shelter.
He was unable to find any additional clothing until the following
day.  The Plaintiff claims that the prison's failure to provide him
with appropriate winter clothing violated his rights.

The SAC focuses on a single claim: Count 1 - the Defendants
violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights by denying him
adequate winter clothing and gear when he was released from prison
on Jan. 7, 2018.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that the SAC does not survive preliminary
review for several reasons.  For one thing, the Plaintiff does not
mention the newly-named Defendants in his statement of claim.  He
amended the complaint to add Shawnee Correctional Center, Shawnee's
warden, and Shawnee's clothing room supervisor as the Defendants.
The statement of claim mentions them nowhere.  Invoking the name of
potential defendants in the case caption is not enough to state a
claim against them.

Next, although the Plaintiff referred to Pinckneyville Correctional
Center and its employees in the statement of claim, he decided to
remove all Pinckneyville Defendants from the case caption and the
list of Defendants in the SAC.  When parties are not listed in the
caption, the Court will not treat them as defendants, and any
claims against them should be considered dismissed without
prejudice.

Moreover, the Plaintiff states no constitutional claim in the SAC.
A prisoner's claim of inadequate clothing is normally governed by
the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the cruel and unusual
punishment of incarcerated persons.  Allegations of inadequate
clothing may support an Eighth Amendment claim.  The problem in the
case is that the Plaintiff was not an incarcerated person when his
claims arose.  No allegations suggest that he was in IDOC custody
at the time he suffered from cold and discomfort while walking to
the bus station, train station, and shelter on Jan. 7, 2018.  The
SAC lacks sufficient allegations to suggest that the IDOC, prison,
or its employees had a constitutional obligation to provide
Plaintiff with winter gear under the circumstances.

Finally, the Plaintiff does not complain of an outright deprivation
of clothes, but rather a denial of additional layers that became
necessary after he left the prison.  He does not indicate that he
asked anyone for these items before leaving the prison.  He also
complains of no injuries resulting from the deprivation.  Based on
the allegations in the SAC, the Judge finds no constitutional
injury occurred.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rosenstengel dismissed the SAC
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  She granted the Plaintiff leave to file a "Third
Amended Complaint" by April 17, 2019.  Should he fail to file a
Third Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with
the instructions set forth in the Order, the entire case will be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order
and/or for failure to prosecute his claims.

It is strongly recommended that the Plaintiff use the civil rights
complaint form designed for use in the District.  He should label
the form, "Third Amended Complaint," and he should use the case
number for this action (No. 19-cv-00037-NJR).  To enable the
Plaintiff to comply with the Order, the Judge directed the CLERK to
mail the Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.

An amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces all prior
versions and renders them void.  The Third Amended Complaint must
stand on its own without reference to any previous pleading.  The
Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to
consider.  The SAC is also subject to Section 1915A review.

The Judge further advised the Plaintiff that his obligation to pay
the filing fee for the action was incurred at the time the action
was filed.  Thus, the filing fee remains due and payable,
regardless of whether he files a SAC.

Finally, she advised the Plaintiff that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than seven days after a transfer or other
change in address occurs.  Failure to comply with the Order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/v1dA6I from Leagle.com.

Robert Christopher Adams, Plaintiff, pro se.


SUNTRUST BANK: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST
BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21334-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 9,
2019) is an action for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, although over 27 years have passed
since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet
to make its commercial property accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Property to be rife with ADA
violations.

The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by
denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of  the properties the financial institution thereon, in a manner
prohibited, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

Defendant owns and operates the Property which is located in Miami,
Florida that are the subject of this Action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
     GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
     4937 S.W. 74th Court, No. 3
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 553-3464
     Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
     Primary Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com
     Secondary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
                      aquezada@lawgmp.com


SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS: Ward Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JENNIFER WARD, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUTTER VALLEY
HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 34-2019-00250564 (Filed Feb. 13, 2019), was transferred
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The Defendant contends that U.S. district courts have
original jurisdiction over all civil actions that pose a federal
question, such that the action arises under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States. The United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California Court Clerk has assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC.

Plaintiff Jennifer Ward filed a complaint alleging Defendant's
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and failure to keep
accurate records of all hours worked, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for violations of various California state
wage and hour laws, including: failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages including overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure
to provide rest periods; failure to provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages twice monthly; failure to pay
termination pay; and unlawful competition and unlawful business
practices.

