CAR_Public/190422.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 80

                            Headlines

AAA ELECTRICAL: Underpays Janitors, Hernandez Suit Claims
ABC CORPORATION: Faces Salamanca Suit in E.D. New York
AL HENDRICKSON: Newman Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
ALASKA: Sued Over Medicaid Application Backlog
ALLERGAN USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Olsen Says

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Case
ALPINE SITE: Kelley Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wage
AMAZON.COM: Johnson-Hassan Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Roberson Sues over Abrupt Termination, Pay
ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces False Advertising Class Action

AT&T CORP: Removes Payton Suit to C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: UFCW Alleges Fannie & Freddie Bonds Price-Fixing
BE FREE: Taguacta Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
BEACON SALES: Andrade Seeks Unpaid Wages for Company Workers
BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

BOEING CO: Burke Files ERISA Class Action Over 737 Safety Problem
BRAND NEW START: Pereira et al Seek Overtime Wages for Counselors
BRAWLEY, CA: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Pay
BUTTS FOODS: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Vehicle Fueler
CARNIVAL PLC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Wolfe Suit Underway

CAS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Withdraw Merger-Related Suits
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Seeks Unpaid Wages
COMPLETE COMFORT: Wells Sues over Wrongful Discharge, Retaliation
CORDISH COMPANIES: Marketti et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
CORRECTIONS CORP: April 29 Filing Due of Gonzalez Deal Approval Bid

COTY INC: Faces Rumsey Suit over Cash Tender Offer
CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DAVID MCGRATH: Quarberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DELIVERY FACTORY: Pallas Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ESSURE: Faces Class Action Over Implant Corrosion

FIDELITY BANK: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
FLAGSTAR BANK: Underpays Mortgage Advisors, Walker Suit Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves $17.4MM MyFordTouch Settlement
GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes
GERMAN CONSULATE: Rafael Peral Seeks Overtime Pay

GORDON FLESCH: Cook Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Denied
GRANGE INDEMNITY: Refuses to Pay Full Cash Value, Ostendorf Says
GRISWORLD HOME CARE: Ionie Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages
HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Settlement of Medi-Cal Suit Has Initial OK
HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick et al. Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls

HILL'S PET NUTRITION: Teegarden Sues over False Advertising
HOMEAWAY INC: Consumers Sue over Fraudulent Activities
HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class
HYUNDAI: NHTSA to Probe Non-Crash Fires Following Complaints
J JILL INC: Time to Appeal Pension Trust Suit Already Passed

JACKSON HEWITT: Gibson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant Suit Underway
JONES DAY: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Class Action
JORDAN HEALTH CARE: Underpays Home Health Nurses, Siemers Says
JUST BORN: Suit over Slack-Filled Candies Wins Class Certification

KUM GANG: Park Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
KYMA NYC: Bermeo et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
LATSHAW DRILLING: Stegall Seeks Minimum and Overtime Pay
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Underpays Payroll Specialists, Bell Alleges
LOANDEPOT.COM: Rosenberg Sues over TCPA Violations

LORI LOUGHLIN: Among Defendants in Admission Scam Class Action
LYONS & DOUGHTY: Hess Sues over Debt Collections Practices
MANILA WATER: Lawmakers Mull Class Action Over Negligence
MDL 2492: Harley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Helminiak Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Milburn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Pinkney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Schmitz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Stewart Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Stroughter Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Sweed Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Williams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2741: Somerlott Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
MDL 2741: Whaley Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MEX-DINING INC: Arevalo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MONSANTO COMPANY: Balentines Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Grants Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Murphys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Oldhams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruby Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Swansons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Winterringer Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MY EXPERT: Nowak Seeks Overtime Pay
NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tabiei Suit over Autodialed Calls
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Disclosed Personal Reading Info, Markham Says
NAVIHEALTH INC: Barbee Seeks to Certify Collective Action

NCAA: Brown Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes Health & Safety, Busbee Asserts
NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Johnson Says
NCAA: Escoffery Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Graham Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete

NCAA: Miolen Sues over Safety of GSU Student-Athletes
NCAA: Neglected Football Players' Health & Safety, Says Drake
NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES: Faces Zambrano et al. Labor Suit
NEW ORLEANS: Declaration Against Jailing Indigents Sought
NIKE INC: Court Denies Request to Dismiss Pay Equity Class Action

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Grego Sues over Debt Collection Practices
OXFORD HOTELS: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
PHILLIPS 66: Green Suit Transferred to N.D. California
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: O'Neill Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PNC BANK: Homeowners Allege Mishandling of Mortgage Account

PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: MSP Sues over Reimbursement Obligations
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ROCK N MASSAGE: Bolton Seeks to Certify Minimum & OT Wage Classes
ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Letters
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC: Smith Sues over Pension Benefits

SAFELIFE 365: Vantine Seeks Relief over Autodialed Calls
SAGE SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Funna et al. Say
SHUN LEE WEST: Faces Zhang et al. Labor Suit in NY
SIBANYE GOLD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
SOLUTION MECHANICAL: Walker Seeks Overtime Compensation

SPLIT SECOND: Fails to Place Compliant "Tow Away Zone Sign"
STAFF PRO: Glaspie Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks Overtime Pay
TASTES ON THE FLY: Faces Grillo Labor Suit in Massachusetts
TGI FRIDAY'S: Troncoso Says Potato Skins Product Deceptive

TIMM MEDICAL: Removes TCPA Suit to Eastern District of Missouri
TRIVAGO N.V.: Court Tosses Securities Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Weissman Says Medical Plans Deceptive
UNITED STATES: Loses Immigrant Juvenile Status Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Loughlin, Huffman Made Court Appearances

US CORRECTIONS: White Seeks OT Pay for Extradition Officers
WALMART INC: Removes Van Buren Case to District of Maryland
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap
WAYFAIR INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit
WELLS FARGO AUTO: Faces Harrington Suit over Debt Collection Calls

WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Overtime Pay
YUCCA VALLEY FORD CENTER: Faces Allen Labor Suit in California

                            *********

AAA ELECTRICAL: Underpays Janitors, Hernandez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AAA ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A
AAA COMPANIES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV08097 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 7, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as janitor.

AAA Electrical & Communications, Inc. provides electrical
contracting services. The Company offers design build, emergency
response, tenant improvement, site surveying, and conduit
construction services. AAA Electrical & Communications serves
clients in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN III
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com


ABC CORPORATION: Faces Salamanca Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Corporation. The
case is captioned as WILLIAM SALAMANCA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC CORPORATION
d/b/a GREEN VALLE TREE SERVICE; WALTER VALLE; and SANDRO FLORES,
Defendants Case No. 2:19-cv-01335-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., March 7,
2019). The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred
to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke.

ABC Corporation manufactures and markets housekeeping, janitorial,
and engineering products for the cleaning industry. Corporation was
formerly known as ABC Powdered Soap Factory. The company was
founded in 1933 and is based in Waipahu, Hawaii with branch offices
and warehouses in Kauai, Maui, and Hilo. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


AL HENDRICKSON: Newman Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
JARED NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AL HENDRICKSON JR. ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60788-MGC
(S.D. Fla., March 26, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an automotive
dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. To
promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.

On or about March 21, 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
7450. The Defendant's text messages were transmitted to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant
to this action.

Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff an automobile, the lawsuit
says.

At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide Defendant with his
express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

ALASKA: Sued Over Medicaid Application Backlog
----------------------------------------------
Grant Robinson, writing for KTUU.com, reports that the state of
Alaska is facing s a lawsuit for failing to process Medicaid
applications in the time frame required by federal law.

Medicaid applications are supposed to be processed within 45 days,
or within 90 days if it involves determining a disability.

As of February, at least 15,000 Alaskan have submitted an
application that has not been processed. At least 10,000 of those
applications were submitted in 2018.

"We've been following the problem for some years and hoping that it
would get redressed, and it seemed to be getting worse and worse no
matter what issues are raised to the state," attorney James Davis,
Esq. -- jad@jamesadavislaw.com -- said.

Davis, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project civil rights
law firm, filed the suit on behalf of one client with intent for it
to be certified as a class-action case. Davis' client applied for
Medicaid in November, but still has not had her application
processed.

"The state doesn't have to provide her with medical benefits. It
could say, 'No, you're not eligible,' for one reason or another. It
could just give her an answer, but the state hasn't either approved
her or denied her, so she's just left in limbo, which is what
literally tens of thousands of other applicants just like her are
in a state of limbo," Davis said.

No representative from the Department of Health and Social Services
or the governor's office responded to requests for comment on March
1, but a webpage on the DHSS website is dedicated to information on
the application backlog.

The website states that applicants who have submitted an
application in the last 90 days and have not received notice of
their status do not need to submit a new application. The website
states that the office will have limited services three days a week
so staff can focus on addressing the out-of-date workload.

"There is no factual debate," Davis said. "I think the state is
going to concede that it's violating the law. The question is how
best to fix it, and there has to be a will to fix it."

Davis says the purpose of the lawsuit is to have the court order
the state to comply with existing laws.

"We're not saying, Give people Medicaid/Don't give them Medicaid,'
but at least follow the law and give them a decision on whether or
not they're entitled to Medicaid or not," Davis said. "It's just a
matter of giving them a yes or a no. People have a right to a yes
or no and I think people have a right to ask the state government
to follow the law just like the rest of us."[GN]


ALLERGAN USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Olsen Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ALLERGAN USA, Inc., d/b/a CoolSculpting, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02723-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), Mr. Olsen, who is
legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.CoolSculpting.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law
against Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: 212 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Robert W. Gettleman entered an order:

   1. granting Allstate's motion for class certification and
      certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons who purchased Allstate Securities between
      October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive and who were
      damaged thereby"; and

   2. granting lead counsel's motion to appoint the law firm of
      Labaton, Sucharow, LLP, as class counsel.

The Court said, "The law firm is experienced and competent to
handle the case, and the Defendants' objection based on a fee
sharing dispute in another case is, in this court's view,
insufficient to disqualify that law firm.  Of course, the Court
will demand strict adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct
and all relevant ethical considerations. The parties are directed
to submit a joint status report using this Court's form as a basis,
consistent with this opinion. The court is aware that significant
discovery has already been undertaken, and directs the parties to
meet and confer and propose a comprehensive discovery plan. The
court also directs class counsel to include in the status report a
detailed proposal with respect to staffing, both internally and
externally for the prosecution of this litigation. The joint status
report shall be filed on or before April 25, 2019. This matter is
set for a status hearing on May 1, 2019, at 9:10 a.m."[CC]

ALPINE SITE: Kelley Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------
BEAU KELLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPINE SITE SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01152 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime pay and minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

During Kelley's employment with Alpine, he regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Alpine, though, did not pay Kelley for
all of the hours that he worked, and it did not count all of the
hours that Kelley worked towards its obligation to pay
overtime.

Alpine knew or reasonably should have known that Kelley worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Alpine did not pay Kelley overtime as
required by 29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1) (and, when applicable, the
OMFWSA, the OPPA, the NJWHL, the PMWA and/or PWPCL) for the hours
he worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, Alpine failed to pay
for all of the hours that Kelley worked and to count all of the
hours that Kelley worked towards its obligation to pay overtime,
the lawsuit says.

According to its website, Alpine tests and installs engineered
screwpiles for commercial construction projects, including power
stations, oil and gas refineries and natural gas plants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & A SSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

AMAZON.COM: Johnson-Hassan Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
PORCHA JOHNSON-HASSAN, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHIVALRY LOGISTICS
LLC and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01142 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019), alleges that Defendants
have failed to pay Plaintiff and other delivery drivers the
appropriate overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a
workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants' pay practices and policies applied not only to the
Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. Therefore, the Plaintiff
brings this suit on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated Delivery Drivers, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff brings this suit as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other persons employed by Defendants as a delivery
drivers within three years from the filing of this suit who, like
the Plaintiff, have not been compensated at least the full overtime
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week.

Amazon.com Services, Inc. provides an e-commerce marketplace for
the purchase of products online. Amazon.com Services, Inc. delivers
products directly to the customer's home via Delivery Drivers it
jointly employs with local entities, such as Chivalry Logistics
LLC.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members:

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

AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Roberson Sues over Abrupt Termination, Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Alliance of
American Football, Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC, the Founders
Fund, the Chernin Group, Jared Allen, Slow Ventures, Adrian Fenty,
Charles King's M Ventures, Bill Polian, Troy Polamalu, MGM Resorts
International and J.K. McKay to collect unpaid wages and benefits
for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN). The case is captioned
JAMES EARNEST ROBERSON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE ALLIANCE OF AMERICAN
FOOTBALL (AAF), LEGENDARY FIELD EXHIBITIONS, LLC, FOUNDERS FUND,
THE CHERNIN GROUP, JARED ALLEN, SLOW VENTURES, ADRIAN FENTY,
CHARLES KING'S M VENTURES, BILL POLIAN, TROY POLAMALU, MGM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL and J.K. MCKAY, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01893-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2019).

Plaintiff James Earnest Roberson, Jr. was an employee of AAF until
he, along with the other employees, was terminated as part of, or
as a result of a mass layoff and cessation of operations ordered by
AAF. As such, the Defendants are liable under the WARN Act for the
failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
former employees or their union representative at least 60 days'
advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act.
The Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the WARN
Act by permanently closing the business operations of AAF and
laying off AAF's employees nationwide.

Founded by Charlie Ebersol and Bill Polian, Alliance of American
Football is a professional American football league. It is composed
of eight centrally owned and operated teams from the southern and
western United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee D. Winston, Esq.
     Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
     WINSTON COOKS, LLC
     505 20th Street North, Suite#815
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Telephone: (205) 502-0970
     Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
     E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
             rcooks@winstoncooks.com

          - and -

     Perkins Law, LLC
     The Civic Center Medical Forum Bldg.
     950 22nd Street North, Suite #825
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Telephone: (205) 558-4696


ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces False Advertising Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Arizona Beverage Co.
misrepresents its Green Tea With Ginseng and Honey, which "does not
contain any detectable amounts of ginseng, if indeed it contains
any ginseng at all," consumers claim in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/jYau0a


AT&T CORP: Removes Payton Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV04721) to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 15, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-01914. The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson
and referred to Magistrate Michael R. Wilner.

AT&T Corp. provides voice, video, and data communications services
to businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide. AT&T Corp. was
formerly known as American Telephone & Telegraph Company and
changed its name to AT&T Corp. in April 1994. The company was
founded in 1885 and is based in Bedminster, New Jersey.  AT&T Corp.
operates as a subsidiary of AT&T Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gleam Davis, Esq.
          AT&T SERVICES, INC.
          2260 E. Imperial Hwy
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 964-5422
          E-mail: Gd2521@att.com


BANK OF AMERICA: UFCW Alleges Fannie & Freddie Bonds Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers Pension Fund has
commenced a class action lawsuit against several financial
institutions under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Clayton
Antitrust Act, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated
investors that bought, from the Defendants, unsecured bonds issued
by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, alleging that the Defendants engaged in
a collusive scheme to fix prices of those bonds.

The Defendants unlawfully manipulated the FFB market in at least
three ways: First, the Defendants charged customers artificially
inflated, supra-competitive prices for newly-issued FFBs. This
practice was highly profitable for the Defendants given that a
large percentage of their overall FFB sales volume occurred in the
days immediately following a new FFB issuance by Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac. Each Defendant was thus highly motived to artificially
inflate prices for newly-issued FFBs by charging agreed-upon,
supra-competitive prices to investors seeking to buy the new issue,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendants' alleged price-fixing in the secondary FFB market is
also the subject of ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department
of Justice.

Despite the tremendous size and volume of the FFB market, it
remains an over-the-counter ("OTC") market. As such, only certain
entities are licensed to purchase newly-issued FFBs from Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac and resell them to investors, or to trade past
issues of FFBs with investors, and investors must call a
salesperson employed by one of these licensed dealers to get a
price quote or engage in trading.

The OTC secondary market for FFBs thus stands in sharp contrast to
the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, which enable banks and
investors to see public information on stock prices in real-time,
as trades occur. Unlike investors in those stock markets, investors
in the secondary market for FFBs only have access to intermittent
price information regarding their own trades (and not any other
investors' transactions) and only through their dealers.

The Defendants in this case are the select group of powerful
financial firms licensed to deal FFBs to investors. During the
Class Period, these firms were the largest resellers of FFBs to the
secondary market. The Defendants collectively underwrote $486
billion of these securities, or a whopping 64% of the total number
of FFBs underwritten. Given their massive share of the FFB market,
the Defendants could manipulate the price of FFBs that they sold to
investors.  The Defendants could easily wield their control of the
FFB supply to fix prices -- and they did.

The case is captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1776 AND PARTICIPATING
EMPLOYERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS, S.A.; BNP
PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS &
CO. LLC; J.P MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.;
UBS AG; and UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02755-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019)[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers
Pension Fund and the proposed Class:

          John Radice, Esq.
          Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
          Eva Kane, Esq.
          Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (646) 245-8502
          Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
                  drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
                  ekane@radicelawfirm.com
                  nsilber@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Young, Esq.
          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH , LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com
                  jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
                  fisquith@nussbaumpc.com

BE FREE: Taguacta Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Sophianne Taguacta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Be Free, Inc., C.K.
Empowered Marketing, Inc., and Haworth Group Real Estate Trainers,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-08087-SPL (D. Ariz. March 26,
2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
of the Defendants, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

On or about January 24, 2019, the Defendants sent an unsolicited
text message to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending
in 9916 via a "automatic telephone dialing system". The impersonal
nature of the text message suggests the use of an ATDS. For
example, the message did not refer to Plaintiff by name nor
reference a specific account. The message could have applied to
anyone, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@southwestlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

BEACON SALES: Andrade Seeks Unpaid Wages for Company Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ANDRADE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC; BEACON
ROOFING SUPPLY, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV10141 (Cal. Super., March 26, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest
periods, and failed to provide accurate written wage statements
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable to them and other
similarly situated current and former truck drivers, administrative
and office workers, including those paid in whole or in part on a
commissioned basis, in California for unpaid wages and other
related relief.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN
          11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 627-2699
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2757
          E-mail: jcohenslatkin@jcslaw4you.com

BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA PEATRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03945 (Cal. Cir., March 26, 2019), seeks
to curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage of
Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

According to the complaint, when Defendant hires an employee,
including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in their employee
database using a scan of his or her fingerprint to monitor the time
worked by the hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking
(such as ID badge or punch clocks), Defendant's employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device.  Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each
employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo,
eBay, Google, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, Panera, Whole Foods,
Chipotle, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott
data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233.1550
          Facsimile: 312 233.1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

BOEING CO: Burke Files ERISA Class Action Over 737 Safety Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Burke and Blake Parra, as participants in and on behalf of
the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan, and on behalf of a class of
all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. the Boeing
Company, David A. Dohnalek, J. Michael Luttig, the Employee Benefit
Plans Committee, the Employee Benefit Investment Committee, and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02203 (N.D. Ill.,
March 31, 2019) is an action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendants' breaches
of their ERISA fiduciary duties.

The Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan (the "Plan") are plans
designed to help Boeing's employees save for retirement. The Plans
are defined contribution retirement plans. The Plans included as an
investment option the VIP Stock Fund designed to invest in shares
of stock of Boeing, the Plans' sponsor and the employer of the
participants in the Plans. Plaintiffs invested in the VIP Stock
Fund through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period.
However, for many years, Boeing's stock price has been artificially
inflated. The 737 model commercial jet has been Boeing's
bestselling aircraft for decades, and the recently developed Boeing
737 MAX series are the core of Boeing's growth plans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that Boeing's stock
price was artificially inflated in value, and knew that many of the
Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, allocated significant
portions of their retirement savings to Boeing stock and made
additional purchases of Boeing stock for their retirement savings
accounts in the Plans on an ongoing basis. However, the Defendants
failed to take any action to protect the Plans and their
participants. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose the
truth about the safety problems with the 737 MAX publicly, even as
it became inevitable that the public would learn about these safety
problems Defendants stayed quiet as the Plans' participants,
including Plaintiffs, continued to purchase and hold Boeing stock
at the inflated price in their retirement savings accounts, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased and owned units of the Boeing stock fund
through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period.

Boeing, together with its subsidiaries, is an American
multinational corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells
airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
     Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
     1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
     Evanston, IL 60201
     Phone: (312) 263-0272
     Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
            eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

          - and -

     Todd Schneider, Esq.
     James A. Bloom, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
            jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
            kbates@schneiderwallace.com
            rhecht@schneiderwallace.com


BRAND NEW START: Pereira et al Seek Overtime Wages for Counselors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAMRATA PEREIRA and DENESE FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BRAND NEW START
TREATMENT CENTERS LLC, BRAND NEW START TREATMENT CENTER –
PAULDING, LLC, GEORGIA TREATMENT CENTER, LLC, WOODSTOCK TREATMENT
CENTER, LLC, WALTON COUNTY TREATMENT CENTER LLC, NALINI SINGH and
SUNJAY SOOD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01342-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
March 26, 2019), seeks to obtain full and complete relief on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated for the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated
as Counselors, Clinical Supervisors, Program Directors, and
Clinical Directors at the Defendants' methadone/suboxone treatment
facilities located in the State of Georgia.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid the Counselors on
an hourly basis. In order to fully perform their job duties, the
Counselors worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The
Defendants, however, did not compensate them with an overtime
premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Despite the Defendants' classification of Plaintiffs and others as
non-exempt employees, they failed to pay the non-exempt employees
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Beth A. Moeller, Esq.
          Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq.
          MOELLER BARBAREE LLP
          181 14 th Street NE, Suite 401
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 748-9122
          E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com
          tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com

BRAWLEY, CA: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
the city government of Brawley in California for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The
case is captioned FRANKIE RODRIGUEZ, PABLO C. LOPEZ, MARCO A.
GARCIA, OMAR BALDERAS, GERARDO VINDIOLA, DAVID VILLALOBOS, JULIAN
JIMINEZ, RICARDO ROSALES, DANIEL ATONDO, DAVID SIQUIEROZ, JONATHAN
GUTIERREZ, ANTHONY PADILLA, JULIO VELASQUEZ, ROBERTO OROZCO,
MARIANO C. VALENZUELA, JR., RAUL BERNAL, RALPH WALKER, JOSE LIMON,
and PETE GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BRAWLEY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00657-DMS-L (S.D. Cal., April 8, 2019). Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs, who are current or former employees of the City of
Brawley, seek to recover underpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

The City of Brawley is political subdivision of the state of
California. Its government employs civil servants who work to
promote public safety, public health and opportunity. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fern M. Steiner, Esq.
     Dyland Griffith, Esq.
     SMITH STEINER VANDERPOOL, APC
     401 West A Street, Suite 340
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-756-7007
     Facsimile: 619-501-8194
     E-mail: fsteiner@ssvwlaw.com


BUTTS FOODS: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Vehicle Fueler
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SMITH, izndividually, the Plaintiff, vs. BUTTS FOODS, INC.,
a Tennessee Corporation, RAY E. BUTTS III, an Individual and R.E.
BUTTS IV, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01060
(W.D. Tenn., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sims performed work for Defendants as a vehicle "fueler", and was
classified as exempt from the payment of FLSA overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay periods.