Sutter Valley Hospitals is a California Corporation that owns,
operates and maintains hospitals in Sacramento County,
California. Sutter is engaged in the healthcare business
specifically providing hospital services. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     Thomas E. Geidt, Esq.
     Kacie L. Manisco, Esq.
     GBG LLP
     601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 603-5000
     Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
     E-mail: tomgeidt@gbgllp.com
             kaciemanisco@gbgllp.com


TATE & KIRLIN: Miller Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
George Miller and Patricia Hull, n/k/a Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tate &
Kirlin Associates, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, CACH, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, and Resurgent Capital Services,
L.P. a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01353-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 3, 2019) is an action under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), for a finding
that Defendants' form debt collection letters violated the FDCPA,
and to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the FDCPA.

Mr. and Mrs. Miller fell behind on paying their bills, including a
debt they allegedly owed for a Springleaf account. Defendant T&K
sent Mr. and Mrs. Miller initial collection letters, dated December
5, 2018 and December 6, 2018, demanding payment of this debt. These
collection letters stated that the "Original Creditor" was
"SPRINGLEAF FINANCIAL SERV", but also stated that the "Creditor"
was "CACH, LLC" and further stated that the "Previous Creditor" was
"SPRINGLEAF FINANCE INC." The December 5, 2018 letter then stated
that "Our client has authorized us".

The Defendants' letters failed to explain what, if any, the
difference was between the "original creditor", the "creditor" and
"previous creditor", and who had placed the account for collection.
Moreover, the second page of Defendants' December 5, 2018 letter
contains a "PRIVACY NOTICE" and introduces eleven new entities, in
addition to CACH and Resurgent. This notice further confused the
identity of the creditor to whom the debt was owed and on whose
behalf Defendants were attempting to collect the debt. Violations
of the FDCPA  would lead a consumer to alter his or her course of
action as to whether to pay a debt, or which would be a factor in
the consumer's decision making process, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs, George Miller and Patricia Hull, n/k/a Miller are
citizens of the State of Indiana, residing in the Southern District
of Indiana, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted
consumer debt.

Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. ("T&K"), is a Pennsylvania
corporation, that acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

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


TAYLOR, MI: Attar 2018's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Linda V. Parker denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
ATTAR 2018, LLC; HOPE 2014, LLC, INVESTMENT REALTY SERVICES, LLC v.
CITY OF TAYLOR, Case No. 2:19-cv-10199-LVP-APP (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on January
21, 2019.  They filed an Amended Complaint on March 27, 2019.
Pursuant to a stipulated order, the Defendant's responsive pleading
currently is due by April 19, 2019.

On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  In the Motion, the Plaintiffs indicate that they are
filing the Motion to avoid the Defendant mooting the claims by
offering to pay the Plaintiffs, but they lack specific information
to support the Motion, according to the Court's ruling.

However, Judge Parker notes, with the United States Supreme Court's
January 20, 2016 decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.
Ct. 663 (2016), there no longer is a need for plaintiffs to file
premature motions for class certification.  In short, Judge Parker
adds, there no longer is a reason for a plaintiff to file a motion
for certification which it is not able to support when filed.[CC]


TB12 INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TB12, Inc. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TB12, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01928 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019).

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

TB12 is transforming global health and wellness by empowering
athletes to prevent injury, improve longevity, and raise their peak
performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Becher Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BECHER, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-4009-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge
Daniel T. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (i) denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii)
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike.

Becher, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
filed the lawsuit against Defendants United, The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, and AARP.  The Plaintiff asserts that
he and his wife, Jerri Becher, purchased an insurance policy from
an AARP agent, and that the policy insured both of them.  Since
purchasing the policy, the Plaintiff alleges, both Prudential and
United have underwritten the policy.  His Complaint asserts that
the Defendants breached the insurance policy when United refused to
indemnify him for a hospital visit.

Now, all the Defendants, together, ask the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  They argue dismissal is proper because the Plaintiff was
not an insured party under the policy.

The Plaintiff has filed a Response, and the Defendants have filed
their Reply.  But, the Plaintiff asks the court to strike the
Defendants' Reply because it includes a copy of what the Defendants
assert is the application form for the insurance policy at issue.
The application, the Plaintiff alleges, falls outside the
collection of materials that a federal court can consider on a
motion to dismiss.

Judge Crabtree granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike.  He agrees that the insurance policy itself is a
document that is central to the Plaintiff's claim.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff already has attached the policy to the Complaint.  But
the Defendants ask the court also to consider the application form
that led to the insurance policy.  The Judge may not do so without
converting the motion into a summary judgment motion.  The
application does not fall within any of the three exceptions
recognized by the Tenth Circuit that permit a district court to
consider a matter outside the pleadings without converting the
motion into one seeking summary judgment.