The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from the payment
of FLSA overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay
periods when performing his various non-exempt job duties --
without compensating him fully at the applicable FLSA overtime
rates of pay for such overtime work. The Plaintiff has never been
paid overtime compensation for performing the non-exempt duties, in
violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Butts Foods, Inc. has its headquarters in Madison County, Tennessee
and is a distributor of protein food products throughout multiple
states with warehouses located in Birmingham, Alabama; Hattiesburg,
Mississippi; Grenada, Mississippi; and Nashville, Tennessee; as
well as in Jackson, Tennessee. Butts Foods owns and operates a
mixed fleet of trucks and vans in which it transports food products
to customers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated current and former employees:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

CARNIVAL PLC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Wolfe Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Carnival plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2019, that Carnival Corporation has moved to
dismiss the appeal made in the class action suit initiated by James
Wolfe.

On August 24, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by
James Wolfe and others against Carnival Corporation relating to the
marketing and sales of Carnival Cruise Line's Vacation Protection
product.

On January 3, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted Carnival Corporation's motion to stay
proceedings and compel arbitration. The plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Carnival Corporation has moved to dismiss the appeal.

Carnival said, We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim
and that any liability which may arise as a result of this action
will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.

Carnival plc operates as a leisure travel company in North America,
Australia, Europe, and Asia. It operates in four segments: North
America and Australia Cruise Operations, Europe and Asia Cruise
Operations, Cruise Support, and Tour and Other. The company
operates cruises under the Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises,
Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), Seabourn, Costa,
AIDA, P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard brand names. Carnival plc was
founded in 1850 and is based in Southampton, the United Kingdom.


CAS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Withdraw Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAS Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 9, 2019, that the
plaintiffs in the class action suits related to the company's
merger with Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc., have agreed to to
withdraw their complaints with prejudice.

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

As previously disclosed in CASMED's proxy statement filed on March
13, 2019 and mailed to stockholders on or about March 14, 2019 (the
"Proxy Statement") and CASMED's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, in
connection with the Merger, on or about March 7, 14 and 21, 2019,
three putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Adam Franchi v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et
al., Thomas Torreano v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al. and Joseph
Rish Jr. v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al., respectively, and on
or about March 11, 2019, an additional putative class action
complaint challenging the Merger was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven at New
Haven, captioned Charles New v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al.

On March 11, 2019, an additional complaint challenging the Merger
captioned Shiva Stein v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al. was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. The complaints were filed on behalf of the public
shareholders of CASMED and name as defendants CASMED and the
members of its board of directors.

CASMED and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the aforementioned lawsuits, including that they have
committed any violations of law or breach of fiduciary duty, that
they have acted improperly in any way, or that they have any
liability or owe any damages of any kind to plaintiffs or to the
purported class, and specifically deny that any further
supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule,
statute, regulation or law or that the CASMED directors failed to
maximize stockholder value by entering into the Merger Agreement.

However, to avoid the risk that the stockholder litigation might
delay or otherwise affect the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and to minimize the expense of
defending such actions, CASMED has agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement, which supplement
the Proxy Statement and should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement.

CAS Medical said, "In consideration for such supplemental
disclosures by CASMED, all five plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw
their complaints with prejudice following the filing of such
supplemental disclosures."

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2UVaJ36.

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


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO OROZCO, an individual on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV1Q589 (Cal. Super.,
March 28, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages,
failed to reimburse expenses, failed to pay wages at time of
termination under the California Labor Code.

Th suit is brought on behalf of all California-based non-exempt
employees who were not properly paid all wages nor reimbursed
expenses as required by the California Labor Code. In addition,
they were not provided with proper paychecks nor provided final
wages in a timely manner. The Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class seek unpaid wages, penalties and other compensation
from Defendants for the relevant time period because Defendants
improperly.

Charter Communications is a telecommunications and mass media
company that offers its services to businesses and consumers.
Defendants provide services to over 26 million customers in 41
states, including California, including Los Angeles County.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

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

               - and -

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

COMPLETE COMFORT: Wells Sues over Wrongful Discharge, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Complete Comfort, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case is captioned BRUCE WELLS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMPLETE
COMFORT, INC., a Florida Corporation, and JASON SEVERINO, an
individual, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-80470-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Bruce
Wells, on his own behalf, seeks damages for unpaid minimum wages
and for unlawful retaliation for being terminated after complaining
to Defendants about not receiving overtime compensation. Pursuant
to the FLSA, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated to them, seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants Complete
Comfort and Jason Severino.

Complete Comfort, Inc. is a heating and air conditioning contractor
based in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. It provides repair,
replacement, and maintenance services of heating and air
conditioning systems. The company is currently led by President and
CEO Jason Severino. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Telephone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


CORDISH COMPANIES: Marketti et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against The Cordish Companies, Inc., seeks
to recover statutory and compensatory damages, costs and attorneys'
fees under the Internal Revenue Code; unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; unpaid wages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour
Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article; and
unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Cordish Companies own and operate a series of entertainment
districts nationwide. One such district is Power Plant Live!,
located in downtown Baltimore. Power Plant Live! is comprised of
multiple bars and restaurants.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were all employed as
bartenders at Power Plant!. The Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees an hourly tip-credit wage. They also
received tips. However, a combination of these payments did not
result in Defendant's bartenders being paid correctly. The
Plaintiffs and other bartenders were paid well below the minimum
wage rate for multiple hours of work. Employers are only permitted
to pay tipped employees below the minimum wage when certain
conditions are satisfied. These conditions are not satisfied if
employees are required to perform work that is unrelated to their
tipped occupation.

They are also not satisfied if the untipped work related to their
tipped occupation exceeds 20% of their time each week. Under these
circumstances, the employer must pay the full minimum wage. Both
circumstances exist in the present controversy, which makes clear
that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated should have been paid
the full minimum wage during certain periods. The Defendant's
failure to do so was unlawful. Defendant promoted other unlawful
practices that resulted in Plaintiffs' failure to receive the
minimum wage. Defendant regularly staffed guest bartenders at its
facilities whenever it hosted special events, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit is captioned as TESSA MARKETTI, 1733 Manor Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21222 Resident of Baltimore County; STEVE
ORTIZ, 9906 Cervidae Lane Randallstown, Maryland 21133 Resident of
Baltimore County; ANGELA BOUGHNER, 48 Mapledale Avenue Glen Burnie,
Maryland 21061 Resident of Anne Arundel County, Individually and on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE
CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., 601 East Pratt Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service
7 St. Paul Street Suite 820 Baltimore, Maryland 21202; and LUCKIES'
BALTIMORE, LLC 601 East Pratt Street Suite 600, Baltimore, Maryland
21202 Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service St. Paul Street
Suite 820 Baltimore, Maryland 21202, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00904-ADC (D. Md., March 27, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Michael A. Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  mbrown@nicholllaw.com

CORRECTIONS CORP: April 29 Filing Due of Gonzalez Deal Approval Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01891 DAD JLT (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California continued the deadline for
the Plaintiff to file the motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement to April 29, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/03NLjw from Leagle.com.

Jose Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem --
Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com -- Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Adrian R.
Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Jeff Holmes, Jeff
Holmes, Esq., Lonnie C. Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
-- The Blanchard Law Group, APC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC & CoreCivic, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Paul M. Gleason -- pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com --
Gleason and Favarote LLP.

COTY INC: Faces Rumsey Suit over Cash Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Coty Inc.
and its executives for alleged violations of Sections 14(e), 14(d),
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned ROBERT RUMSEY, Individually and On Behalf of 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-00650-UNA (D. Del., April 9, 2019).
This action stems from a tender offer commenced by JAB Holding
Company S.a.r.l. and its affiliates on Feb. 13, 2019 to purchase up
to 150,000,000 of the outstanding shares of Coty Inc. at a price of
$11.65 per share.

On March 18, 2019, Coty filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the tender offer. However, the Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to the tender
offer, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. The Solicitation Statement failed to disclose Coty's
financial projections and the analyses performed by its financial
advisor, Centerview Partners LLC, in connection with the tender
offer.

Coty is one of the world's largest beauty companies with over $9
billion in revenue and an iconic portfolio of brands. As the global
leader in fragrance, a strong number two in professional salon hair
color and styling, and number three in color cosmetics, Coty
operates three divisions: (i)Consumer Beauty, which is focused on
mass color cosmetics, mass retail hair coloring and styling
products, body care, and mass fragrances with brands such as
COVERGIRL, Max Factor, Sally Hansen, and Rimmel; (ii) Luxury, which
is focused on prestige fragrances and skincare with brands such as
Calvin Klein, Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Hugo Boss, Gucci, and
philosophy; and (iii) Professional Beauty, which is focused on
servicing salon owners and professionals in both hair and nail,
with brands such as Wella Professionals, Sebastian Professional,
OPI, and ghd.  Coty has approximately 20,000 colleagues globally
and its products are sold in over 150 countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com


CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK ENSMINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC; and Thomas Addleman,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-JWL-JPO (D. Kan., March 15,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge John W.
Lungstrum and referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara.

Credit Law Center, LLC is engaged in the business as a credit
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Stecklein, Esq.
          Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
          Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
          STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED
          748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
          Kansas City, KS 66101
          Telephone: (913) 371-0727
          Facsimile: (913) 371-0727
          E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com


DAVID MCGRATH: Quarberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Lauren V. Quarberg, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. David M. McGrath and
Angelina Tsu, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00518 (D. Nev.,
March 26, 2019), challenges Defendants' debt collection attempts
designed to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed
by Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff and those similarly situated
damages, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

According to the complaint, any violations by Defendants were
knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendants did not maintain
procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such specific
violation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NE 89148
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com

DELIVERY FACTORY: Pallas Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA PALLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELIVERY FACTORY NETWORK, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21168-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Delivery Factory Network, LLC in negligently or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Delivery Factory utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS
marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and
advertising Delivery Factory ’s delivery services, including at
least 1 unsolicited text message to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was at no time given an option to "opt-out" of
receiving future unsolicited text messages from Delivery Factory.
At no time did Plaintiff provide her cellular phone number to
Delivery Factory through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to
receive an unsolicited text message.  The Plaintiff has never
signed-up for, and has never used, Delivery Factory's services, and
has never had any form of business relationship with Delivery
Factory.

Delivery Factory is in the business of providing delivery services
for food ordered from restaurants, catering delivery, grocery
delivery, flower delivery, and other delivery services. Delivery
Factory promotes and markets its delivery services, in part, by
sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Seth M. Lehrman (FBN 132896)
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

ESSURE: Faces Class Action Over Implant Corrosion
-------------------------------------------------
Sasha Chavkin, writing for ICIJ, reports that a fresh U.S. Food and
Drug Administration probe into adverse patient reactions to
materials in medical devices, including breast implants,
metal-on-metal hips and the birth control coil Essure, has been
announced.

The FDA says it will hold a public hearing this fall into nitinol
as part of the investigation into inflammatory and immune responses
in patients; it will task its own scientists to conduct research on
medical implant materials; and it will review published studies.

Nitinol is an alloy containing nickel that is used in Essure.  Many
patients have reported allergic reactions to Essure and the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control have estimated that between 10 and 20
percent of the population is allergic to nickel.

The agency will also consider patient responses to the silicone
contained in breast implants in a previously announced hearing on
breast implant safety due to take place on March 25-26.

"We believe the current evidence, although limited, suggests some
individuals may be predisposed to develop an immune/inflammatory
reaction when exposed to select materials," the FDA said in its
statement.

Last fall, the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists reported extensively on breast implants, Essure and
metal-on-metal hips as part of the global Implant Files
investigation of the medical device industry and its overseers.
ICIJ's coverage examined regulators' refusal to recognize adverse
reactions to these devices among patients, including breast implant
illness, an ailment reported by many breast implant patients
characterized by chronic fatigue, muscle pain and cognitive
difficulties.

The announcement marks a shift in the agency's approach toward
breast implant illness in just the last six months.

On Sept. 14, 2018, after a study by the respected MD Anderson
Cancer Center found elevated risks of autoimmune disease among
patients with breast implants, the FDA issued a statement
indicating that agency officials "respectfully disagree with the
authors' conclusions."

In its March 15 announcement, the agency appeared more open to the
possibility that breast implants could increase the risks of
fatigue, muscle pain and cognitive issues among some patients.

"While the FDA doesn't have definitive evidence suggesting breast
implants are associated with these conditions, we're looking to
gain a fuller understanding of this issue to communicate risk,
minimize harm and help in the treatment of affected patients," it
stated.

The FDA is also increasing its scrutiny of nitinol. Last August, a
law firm in Australia launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of
patients alleging that their Essure implants corroded and caused
them to suffer nickel poisoning. The suit is expected to be filed
in May, said a spokeswoman for the law firm, Slater and Gordon.

Essure was withdrawn from the market worldwide at the end of 2018.

However, the FDA noted that nitinol is used in other implants such
as cardiovascular stents and guidewires, and said that it will
issue draft guidelines in the coming months for the use of nitinol
in medical devices.

Clarification, March 21, 2019: ICIJ has clarified this story to
reflect that the Essure lawsuit in Australia was launched in August
2018 but has not yet been filed. [GN]


FIDELITY BANK: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Dustin McAlister, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fidelity Bank,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02274-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order:

   1. granting, in part, and denying, in part, the request for
      conditional certification;

   2. directing parties to meet and confer about the form and
      substance of notice and, if an agreement is reached, to
      submit the proposed notice to the court for approval no later

      than Monday, April 8, 2019. If the parties are unable to
      reach an agreement, then plaintiff shall file a motion no
      later than Monday, April 8, 2019 seeking approval of his
      proposed notice and notice plan; and

   3. directing Defendant to file its objections to Plaintiff's
      proposed notice or notice plan no later than Friday, April
      12, 2018.

The court concludes that the Plaintiff has met his burden to show
that this collective action should be certified for purposes of
sending notice of the action to potential class members. The court
grants conditional certification of a class of MLOs who worked in
defendant's Internet Mortgage division. While plaintiff accurately
highlights that the notice may properly reference the district
court’s authorization of the notice, he does not discuss the
Defendant's legitimate concern that including a reference to the
district court at the top of the notice might give the appearance
of judicial endorsement of the merits of the case. The parties are
directed to meet and confer about this issue for it appears that
the parties can come to an agreement on it. The only issue
remaining is whether defendant should be required to produce social
security numbers for putative class members. Because plaintiff has
emphasized that such information would be utilized only in the
event that mail is returned as undeliverable, the Court concludes
that defendant will be required to provide that information if and
when the Plaintiff indicates that a notice has been returned as
undeliverable. Defendant must provide that information only if
plaintiff stipulates to the confidentiality of such information
consistent with an appropriate protective order.[CC]

FLAGSTAR BANK: Underpays Mortgage Advisors, Walker Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09100 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Walker was employed by the Defendants as a mortgage
advisor.

Flagstar Bank, FSB provides banking products and services to
individuals and businesses in Michigan. It offers personal banking
products and services. Flagstar Bank, FSB was formerly known as
First Security Savings Bank, FSB and changed its name to Flagstar
Bank, FSB in January 1996. The company was founded in 1987 and is
based in Troy, Michigan. Flagstar Bank, FSB operates as a
subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561


FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves $17.4MM MyFordTouch Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge approved an
estimated $17.4 million settlement of class claims that Ford's
MyFordTouch "infotainment system" was so defective that it
compromised the safety, reliability and operability of the
vehicles.  The judge did not set a cap on recovery.

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement is available at:

         https://is.gd/K76dI0


GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, WILLIE HENDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
REVENUE CORPORATION, PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., And NAVIENT
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00292
(W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order
certifying two classes:

   Class A:

   "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are
   similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year of

   the commencement of this action and continuing to the date that

   an order is entered certifying this class"; and

   Class B:

   "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are
   similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year of

   the commencement of this action and continuing to the date that

   an order is entered certifying this class."

The case alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          John P. Fishwick, Jr., Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          Carrol M. Ching, Esq.
          Daniel J. Martin, Esq.
          FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES PLC
          30 Franklin Road, Suite 700
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 345-5890
          Facsimile: (540) 345-5789
          E-mail: John.fishwick@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Monica.mroz@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Carrol.Ching@fishwickandassociates.com
                  Daniel.martin@fishwickandassociates.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Joshua F. P. Long, Esq.
          F. Elizabeth Burgin Waller, Esq.
          Joseph Walton Milam, III, Esq.
          WOODS ROGERS PLC
          10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 14125
          Roanoke, VA 24038
          E-mail: jlong@woodsrogers.com
                  bwaller@woodsrogers.com
                  wmilam@woodsrogers.com

               - and -

          Lisa Marie Simonetti, Esq.
          Michael Adam Hass, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com
                  hassm@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES PLC
          30 Franklin Road, Suite 700
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 345-5890
          Facsimile: (540) 345-5789

GERMAN CONSULATE: Rafael Peral Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL PERAL, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective the
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONSULATE GENERAL OF GERMANY IN NEW
YORK d/b/a GERMAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, and FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
a/k/a GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02682
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to
Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them overtime premium at the
rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs:

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

GORDON FLESCH: Cook Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CHARLES COOK, et al., the Plaintiffs,
vs. GORDON FLESCH CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00711-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a class based on alleged violations of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Court said, "Gordon Flesch argues that conditional
certification is inappropriate in part because "plaintiffs offer no
evidence to support the notion of a single decision, policy, or
plan" that bases employee terminations on age. As Plaintiffs have
acknowledged in their Reply, their declarations and other evidence
were inadvertently omitted from their Motion for Conditional
Certification. The Plaintiffs attempted to correct this oversight
by adding the evidence to their Reply. But "a moving party may not
raise new issues for the first time in its reply brief," this
evidence is not rebuttal evidence. Rather, the Plaintiffs were
required to submit the evidence prior to, or simultaneously with,
their Motion for Conditional Certification."

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant. The Plaintiffs
allege that they faced various types of discrimination, including
but not limited to, age discrimination. The Plaintiffs allege that
this discrimination led Gordon Flesch to terminate their
employment.[BN]

GRANGE INDEMNITY: Refuses to Pay Full Cash Value, Ostendorf Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI OSTENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01147-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, March 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
systematically underpaid not just the Plaintiff, but thousands of
other putative class members, amounts the Defendant owed its
insureds for Actual Cash Value losses for total loss vehicles
insured with comprehensive and collision coverage.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages due
to the Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full Actual Cash
Value (ACV) payments or full total loss payments ("FTLP") to
first-party total loss insureds on physical damage policies
("Policies") containing comprehensive and collision coverages.

Specifically, as a matter of policy, the Defendant fails to include
sales tax and/or vehicle title transfer and vehicle registration
fees ("Vehicle Title and Registration Fees") in its calculation of
ACV when paying FTLP to its insureds, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant’s failure to pay FTLP for first-party total losses
owed to the Grange insureds and to condition payment of sales tax
and Vehicle Title and Registration Fees on actions not required by
the policy itself is a breach of the policy agreement and a clear
breach of contract as to the Plaintiff and each putative class
member.

The Defendant is a large private-passenger auto insurance carrier
operating in Ohio. One of the coverages the Defendant offers is
comprehensive and collision coverage.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
             FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-5100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 N.E 1 st Ave Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: Scott@edelsberglaw.com

GRISWORLD HOME CARE: Ionie Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Griswold Home Care, FMCH, Inc., Maria P. Malafronte, and Cathy
Howard for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title 31,
Chapter 558 of the Connecticut General Statute. The case is
captioned IONIE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. GRISWOLD HOME CARE, FMCH, INC., MARIA P.
MALAFRONTE, in her individual capacity, CATHY HOWARD, in her
individual capacity, all jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00527 (D. Conn., April 9, 2019). Plaintiff Ionie Scott
seeks to recover unpaid wages from the Defendants.

Griswold was a Pennsylvania-based corporation with a business
address of 947 Penn Avenue, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. It is the
oldest non-medical home care franchise organization in the United
States. It operates through more than one-hundred fifty (150)
franchisees in 29 states, including Connecticut. FMCH, Inc. was a
Connecticut domestic corporation, incorporated on or about May 1,
1991, and having a business and mailing address of 1122 Broadbridge
Avenue, Stratford Connecticut 06615. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Getman, Esq.
     GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
     260 Fair Street
     Kingston, NY 12401
     Telephone: (845) 255-9370
     Facsimile: (845) 255-8649

         - and -

     Russell G. Wheeler, Esq.
     CHARNY & WHEELER P.C.
     9 West Market Street
     Rhinebeck, NY 12572
     Telephone: (845) 876-7500
     Facsimile: (845) 876-7501


HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Settlement of Medi-Cal Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit' captioned as, I.N., a minor, by and
through her mother and Guardian ad Litem, Zarinah F., and J.B., a
minor, by and through his mother and Guardian ad Litem, Alisa B.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. JENNIFER KENT, Director of the Department of
Health Care Services, and State of California DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CARE SERVICES, the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-03099-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
      settlement purposes:

      "all Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are 'Early and Periodic
      Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment' program eligible and
      for whom Medi-Cal Private Duty Nursing services have been
      approved";

   2. appointing I.N. and J.B. as class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel from Disability Rights
      California, National Health Law Program, the Western Center
      on Law and Poverty, and Browne George Ross LLP as class
      counsel;

   4. granting joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement;

      and

   5. preliminarily approving terms of the Parties’ settlement
      agreement.

The Court said, "Setting deadline for filing objections to
settlement is on July. The parties shall respond to any objections
to the settlement by July 25. By this same date, the parties shall
file a motion for final approval of the class settlement. A hearing
to consider whether the class settlement should be given final
approval, and to consider plaintiffs' motion for an award of
attorney's fees and costs, is set for August 8 at 11:00 a.m. The
final pretrial conference and trial dates are vacated and will be
reset if final approval is not granted."