He also finds that the facts that the Court properly can consider
on a motion to dismiss do not show that it can construe the
application at issue as part of the insurance policy.  Nothing
establishes that the application form qualifies for one of the
limited exceptions to the rule against considering matters outside
the pleadings.  Also, the Defendants have not demonstrated that
they complied with the Kansas regulation.  He thus cannot consider
the application form as part of the Plaintiff's policy and,
subsequently, when deciding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Judge also declines to convert the Defendants' Motion into a
motion for summary judgment.  First, none of the parties ask the
Court to convert the Motion in this fashion.  Second, the
Defendants filed their motion at an early stage in the case.
Third, the Court also has not notified the parties that it will
apply a summary judgment standard.  Fourth, the Defendants' Motion
does not provide a concise statement of material facts, requires
for summary judgment motions.  Together, these reasons convince the
Judge that he should not convert the Defendants' motion into one
seeking summary judgment.

Finally, the Plaintiff asks the court to strike the Defendants'
Reply in its entirety.  Rather than striking the whole Reply, the
Judge exercises his discretion and simply will disregard the
application form and all arguments that reference it.

Addressing the merits of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has stated plausible claims.  He
agrees with the Plaintiff.  The allegations go beyond a
"conclusory" recitation of the elements of a breach of contract
claim.  And they do so for each of the three Defendants.  The
Plaintiff plausibly has alleged that: (1) each Defendant held
itself out as a party involved in the insurance coverage at issue;
and (2) acted within the scope of an agency relationship when it
denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim.  The Plaintiff's Complaint
sufficiently states a breach of contract claim against all the
three Defendants.  The Judge thus denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss this claim.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief to establish his
rights under the policy.  He alleges that the policy, at a minimum,
is ambiguous and should be interpreted against the Defendants.  The
Judge finds that the Plaintiff plausibly has alleged that the
policy language presumptively covers him as an insured, or, at
minimum, that the language is ambiguous and should be interpreted
against the defendant drafters.  The Plaintiff has pleaded a viable
claim for declaratory relief, and the Judge thus denies the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss this claim.

For the reasons explained, Judge Crabtree granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, and denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/UNst8v from Leagle.com.

Thomas Becher, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Schloegel, The Popham
Law Firm, PC, Thomas K. Neill, Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac
vice & William Dirk Vandever, The Popham Law Firm, PC.

United Healthcare Services, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company of
America, The & AARP, Defendants, represented by Kimberly A. Jones
-- kim@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris LLC.


UNITED STATES: Rosario Injunction Implementation Issues Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILMAN GONZALEZ ROSARIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C15-0813JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, has
issued an order resolving two disputes concerning the parties'
agreed plan to implement the Court's injunction in the matter.

On July 18, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  It certified a class
of noncitizens who have filed or will file applications for
employment authorization that were not or will not be adjudicated
within 30 days and who have not or will not be granted interim
employment authorization.  It further stated that the class
consists of only those applicants for whom 30 days has accrued or
will accrue under the applicable regulation.

On July 26, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and found the Defendants in violation of 8 C.F.R.
Section 208.7(a)(1).  It also enjoined the Defendants from further
failing to adhere to the 30-day deadline for adjudicating
employment authorization document ("EAD") applications for asylum
seekers, as set forth in 8 C.F.R. Section 208.7(a)(1).  Finally,
the Court ordered the Defendants to submit status reports every six
months regarding the rate of compliance with the 30-day timeline.
At the time of the order, the Defendants' own data revealed that
from 2010 to 2017, the Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services ("USCIS") met the 30-day deadline in in only 22% of
cases.

On Sept. 14, 2018, the parties submitted a joint plan for
implementation of the Court's order and injunction.  Nevertheless,
the parties stated they had not been able to come to agreement on
two points: (1) whether the Court should specify specific rates of
compliance for EAD adjudication as part of an implementation order
and what those rates should be; and (2) the appropriate venue for
filing any Federal District Court action where an EAD application
is not adjudicated in compliance with the Court's order, after the
individual has complied with the steps set forth in the
implementation plan.

The parties asked the Court if they could simultaneously file short
letter-briefs of no more than three pages addressing these two
issues and have the Court resolve the lingering dispute.  On Oct.
3, 2018, the court entered an order consistent with the parties'
stipulated motion.  At the direction of the Court, the parties also
simultaneously filed responsive letters.

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal
concerning the Court's summary judgment order and injunction.

On Jan. 25, 2019, the Defendants submitted their first status
report pursuant to the Court's order.  The Defendants' status
report indicates that they achieved a 96.3% compliance rate with 8
C.F.R. Section 208.7(a)(1) in December 2018, and an average
compliance rate of 92.7% for the final quarter of 2018.