California's Medicaid program, called "Medi-Cal," was codified in
the California Welfare & Institutions Code. Defendant California
Department of Health Care Services was the designated state agency
that administered and supervised the program. DHCS did not provide
services directly but rather contracted with and reimbursed
participating providers for services. Under one aspect of the
Medicaid program known as the Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic, and Treatment program ("EPSDT"), th Defendants provided
certain services to eligible children under the age of 21. These
services included medically necessary "private duty nursing
services" and case management services.[CC]

HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick et al. Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA SCHICK, JAMES NETHNAY, JAMES SCHAFFER, JOSEPH BOND, LISA
GRAHAM, LYNNE CROWTON, MICHAEL SCOTT HOGE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00588 (C.D. Cal.,
March 27, 2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs'
privacy and causing her to incur unnecessary and unwanted
expenses.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff
Nethnay's cellular telephone number ending in – 7319, in an
attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as
defined 10 by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to
Plaintiff Nethnay seeking to solicit its services, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323-306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com

HILL'S PET NUTRITION: Teegarden Sues over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc., arising out of the manufacturing, marketing and
sale of certain sizes and varieties of Hill's Prescription Diet and
Hill's Science Diet dog foods. The case is captioned by CATHERINE
TEEGARDEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02181 (D. Kan., April 8, 2019).

Teegarden alleges that the Defendant's marketing, promotion and
sale of the Hill's Product's relies on false and misleading claims
about the quality, composition, and suitability of its Hill's
Products.

Plaintiff purchased Hill's Products for her dog, King, on Jan. 23,
2019. After consumption of the Hill's Product, King experienced
symptoms vitamin D poisoning, including excessive thirst and
urination, loss of appetite, vomiting, and weight loss. Ultimately,
King's health deteriorated to such an extent that Plaintiff's
veterinarian was forced to euthanize King in February 2019.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually,
and on behalf of all purchasers of Hill's Products for:
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act; negligence; unjust enrichment; breach
of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; common law fraud; strict products liability; and
violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Defendant Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 400 SW 8th Avenue, Topeka,
Kansas, 66603. Founded more than 75 years ago, Hill's bills itself
as a world leader in specialty pet nutrition products for dogs and
cats with products marketed in over 80 countries worldwide. Hill's
boast that it employs more than 200 veterinarians, Ph.D.
nutritionists and food scientists who continuously create new
products and improve existing ones that will help your pet live a
long, healthy and full life. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
     Sarah S. Ruane, Esq.
     WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
     4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: 816-701-1100
     Facsimile: 816-531-2372
     E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
             sruane@wcllp.com

         - and –

     Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
     VOZZOLO LLC
     345 Route 17 South
     Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
     Telephone: 201-630-8820
     Facsimile: 201-604-8400
     E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com


HOMEAWAY INC: Consumers Sue over Fraudulent Activities
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been brought under Ohio Civ. R. 23 on
behalf of a class of consumers against Vrbo.com and its parent
company HomeAway, Inc. for violations of the United States
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the United
States Mail Fraud Act, the United States Wire Fraud Act, the Ohio
Pattern of Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Fraud Act, and
Common Law Fraud.

The case is captioned, World, LLC Individually and as
Representative Plaintiff on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
5931 Brookside Road Independence, Ohio 44131 v. VRBO.COM, INC. and
HOMEAWAY, INC. 1011 West Fifth St. #300 Austin, TEXAS, Defendants,
Case No. CV 19 913545 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cty. of Cuyahoga, April 5,
2019).

The complaint asserts that defendants' illegal transactions consist
of their agreeing to provide advertising and rental services to
consumers of their residential realty, under a scheme by which (a)
defendants make misrepresentations to consumers to act as their
agent, and advertise and list their residential realty on
defendants' internet websites at annual fees of $750; (b)
defendants engage in conflicts of interest by acting as agents both
for consumers and persons leasing consumer's realty ("Guests"); (c)
defendants act against consumers on behalf of Guests in disputes
between them; and (d) upon consumers discovering that defendants
are acting against them on behalf of Guests, defendants suspend and
terminate consumers advertising and listing agreement services, and
convert consumer's annual fees to their own use.

This case is assigned to Hon. Judge Brian J. Corrigan.

VRBO.COM, INC. and HOMEAWAY, INC. are affiliate corporations that
conduct internet advertising for short-term rentals primarily on
the World Wide Web. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William F. Chinnock, Esq.
     5931 Brookside Road
     Independence, OH 44131
     Telephone: 720-504-6655
     E-mail: judgewfc@aol .com


HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DIANA SOUKHAPHONH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOT
TOPIC, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05124-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), Diana Soukhaphonh will move the
Court on May 17, 2019, for an order granting class certification
and appointing class counsel.

Soukhaphonh proposes to certify a class defined as:

   "all persons whose cellular telephone numbers were contained in
   the file transmitted by Hot Topic to the company known as Impact

   Mobile identified as HT_IM-Opt_in_OneTime.ZIP on September 22,
   2015 and who thereafter received one or more of the below
   described text messages from the shortcode telephone number
   86742"; and

Soukhaphonh proposes to certify a subclass consisting of:

   "all persons who received the following text message from the
   shortcode telephone number 86742: "Thanks! Ur subscribed to Hot

   Topic Alerts: 8msg/mo. Reply STOP to Cancel, HELP for Help. For

   info visit www.4u2entr.com/hottopic info. Msg&Data rates may
   apply"

The action arises out of Defendant Hot Topic, Inc.'s practice of
sending advertising and telemarketing text messages en masse to
consumers and presents a textbook case for class certification. Hot
Topic, a retail chain specializing in selling clothing through
brick and mortar stores and a website, sent millions of impersonal
an promotional advertising and telemarketing text messages to over
one million cellular telephone numbers between November 1, 2015 and
December 26, 2015.[CC]

Attorneys for Diana Soukhaphonh And the Putative Class:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  ecf@careyrodriguez.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


HYUNDAI: NHTSA to Probe Non-Crash Fires Following Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that following complaints of more
than 3,100 fires and 103 injuries involving Hyundai and Kia
vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said
it will investigate.

The NHTSA has already been probing the Korean automakers with
regard to engine failures.  The new investigations, which follow
petitions by the Center for Auto Safety, will tackle non-crash
fires in almost 3 million vehicles, including the Hyundai Sonata
and Santa Fe and the Kia Optima, Sorento and Soul.


J JILL INC: Time to Appeal Pension Trust Suit Already Passed
------------------------------------------------------------
J.Jill, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended February 2, 2019, that the plaintiffs' to appeal the
court's dismissal order has passed.

On October 13, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company, several members of our Board of Directors and our Chief
Financial Officer, among others.

The complaint was brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and
sought certification of a class of plaintiffs comprised of all
shareholders that acquired stock issued by the Company in its
initial public offering in March 2017. This lawsuit was eventually
consolidated with two similar actions.

On December 20, 2018, the court allowed the Company's motion to
dismiss. The time for the plaintiffs to appeal the court's
dismissal of the action has passed.

J.Jill, Inc. operates as an omnichannel retailer for women's
apparel under the J.Jill brand name in the United States. J.Jill,
Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Quincy,
Massachusetts.


JACKSON HEWITT: Gibson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
---------------------------------------------------
NICOLE GIBSON, indivdually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC.,
JACKSON HEWITT INC., TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BAYSIDE
CAPITAL, INC., and CORSAIR CAPITAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-09070 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Sherman Act, by incorporating and employee
no-hiring and no-solicitation clause in its standard Franchise
Agreement.

The no-hiring and no-solicitation clause -- referred by the
Department of Justice as a "no-poach agreement" -- pursuant to
which Jackson Hewitt and its franchisees agree not to hire or
solicit each other's employees is a naked restraint of competition
and per se violation of the antitrust laws, the lawsuit contends.
The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former employees of
Jackson Hewitt who suffered reduced wages and benefits and
diminished employment opportunities as a result of the unlawful
contract, combination or conspiracy, the lawsuit adds.

Jackson Hewitt is the second largerst tax preparation service in
the United States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, P.C.
          440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 2200
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628 5500
          Facsimile: (757) 628 5566
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  astraus@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Brian m. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & M,MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632 4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632 4521
          E-mail: dmilen@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the
amended class action suit entitled, Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc., et al., is still pending.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17‑cv‑04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff")
on behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on
September 30, 2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special
Shareholders Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals
who were directors as of the date of the vote (collectively, the
"Defendants"), in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a‑9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S‑4
(File No. 333‑217364) declared effective by the SEC on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States‑based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The company have not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non‑U.S.‑based
director Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and the United States‑based
director Defendants on January 10, 2018.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for
which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018.

The court dismissed the complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff
was entitled to amend the complaint within 20 days from the date of
dismissal.

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff amended the complaint to focus on
the company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia. On
November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

The Defendants argue in their motion that the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the
omissions and misrepresentations alleged in the complaint are
immaterial as a matter of law. The court has elected to rule on
Defendants' motion to dismiss without holding oral arguments.

Jaguar Health said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove its
allegations in this matter and to establish the damages it asserts,
then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on us. We
believe that it is not probable that an asset has been impaired or
a liability has been incurred as of the date of the financial
statements and the amount of any potential loss is not reasonably
estimable."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. The
company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Napo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., focuses on developing and commercializing proprietary human
gastrointestinal pharmaceuticals for the global marketplace from
plants used traditionally in rainforest areas. Jaguar Health, Inc.
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JONES DAY: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Jones, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
six female attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on April 3 against the
largest law firm in the nation, Jones Day, claiming pervasive
gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

In the $200 million class action filed on behalf of the woman by
attorney Deborah Marcuse of the Baltimore firm Sanford Heisler
Sharp, the women claim working at Jones Day is like working at a
frat house.

"Jones Day's fraternity culture presents female attorneys at Jones
Day with an unpalatable choice: Participate in a culture that is at
best inhospitable to women and at worst openly misogynistic or
forego any hope of success at the firm," the women say in the
complaint. "For a female associate to succeed at Jones Day, she
must at least tolerate the stereotyped expectations of the firm's
male powerbrokers."

Plaintiffs include Nilab Rhayar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo, who
recently worked as associates in Jones Day's Irvine California
office -- Tolton for eight years, Mazingo for five. Four other
women sued as Jane Doe.

Their complaint paints a picture of a workplace where women are not
valued for their professional accolades but are instead treated as
sex objects, often forced to endure comments by male colleagues
about their looks, relationship statuses and attire. At a firm
event held at a partner's house, the women claim a male associate
who pushed a female associate wearing a white dress into a pool was
applauded and high-fived by male leadership.

When female attorneys at Jones Day become pregnant or have
children, the women say, it often ends their careers. Tolton says
she was ordered to leave the firm a few months after returning from
her second maternity leave.

The women also say female attorneys are punished for taking time
off for health reasons. Mazingo claims she was verbally abused by a
male partner after she took a weekend off for health issues caused
by the firm's sexist environment, and subsequently was forced to
leave the firm.

Meanwhile, they say, the men at Jones Day are favored, paid more
than their female colleagues and receive promotions more quickly.
Female attorneys generally receive inadequate work, mentorship, and
support, and those who seek out mentors often face sexual
harassment, according to the complaint.

Additionally, because the firm uses a "black box" system that
prevents colleagues from knowing how much others make, partner
Stephen Brogan can systematically deny female associates equal pay
without being held accountable, the women say. Brogan is based in
the firm's Washington office.

Sanford Heisler attorney Russell Kornblith says the women hope to
bring transparency to the system.

"Jones Day proudly touts that it is not like its peer firms,
because it does not pay its associates in lockstep," Kornblith said
in a statement on April 3. "However, plaintiffs allege that this
‘black box' compensation system masks gender discrimination in
pay."

Jane Doe 4 says she was paid about $400,000 less per year than a
junior male associate at Jones Day, whose compensation became
publicly available after he took a government position.

Jones Day represented President Donald Trump in his 2016 campaign
and more than a dozen of its former attorneys now work for Trump's
administration. The firm employs more than 2,500 lawyers across the
world.

A request for comment sent through the firm's website was not
returned by press time.

The women seek class certification, a tolling of the statute of
limitations where applicable, a court declaration that the
employment practices laid out in the complaint violate the law, an
injunction against Jones Day and its current practices, and a court
order to start treating and paying female employees equitably.

They also seek $50 million in lost pay, $50 million in compensatory
damages and $100 million in punitive damages.


JORDAN HEALTH CARE: Underpays Home Health Nurses, Siemers Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Jordan Health Care, Inc. pursuant to theFair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned MARIE SIEMERS, On Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. JORDAN HEALTH
CARE, INC. (f/k/a Aspire Healthcare, a/k/a Jordan Health Service,
and a/k/a a Part of the Elara Caring Network), Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00851-B (N.D. Tex., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Marie Siemers
files this lawsuit individually and as a FLSA collective action on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and/or former
employees of Defendant who worked as home health nurses paid on a
per visit basis, and like Plaintiff, were not paid time and
one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period relevant to
this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the collective action
members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back
wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment
interest.

Jordan Health Care, Inc. is a home health service business entity
with operations in numerous states, including Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUST BORN: Suit over Slack-Filled Candies Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Stephanie Escobar, the Plaintiff, vs.
Just Born, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 17-01826 TJH(PJW) (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter certifies a class consisting
of:

   "all individuals that purchased Mike and Ikes 22 or Hot Tamales
   in California between February 6, 2013, to present, alleging
   that the non-functional slack-fill in the two products
   misrepresented the amount of actual candies in the boxes and,
   thereby, misled consumers in violation of California Consumers
   Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and  Unfair
   Competition Law."

In 2016, Escobar purchased one 5-oz. box of Mike & Ike candy during
a visit to a Cinemark Cinemas movie theater in Los Angeles. The
candy was in a glass showcase behind the concession counter.
Escobar paid approximately $4.00 for the candy. After she got to
her seat in the theater, Escobar discovered that the box was
roughly half full.

Escobar alleged that 46% of the Mike & Ike box was empty, and that
there was no functional or lawful purpose for the empty space. The
empty space is usually referred to as "non-functional slack fill."
Escobar alleged that the 46% non-functional slack-fill violated:
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law.[CC]

KUM GANG: Park Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
Hyoung Wook Park, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kum Gang Inc. (d/b/a Kum
Gang San), Ji Sung Yoo, Ji Yong Yoo, Chunsik Yoo, and Myungja Lee,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01735 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the
Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek
and "spread of hours" pay for each work day whose interval between
beginning and end exceeds 10 hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Ave., Suite No. 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com

KYMA NYC: Bermeo et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO MORALES BERMEO, LUIS ALBERTO CHINO AMBROSIO, and NILTON M.
PAREDES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. KYMA NYC, LLC (D/B/A KYMA), ERINEOS CHRISTOU,
JOE RAGONESE, DINO KONSTANTATOS, DUNJA RADIN, DEJAN BAJKOVIC, and
LILA HERTZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02685 (S.D.N.Y., March
26, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Greek restaurant, located
at 15 West 18th Street, New York, New York 10011 under the name
"Kyma".  The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as busboys,
barbacks, and food runners. However, they were required to spend a
considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to assisting the food runners, cleaning
tables, bringing water to customers, preparing pita bread and
sauce, cutting lemon, folding 50 sheets of napkin, putting away
bottles of wine to the liquor room, bringing up square tables from
the basement to the first floor, sweeping the outdoors, cleaning
the windows and all three bathrooms, polishing silverware and cups,
buying supplies for the bar and the office, and organizing the
boxes of pita bread from incoming shipments.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

LATSHAW DRILLING: Stegall Seeks Minimum and Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour class action complaint has been filed against
Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA).
The case is captioned JOHN STEGALL, Individually and On Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, v. LATSHAW DRILLING COMPANY, LLC., Case
No. 5:19-cv-00432 (W.D. La., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff John Stegall
asserts that Latshaw does not pay its oilfield mechanics overtime
as required by the FLSA and the NMMWA but instead pays them a flat
salary. Accordingly, Stegall seeks to recover unpaid overtime as
well as other damages.

Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC is an oil and gas contractor based in
Tulsa Oklahoma with offices in Oklahoma City, Midland, and Houston.
Founded in 1981, Latshaw drills oil and natural gas wells for
energy exploration companies in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derrick G. Earles, Esq.
     LABORDE EARLES LAW FIRM
     203 Energy Parkway, Building B
     Lafayette, LA 70508
     Telephone: (337) 210-7292
     Facsimile: (337) 253-7757

            - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     David I. Moulton, 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
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Underpays Payroll Specialists, Bell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01218-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 15, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Bell was employed by the Defendant as payroll
specialist.

Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, a consumer finance company,
specializes in personal and automobile loans, and retail merchant
sales finance services. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC was
formerly known as Newsouth Financial Services, Inc. and changed its
name to Lendmark Financial Services, LLC in August 2000. The
company was founded in 1996 and is based in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Lendmark Financial Services Inc. is a former subsidiary of Branch
Banking and Trust Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Cleveland, Esq.
          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          John L. Mays, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone:(404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
          E-mail: wcleveland@pcwlawfirm.com
                  dcrawford@ pcwlawfirm.com
                  jmays@pcwlawfirm.com


LOANDEPOT.COM: Rosenberg Sues over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against LoanDepot.com LLC
and John Doe Corporation for alleged violations of the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices. The case is captioned DOUGLAS E.
ROSENBERG on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LOANDEPOT.COM LLC and JOHN DOE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10661 (D. Mass., April 8, 2019). In
violation of the TCPA, LoanDepot.com LLC hired the co-defendant,
John Doe Corporation, who made automated telemarketing calls to a
cellular telephone number of Rosenberg for the purposes of
advertising LoanDepot.com goods and services using an automated
dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Accordingly,
Rosenberg seeks redress for the Defendants' wide scale illegal
telemarketing practices.

LoanDepot.com LLC is a foreign limited liability company that
maintains its principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, CA.
The company offers mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. It
claimed to be the second largest non-bank provider of
direct-to-consumer loans in America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Telephone: (508) 221-1510
     E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

        - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road
     Framingham, MA 01701
     E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


LORI LOUGHLIN: Among Defendants in Admission Scam Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Desantis, writing for People, reports that a California
mother who claims the alleged college admission cheating scam
prevented her son from getting into an elite university has sued
Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, among others involved, for $500
billion, according to lawsuit documents published by Deadline.

Jennifer Kay Toy, who identified herself as a teacher who
previously taught in the Oakland Unified School District, filed the
class-action suit in San Francisco County Superior Court on March
13, accusing the defendants of inflicting emotional distress, civil
conspiracy and fraud, according to the suit obtained by Deadline.

Toy alleges she raised her son, Joshua, with a good work ethic, and
made various sacrifices over the years to ensure he would get into
a good college. She claims he had a 4.2 GPA upon graduating high
school and applied to "some" of the colleges involved in the
scandal -- but did not get accepted.

"Joshua and I beleived [sic] that he'd had a fair chance just like
all other applicants but did not make the cut for some undisclosed
reason. I'm now aware of the massive cheating scandal wherein
wealthy people conspired with people in positions of power and
authority at colleges in order to allow their chjldren [sic] to
gain access to the very coHeges [sic] that Joshua was rejected
from," Toy wrote in the lawsuit, according to the Los Angeles
Times.

She did not specify which colleges did not accept Joshua, but those
named in the scandal include Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, the
University of Southern California, UCLA, the University of Texas
and Wake Forest.

"I'm [out]raged and hurt because I feel that my son, my only child,
was denied access to a college not because he failed to work and
study hard enough but because wealthy individuals felt . . . . it
was ok to lie, cheat, steal and bribe their children's way into a
good college," Toy continued, according to the lawsuit published by
Deadline.

She also argued that her sons' opportunity for a fair chance to be
accepted into a good school was "stolen" by the "despicable and
illegal actions" of the defendants.

Huffman, Loughlin and Loughlin's husband, fashion designer Mossimo
Giannulli, were among 50 people named on March 12 in an alleged
conspiracy to defraud and undermine competitive student admissions
at elite colleges and universities, according to the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Massachusetts.

Huffman is accused of paying $15,000 in a scheme to fraudulently
boost her daughter's SAT scores, according to an indictment
obtained by PEOPLE. The actress -- who has been charged with
conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud --
was released on a $250,000 bond after her arrest on March 12 and
appeared in a Los Angeles court on March 15. Huffman's next
preliminary court hearing is scheduled for March 29 at a Boston
court, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Loughlin and Giannulli, meanwhile, allegedly paid $500,000 in
bribes to designate their daughters as recruits on the USC crew
team -- even though they don't even row. The parents are charged
with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail
fraud.

Loughlin was taken into custody on March 13 and made her first
appearance in federal court in Los Angeles hours later, where a
judge set her bond at $1 million, according to the Associated
Press, the Orange County Register and the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune. Giannulli appeared in federal court on March 12 and was
released after posting a $1 million bond. [GN]


LYONS & DOUGHTY: Hess Sues over Debt Collections Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C. and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-09053 (D.N.J.,
March 28, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Some time prior to April 11, 2018, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to TD Bank USA NA, as successor in interest to Target
National Bank. The obligation arose out of transactions in which
the funds obtained from the creditor were used primarily for
personal, family or household purposes.

The Defendant contracted with TD Bank to collect the alleged debt.

LDV collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to
have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services,
telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: 201 282-6500
          Facsimile: 201 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

MANILA WATER: Lawmakers Mull Class Action Over Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cielito Reganit, writing for PTV News, reports that lawmakers
at the House of Representatives on March 18 said they are mulling
the filing of a class suit against Manila Water for its alleged
"negligence", which they described as the root cause of the
week-long water crisis that affected around 1.2 million households
in the east zone of Metro Manila.

Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo "Albee" Benitez, who chairs the
House Committee on Housing and Urban Development, said Manila Water
should, at the very least, compensate consumers for failing to
provide 24/7 water service in accordance with its concession
agreements.

"Manila Water had admitted that obviously, they committed
violations and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) Regulatory office has sent notice of violations to Manila
Water," Benitez said in an interview after a congressional hearing
on the water crisis.

"As I see it, there is negligence on the part of Manila Water, so
there should be proper compensation to customers," he added.

He also said that he and his colleagues are rejecting the statement
of MWSS chief regulator Patrick Ty that the agency has no power to
impose fines and penalties against Manila Water.

"Based on the provisions, the MWSS regulatory office can assess
penalty if any of the concession agreement has been violated,"
Benitez said.

"If we cannot agree, it might result in a class action suit," he
said, adding that lawmakers will discuss the details of the class
suit if Manila Water fails to give justice to the victims of water
service interruption.

He urged the water concessionaire not to take the problem lightly
and begin thinking of the optimum amount that they should
compensate their customers with.

"We will wait for Manila Water's action. If they do not take any
action to properly compensate their customers, we would be obliged
to encourage a class action suit," Benitez said.

Discount

Meanwhile, Mandaluyong City Rep. Quennie Gonzales, whose district
was hit badly since the start of the water crisis, agreed with
Benitez as she demanded a refund from Manila Water for her
constituents.