The Court now considers the issues presented in the parties'
letters.  The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should require the
Defendants to be in full compliance with 8 C.F.R. Section
208.7(a)(1) by a date certain instead of simply requiring six-month
status reports.  The Defendants assert that an order specifying
their rate of compliance would be an improper modification of the
Court's injunction and would improperly curtail the scope of the
Court's adjudication of the Defendants' "substantial compliance"
with the injunction if the Plaintiffs were to pursue an enforcement
action.

Judge Robart agrees that adding such a provision to the injunction
when the Court has already specified that the Defendants are to
submit status reports at regular intervals would be an improper
modification to the Court's injunction.  Given that the
adjudication rate reflects significant improvement since the Court
entered its injunction, modification of the Court's injunction to
include specific rates of compliance is not justified by any change
in the law or facts.  Further, if the Plaintiffs at some point
allege that the Defendants have failed to comply with the Court's
injunction, their remedy is a motion for civil contempt.  Based on
the foregoing analysis, the Judge declines to require the
Defendants to be in full compliance with 8 C.F.R. Section
208.7(a)(1) by a date certain.

The parties agree that only the Court has jurisdiction to enforce
compliance with issues that affect all or a substantial part of the
class.  They disagree on whether the Court is the only court to
have jurisdiction over an action filed by an individual class
member seeking to compel adjudication of his or her individual EAD
application.  The Plaintiffs argue that any district court that
would otherwise have venue should be able to adjudicate individual
Plaintiffs' claims to compel timely adjudication of their
individual EAD applications.  The Defendants insist that all such
individual claims must be filed in the Court.

The Judge concludes that any class-wide relief requested by either
the Plaintiffs or the Defendants, including any contempt motions,
are properly directed to the Court.  However, the class
certification order in the case does not preclude the individual
class members from filing separate actions in other appropriate
forums because the delay in a particular case involves individual
circumstances and would require the court to go beyond the legal
issues already decided by the Court.

Based on the foregoing analysis, Judge Robart (1) declined to
require full compliance with the Court's injunction by a date
certain, and (2) declined to require individuals who seek to compel
the Defendants to adjudicate a specific EAD application to file
their action in the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XvWZSH from Leagle.com.

W. H., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Christina J. Murdoch -- cm@lawfirm1.com
-- SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice, Kathryn R.
Weber -- kw@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES PC, pro
hac vice, Leslie K. Dellon, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac
vice, Marc Van Der Hout, VANDERHOUT BRIGAGLIANO AND NIGHTINGALE,
pro hac vice, Scott D. Pollock -- Email: sdp@lawfirm1.com -- SCOTT
D. POLLOCK & ASSOCIATES, PC, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice & Christopher Strawn, NORTHWEST
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

A. A. & Antonio Machic Yac, Plaintiffs, represented by Devin T.
Theriot-Orr -- theriotd@seattleu.edu -- OPEN SKY LAW PLLC, Robert
H. Gibbs, GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW, Robert Pauw, GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW &
Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey S. Robins, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & John Joseph William
Inkeles, US DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION.

United States Department of Homeland Security, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey S. Robins, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & John
Joseph William Inkele, US DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION.

L Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS & Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary
of DHS, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Robins, US DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.


UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Parker Wins Initial Nod of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Classes in the lawsuit entitled OPHELIA
PARKER and JOSEPH NASO v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES, LEGENDARY PICTURES
FUNDING, LLC, HANDSTACK, P.B.C., LEGEND PICTURES, LLC and LEGENDARY
ANALYTICS, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-01193-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Mendoza adopts and confirms and makes a part of his order the
Report and Recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C.
Irick.  The ATDS, Internal-Do-Not-Call, National Do-Not-Call, and
Out of Time Classes described in the Report and Recommendation are
preliminarily certified.

The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved.  The Amended
short and long form notices and the claim form are approved.  The
manner of service proposed is approved.

The Court makes these appointments:

   a. the Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives for
      the ATDS and National Do-Not-Call Classes;

   b. Mr. Naso is appointed as class representative for the Out
      of Time Class;

   c. Ms. Parker is appointed as class representative for the
      Internal-Do-Not-Call Class;

   d. Attorneys William Gray, Esq., and Edmund Normand, Esq., are
      appointed as class counsel for all classes; and

   e. JND Legal Administration is appointed as the settlement
      administrator.

The final approval schedule set forth in the Report and
Recommendation is adopted.  The final approval hearing is set for
July 17 2019.[CC]


VIVINT INC: Dorn Files FCRA Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint, Inc. The case
is styled as Tiffany Dorn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vivint, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00258-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala., April 9, 2019).

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

Vivint, Inc. is a private smart home services provider in the
United States and Canada. It was founded by Keith Nellesen and Todd
Pedersen in 1999. In 2012, The Blackstone Group acquired Vivint for
more than $2 billion. As of March 2018, Vivint had over 4 million
customers in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Austin Brock Whitten, Esq.
   Pittman Dutton & Hellums PC
   2001 Park Place N-Ste 1100
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 322-8880
   Fax: (205) 328-2711
   Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com

      - and -

   Jonathan Stephen Mann, Esq.
   Pittman Dutton & Hellums, P.C.
   2001 Park Place Tower-Ste 1100
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 322-8880
   Fax: (205) 328-2711
   Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com

      - and -

   Michael Cory Bradley, Esq.
   Pittman Dutton & Hellums PC
   2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
   Birmingham, AL 35203
   Tel: (205) 322-8880
   Fax: (205) 328-2711
   Email: mikeb@pittmandutton.com




WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Neely Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates Inc. The case is styled as James Neely, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wakefield
& Associates Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01003-MBS (D. S.C., April 5, 2019).

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

Wakefield & Associates Inc was founded in 1982. The company's line
of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims
and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
   505 Pettigru Street
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 756-1153
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com



WARNER CHILCOTT: Teamsters Seeks More Time to File Writ Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, et
al., ask Justice Stephen Breyer to extend the time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari from April 23, 2019, to June 22,
2019, in the matter titled Teamsters Union 25 Health Services &
Insurance Plan, et al., Applicants v. Warner Chilcott Limited, et
al., Case No. 18A1030, in the Supreme Court of United States.

The District Court case is entitled UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al. v.
WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, issued an Opinion
reversing the District Court's judgment granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned IN RE: ASACOL
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; MARK ADORNEY, Plaintiffs, TEAMSTERS
UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; WISCONSIN
MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AFSCME HEALTH
AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST FUND; AHOLD
U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG
COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., Plaintiffs,
Appellees, v. WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a
Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN,
PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, Defendants, Appellants, ZYDUS
PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED; WARNER
CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; WARNER
CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 18-1065 (1st Cir.).

Drug manufacturer Warner Chilcott Limited pulled one of its
products, Asacol, from the market just months before the drug's
patent protection expired. Warner simultaneously introduced a
similar but not exactly identical substitute drug called Delzicol,
the patent protection for which ran years longer.

This coordinated withdrawal and entry of the two drugs allegedly
precluded generic manufacturers from introducing a generic version
of Asacol, which would have provided a lower-cost alternative to
Warner's drugs Delzicol and Asacol HD, a version of Asacol that was
also still under patent protection.  Crying foul, the named
plaintiffs in this case filed a class action alleging a violation
of the consumer protection and antitrust laws of twenty-five states
and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on behalf of a class
of all similarly situated indirect purchasers, including any
individual consumers who purchased the relevant Warner products
from drug retailers in the twenty-six jurisdictions.

The District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Rejecting Warner's argument to the contrary, the
District Court concluded that the Named Plaintiffs had standing to
prosecute claims on behalf of class members under various state
laws even if the named plaintiffs themselves had not made purchases
in all those states.[BN]

Defendants-Respondents WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN, INC.,
f/k/a Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and
ALLERGAN, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, are represented by:

          J. Mark Gidley, Esq.
          Peter J. Carney, Esq.
          Dana Foster, Esq.
          Matthew S. Leddicotte, Esq.
          Jaclyn Phillips, Esq.
          Maxwell J. Hyman, Esq.
          Robert A. Milne, Esq.
          Jack E. Pace, III, Esq.
          Bryan D. Gant, Esq.
          Kelly Newman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3807
          Telephone: (202) 626-3600
          E-mail: mgidley@whitecase.com
                  pcarney@whitecase.com
                  defoster@whitecase.com
                  mleddicotte@whitecase.com
                  jaclyn.epstein@whitecase.com
                  maxwell.kalmann@whitecase.com
                  rmilne@whitecase.com
                  jpace@whitecase.com
                  bgant@whitecase.com
                  kelly.newman@whitecase.com

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Teamsters Union 25 Health Services &
Insurance Plan, et al., are represented by:

          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com


WEINSTEIN & RILEY: Young Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weinstein & Riley PS.
The case is styled as Sally Young, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weinstein & Riley PS,
Pallida, L.L.C., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00164
(E.D. Tex., Apr. 3, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Weinstein & Riley, P.S. is a full service law firm that operates
nationally and focuses in Default Servicing and Federal Bankruptcy
Litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***