"In the light of this extreme disturbance that our city was made to
endure, I would like to appeal to the officials of Manila Water to
seriously consider offering a rebate or a discount at the very
least in the water bills of Mandaluyong residents for the month of
March, and at best for the duration of the crisis," she said.

"I think that, this is a fair enough compensation for Manila
Water's customers for their inefficiency that has caused a lot of
unnecessary suffering and discomfort in the lives of the people in
Mandaluyong," Gonzales said.

In the meantime, Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said that the
Philippines' water concession law may need to be revised to
penalize firms that fail to comply with distribution agreements,
following Ty's assertion that MWSS cannot penalize Manila Water.

She said a penalty provision should be added, recalling a
conversation with Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo, whose Committee
on Metro Manila Development convened the March 18 hearing.

"Perhaps in the law, we have to add a penalty provision for those
who failed to comply with some parts of the concession agreement,"
Arroyo said in an interview.

"He (Castelo) says that seems to be what's missing in the law,"
Arroyo noted.

On the other hand, House senior Deputy Minority Leader and BUHAY
Partylist Rep. Lito Atienza asked officials of Manila Water and
MWSS to resign for their failure.

"MWSS administrator Reynaldo Velasco and Manila Water CEO should
resign immediately for their failure to deliver water! They should
stop citing statistics and technical requirements for their
disastrous non-performance. Obviously you have failed," Atienza
said during the hearing.

He also agreed with Gonzales that a refund to the customers of
Manila Water is in order.

"Are you willing to refund the consumers? Malinaw na talo sila
dito. Walang tumutulong tubig pero magbabayad pa sila ng minimum
amount," Atienza said. [GN]


MDL 2492: Harley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEMETRICS HARLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-730 (Filed
Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02076 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Fayetteville State University ("FSU") student-athletes.

The Harley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


MDL 2492: Helminiak Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK HELMINIAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-711 (Filed Feb. 18,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02057 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of North Dakota ("UND") student-athletes.

The Helminiak case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


MDL 2492: Milburn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD MILBURN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-684 (Filed Jan. 28,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02044 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Toledo ("UT) student-athletes.

The Milburn case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Pinkney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ARRONN PINKNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-683, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02043 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Washington State University ("WSU") student-athletes.

The Pinkney case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the MDL Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Schmitz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YVONNE SCHMITZ, as Administrator of the Estate of Kurt M.
Schmitz, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-689, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02051 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Richmond student-athletes.

The Schmitz case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, Illinois 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Stewart Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDREW STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-727 (Filed Feb. 18,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02064 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Cincinnati ("Cincinnati") student-athletes.

The Stewart case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


MDL 2492: Stroughter Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CLIFTON STROUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-682, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of
Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02042 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (“Illinois") student-athletes.

The Stroughter case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, Illinois 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Sweed Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LIMAS SWEED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-688, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02050 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Texas at Austin (“Texas") student-athletes.

The Sweed case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312.589.6370
          Facsimile: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ROGER TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-685, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02045 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Nebraska-Lincoln ("Nebraska") student-athletes.

The Taylor case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Williams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEITH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-709, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02056 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Nebraska-Lincoln ("Nebraska") student-athletes.

The Williams case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2741: Somerlott Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD SOMERLOTT, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00103 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), has been transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01502-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Somerlott case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MDL 2741: Whaley Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PEGGY WHALEY, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00101 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), has been transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01564-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Whaley case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MEX-DINING INC: Arevalo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
NOEL AREVALO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEX-DINING INC., a California
corporation; AMADOR N. LOPEZ, an individual; and 16 DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10273 (Cal. Super.,
March 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages, failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to provide meal
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working
over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive
work days in a work week without being properly compensated for
hours worked in excess.

The Defendants fail to accurately track and/or pay for all hours
actually worked.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw. com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw. com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00431-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Balentines Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERLINE S. BALENTINE and KENNETH B. BALENTINE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00678 (E.D. Mo.,
March 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BARNETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00672 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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







MONSANTO COMPANY: Grants Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
NEIL A. GRANT AND DONNA GRANT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00664 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the 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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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







MONSANTO COMPANY: Murphys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG R. MURPHY AND DONNA MURPHY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00665-AGF (E.D. Mo.,
March 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Oldhams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA J. OLDHAM AND LARRY OLDHAM,, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00675 (E.D. Mo., March
27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the 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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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







MONSANTO COMPANY: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
JEAN L. REED, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00663 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the 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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruby Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT T. RUBY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00662 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the 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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Swansons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA A. SWANSON AND DALE E. SWANSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00674 (E.D. Mo.,
March 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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







MONSANTO COMPANY: Winterringer Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY WINTERRINGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00661 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the 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 Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's 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


MY EXPERT: Nowak Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------
ADRIAN NOWAK, the Plaintiff, vs. MY EXPERT PERSONAL COMPUTER, LLC,
dba ICITY REPAIR, dba THE FIX, and IAN SCHERZER, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08952 (D.N.J., March 26, 2019), seeks
to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated -- who suffered damages as a result of
Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective
action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff and members of the putative
collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week,
without providing overtime compensation at one and one half times
the regular rate of pay as required by applicable federal and New
Jersey state law.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintff:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tabiei Suit over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against National Debt
Relief LLC for its negligent and willful violations of Sections
227(b) and 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The case is captioned OMEED TABIEI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF
LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant,
Case 2:19-cv-02627 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Omeed
Tabiei asserts that National Debt Relief LLC used an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in
making its numerous telemarketing/solicitation calls. Accordingly,
Tabiei seeks redress over the Defendant's violations of TCPA's
National Do-Not-Call provisions.

Founded in 2008, National Debt Relief LLC is a debt settlement
company based in New York, New York. It provides debt relief,
bankruptcy, credit card debt, and debt consolidation services. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: 323-306-4234
     Facsimile: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
             abacon@ toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Disclosed Personal Reading Info, Markham Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK MARKHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
PARTNERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00232 (W.D. Mich.,
March 26, 2019), targets National Geographic for its intentional
and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading
Information in violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal
Privacy Act.

Between March 26, 2016 and July 30, 2016, National Geographic
rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information
about Markham's National Geographic magazine subscription to data
aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers,
among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies.

As a result, Markham has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail.
By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Markham's
Personal Reading Information between March 26, 2016 and July 30,
2016, National Geographic violated Michigan's Preservation of
Personal Privacy Act.

By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing -- rather than
selling -- its customers' Personal Reading Information, National
Geographic is able to disclose the information time and time again
to countless third parties. National Geographic's disclosure of
Personal Reading Information and other personal, demographic, and
lifestyle information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous
because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable
members of society. In fact, almost any organization can rent a
customer list from National Geographic that contains a number of
categories of detailed subscriber information. For example, almost
any organization could rent a list with the names and addresses of
all National Geographic customers who are African-American,
Republican, over the age of 50, and with a net worth of greater
than $500,000.

While National Geographic profits handsomely from the unauthorized
rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Personal
Reading Information and other personal information, it does so at
the expense of its customers' privacy and statutory rights because
National Geographic does not obtain its customers' written consent
prior to disclosing their Personal Reading Information, the lawsuit
says.

National Geographic is an American digital cable and satellite
television network and flagship channel that is owned by Walt
Disney Television through National Geographic Partners, a joint
venture between The Walt Disney Company and National Geographic
Society.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 646 837 7150
          Facsimile: 212 989 9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305 357 2107
          Facsimile: 305 200 8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

NAVIHEALTH INC: Barbee Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MAE BARBEE and DONNA TRONE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
NAVIHEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00119 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. allowing the case to proceed as a collective action under
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing Defendant to provide, within 14 days, the names,
      mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of all current and
      former naviHealth employees who, at any time since February
      6, 2016, worked in positions entitled "Utilization Review
      Coordinator," "Quality Improvement Organizational Appeals
      Coordinator," "Pre-service Care Coordinator," "Flex Team
      Pre-Service Care Coordinator," and in related positions,
      (collectively, "Care Coordinators") and were not compensated

      for hours of work in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek

      at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of
      pay;

   3. directng Plaintiffs' counsel to notify all such present and
      former employees on an expedited schedule by mail and by e-
      mail; and

   4. directing all such present and former employees similarly
      situated to plaintiffs to have 90 days from the date
      defendant provides their names and address to plaintiffs'
      counsel to mail an opt-in form to plaintiffs' counsel for
      filing in the Court.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: mae@wmlaborlaw.com
                  hl@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

NCAA: Brown Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morkeith Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02059 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Temple
University student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Temple football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit, says the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Temple football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Morkeith Brown is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Pennsylvania.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes Health & Safety, Busbee Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Busbee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02065 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of
South Florida ("USF") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other USF football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the complaint alleges.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former USF football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Ben Busbee is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Florida.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Johnson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Defendants National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02052 (S.D. Ind., March
27, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of State University of New York, Morrisville ("SUNY
Morrisville") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other SUNY Morrisville football
players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did
so knowingly and for profit, asserts the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former SUNY Morrisville football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As
such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to
vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.
Plaintiff James Johnson is a natural person and citizen of the
State of New York.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Escoffery Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Escoffery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Defendants National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Ithaca College, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02055 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of IC student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other IC football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, says the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former IC football players suffered and continue to
suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries. As such, Plaintiff
brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those
players' rights and hold the NCAA and IC accountable.

Plaintiff Jonathan Escoffery is a natural person and citizen of the
State of New York.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Graham Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02063 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of West Alabama
University ("WAU") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other WAU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the complaint notes.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former WAU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Anderson Graham is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Alabama.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Miolen Sues over Safety of GSU Student-Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------
DOUG MIOLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and GSU COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01219-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 26, 2019), seeks redress
for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Georgia
Southern University ("GSU") student-athletes.

While in school, GSU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other GSU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former GSU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NCAA: Neglected Football Players' Health & Safety, Says Drake
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02047 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Glenville
State College ("GSC") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other GSC football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, notes the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former GSC football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Thomas Drake is a natural person and citizen of the State
of West Virginia.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES: Faces Zambrano et al. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
New Holland Residences, LLC, NHR Human Resources, Juan Herrera,
Monique Adderly, Marla Siegel, David Schorr, and Joel Davis for
allegedly violating several provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law. The case is captioned
CARLOS ZAMBRANO, EDUARDO MEJIA, GLEN FORDE, RAMON REYES, and
REINALDO LASSALLE NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against - NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES,
LLC (D/B/A NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES), NHR HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC (D/B/A
NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES), JUAN HERRERA, MONIQUE ADDERLY, MARLA
SIEGEL, DAVID SCHORR, and JOEL DAVIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03056
(S.D.N.Y, April 5, 2019).

Zambrano et al assert that the Defendants have violated the FLSA
and NYLL provisions of minimum wage, overtime, notice and
recordkeeping, wages statement, recovery of equipment cost and
timely payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek for unpaid minimum
wage and overtime compensation, and damages for any improper
deductions or credits taken against wages under the FLSA. They also
seek for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as applicable and
the expenses incurred in this action, including costs and
attorneys' fees.

New Holland Residences, LLC owns, operates, or controls residential
buildings in the West Harlem and Morningside Heights sections of
Manhattan in New York City. It maintains its principal place of
business at 256 West 116th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York
10026. Juan Herrera, Monique Adderly, Marla Siegel, David Schorr,
and Joel Davis, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of New Holland Residences, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NEW ORLEANS: Declaration Against Jailing Indigents Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mcgill, writing for Raleigh News & Observer, reports that
civil rights attorneys want a federal judge to send a clearer,
stronger message to state judges in New Orleans: People facing jail
for court debts must get a fair chance to show whether they are
able to pay.

It's the latest wrinkle in an ongoing 2015 lawsuit that accused New
Orleans courts of running what amounts to a "debtor's prison." That
class-action lawsuit named six people who had been locked up for
owing court debts and it said that over the years there had been
thousands threatened with arrest for nonpayment of such debts.

One result of the suit was that, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance
last August formally declared that "the judges' policy or practice
of not inquiring into the ability to pay of such persons before
they are imprisoned for nonpayment of court debts is
unconstitutional."

Although the judges have not appealed that finding, attorneys for
the plaintiffs in the 2015 suit fear the message didn't sink in.

In a motion and supporting documents filed on Feb. 25, they cite
the case of Sheri Bell, ordered arrested in January by state
District Judge Laurie White for failing to make restitution
payments for a theft. The documents say Bell had been summoned to
White's courtroom without being told the purpose of the hearing and
was therefore unprepared to prove she was indigent after telling
White she couldn't afford to pay the owed money.

A state appeal court ordered Bell's release. But civil rights
lawyers in the federal case want Vance to weigh in again. Their
motion seeks another declaration, this one spelling out that the
judges must make a "meaningful inquiry into the debtors ability to
pay, preceded by notice of the importance of that issue and
including an opportunity" for the debtor to be heard.

"We're basically asking the court to make very clear that these
procedural requirements in the case — that we detail in the brief
— that those are required, and that Orleans Parish judges are
required to comply," Marco Lopez, Esq. an attorney for Civil Rights
Corps, said in an interview.

The New Orleans judges had not filed a reply as of midday March 1,
and their attorneys did not respond to an emailed query on March
1.

Meanwhile, another aspect of Vance's ruling in the 2015 lawsuit is
under appeal. Her declaration in August also said that in cases
involving unpaid court fines and fees that go to the court's
expense fund, the judges have an unconstitutional conflict of
interest, and that there should be some kind of "neutral forum" to
determine defendants' ability to pay in such cases.

The judges say in briefs to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
that they are able to impartially determine ability to pay, that it
is common practice in various courts for judges to assess fines and
fees and determine whether a defendant is indigent, and that it is
the decision of the state Legislature, and not of the judges, to
use a portion of criminal fines and fees to fund the court's
operations. [GN]


NIKE INC: Court Denies Request to Dismiss Pay Equity Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Snyder, Esq., at Fisher Phillips, writing for JDSupra,
reported that an Oregon federal court just shot down Nike Inc.'s
request to dismiss a pay equity class action claim fronted by four
current and former Nike executives. In her February 26 ruling, a
federal magistrate judge recommended that the case should proceed,
as it adequately presented allegations that the company employed
systemic practices that damaged all female employees. The ruling
presents a stark reminder to all employers of the dangers of pay
gaps while reinforcing the need to engage in critical compensation
self-audits (with your counsel's assistance).

Summary Of Claim

The case was filed by four female executives: Heather Hender, a
current senior process engineer; Sara Johnston, a former
intermediate business systems analyst; Kelly Cahill, a former
director and senior producer; and Lindsay Elizabeth, a former
apparel designer. Their complaint alleges a whole host of
allegations against Nike, centering on gender disparities in pay.

For example:

Pay Disparities

They claim Nike engaged in systemic sex discrimination by paying
them less than male employees with substantially equal job duties.
They allege that Nike's annual salary increases and bonuses are
disproportionally allocated to male employees.

Salary History

They allege that Nike has contributed to and perpetuated sex-based
pay disparities through common policies, patterns, and practices,
such as using salary history to establish salaries and compensation
band levels. They admit that Nike announced in May 2018 that it
would eliminate the collection of candidate salary history during
its hiring process, but allege that the prior collection of such
data caused women to receive lower starting salaries.

Annual Performance Standards

They claim that Nike's annual performance evaluation process is
flawed because the ratings assigned to each employee force only a
limited number of employees at the company headquarters into the
top two levels. This, they claim, causes women to receive lower
ratings than male colleagues.

Their August 2018 lawsuit, however, doesn't just focus on their own
experiences. They claim that 500 or more women have been harmed by
Nike's practices. And it is the breadth of that class action
allegation that Nike decided to attack with an early motion to
dismiss.

Legal Analysis And Decision

Nike asked the court to dismiss the class action allegations as too
broad, contending that the proposed class "weaves together
thousands of women in hundreds of different job classifications and
departments (and across various salary bands and levels), each with
different duties, qualifications and experience." Their main
argument at this early stage of the litigation centered around the
fact that the plaintiffs could not establish they had all sustained
the same harm -- a necessary component to any class action.

But Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo disagreed, saying that the
plaintiffs had alleged collective harm to the entire proposed
class. "The allegations that defendant's systemic practices and
policies discriminate across all job descriptions against women, at
this stage, plausibly alleges that the purported collective members
are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs," she said.

What's Next? And What Does This Mean For You?

This is just the first step in what could be a long and winding
road for any piece of class litigation. And it may resolve, without
any further clarification, important legal standards, just as the
Boston Symphony Orchestra just settled a pay equity claim brought
against it by its top flutist. If the case does continue, the next
step could be a determination about class certification after the
parties have engaged in a thorough discovery process. Any written
published opinion by the judge would be of great interest to
employers across the country as it could shed light on how today's
courts are treating the issue of salary history as it relates to
alleged pay discrimination.

The lesson for employers is simple -- you cannot stick your head in
the sand when it comes to your pay practices and how they relate to
gender (and other protected categories). If you do, you could find
yourself on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit such as
this one. The first step is to contact your legal counsel and
undergo a privileged pay audit to make sure that your compensation
system would withstand legal scrutiny, and establish any corrective
measures should you determine that adjustments need to be made.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Grego Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE GREGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.2:19-cv-08593-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., March
15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose
L. Linares and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson.

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


OXFORD HOTELS: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OXFORD HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH03909 (Ill. Cir., March 26, 2019), seeks to put a stop to
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and
the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

Oxford owns, operates and/or manages large-scale hotels, resorts,
and conference centers in major metropolitan markets across the
United States.

When employees first begin their jobs at Oxford, they are required
to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as
a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can bechanged or replaced if stolen or
compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.

By the time the BIPA passed through the Illinois Legislature in
mid-2008, many companies who had experimented with using biometric
data as an authentication method stopped doing so, at least for a
time. That is because Pay By Touch's bankruptcy was widely
publicized and brought attention to consumers' discomfort with the
use of their biometric data.

Unfortunately, Oxford specifically failed to take note of the
passage of the BIPA. Oxford continues to collect, store, and use
its workers' biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically,
when employees work at Oxford, they are required to have their
fingerprints scanned in order to enroll them in its fingerprint
database. Oxford uses an employee time tracking system that
requires employees to use their fingerprints as a means of
authentication. Unlike a traditional time clock, employees have to
use their fingerprint to "punch" in to or out of work.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355-7590
          Facsimile: 630 778-0400
          E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                  dfish@fish lawfirm .com
                  smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  ikunze@fishlawfirm.com

PHILLIPS 66: Green Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case, TIMOTHY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09083, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 16,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-01558-LB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

The complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages, statutory
penalties, payment of attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief
against Defendants in connection with individual and putative class
claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay state
overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; failure to timely pay wages; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business
practices.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Michael S. Chamberlin, Esq.
          Annette Salazar-shreibati, Esq
          Matthew B. Seipel, Esq
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 S. Grand Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: mchamberlin@winston.com
                  ashreibati@winston.com
                  mseipel@winston.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Michael J. S. Calvo, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

PHOENIX FINANCIAL: O'Neill Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08684-ES-MAH (D.N.J., March
16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas
and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer.

Phoenix Financial Services, LLC offers investment banking and
financial advisory services to public and private growth companies
and middle market corporations. The firm provides debt
restructuring, mezzanine financing, corporate transitions, merger
and acquisitions, leverage buy-out, divesture, strategic
consulting, and valuation advisory services. Phoenix Financial
Services, LLC is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


PNC BANK: Homeowners Allege Mishandling of Mortgage Account
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consumer action by married homeowners has been filed against
their mortgage servicer, PNC Bank, N.A. The case is captioned
CHARLES L. WOTANIS and RENEE B. WOTANIS, Plaintiffs v. PNC BANK,
N.A. Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00588-ARC (M.D. Pa., April 5,
2019).  Plaintiffs Charles and Renee Wotanis seek damages,
attorney's fees and costs for themselves as a result of violations
of the Notice of Error requirements, and, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated homeowners, seeking statutory damages,
attorney's fees and costs as a result of violations of the Requests
for Information requirements. Plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of all other PNC mortgage customers who, upon request, have
also been denied copies of the entries in their own mortgage
servicing accounts based on the purported confidentiality, lack of
relevance, privilege or impropriety of the request.

PNC Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Pennsylvania. It
provides saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
     John Grogan, Esq.
     LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
     1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 320-5660
     Facsimile: (215) 320-5703

              - and -

     Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Telephone: (703) 424-7570
     Facsimile: (703) 591-0167


PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: MSP Sues over Reimbursement Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that Privilege Underwriters
Reciprocal Exchange failed to fulfill its statutory reimbursement
obligations to Plaintiff's assignor, Connecticare, Inc.

Connecticare, Inc., is a duly organized and existing Connecticut
domestic stock insurance company and HMO/PPO Medicare Advantage
Organization ("MAO"). On March 20, 2018, for good and valuable
consideration, Connecticare, Inc. executed in favor of Series
15-09-157 and MSP Recovery LLC, subject only to specific assignor
retained claims "all of Assignor's right, title, ownership and
interest in and to all Assigned Medicare Recovery Claims, whether
based in contract, tort, statutory right, and any and all rights
(including, but not limited to subrogation) to pursue and/or
recover monies that Assignor had, may have had, or has asserted
against any party in connection with the Assigned Medicare Recovery
Claims and all rights and claims against primary payers and/or
subject to the definition of assigned Medicare Recovery Claims,
third parties that may be liable to Assignor arising from or
relating to the Assigned Medicare Recovery Claims, including claims
under consumer protection statutes and laws, and all information
relating thereto, as may be applicable."

The case is captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and SERIES 15-09-157, A SERIES
OF MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, Individually, AS ASSIGNEE OF
MAO CONNECTICARE, INC., and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED MAO SECONDARY PAYORS, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIVILEGE
UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE (PURE), the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60797-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2019.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael J. Salviano, Esq.
          GED LAWYERS, L.L.P.
          7171 N. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL, 33487
          Telephone: (561) 995-1966
          Facsimile: (561) 241-0812
          Website: www.gedlawyers.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Corso, Esq.
          CORSO LAW, LLC
          492 Winthrop Street, Suite 5
          Rehoboth, MA 02769
          Telephone: 774-901-2677
          Facsimile: 774-901-2678
          E-mail: fcc@corsolaw.com

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KEANNA GOCHET, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC,, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00433-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order on  March 26, 2019, certifying a class, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

ROCK N MASSAGE: Bolton Seeks to Certify Minimum & OT Wage Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, KIMBERLY BOLTON, the Plaintiff, vs.
ROCK N MASSAGE, INC., STEPHANIE BRUDER, and HARRY BRUDER, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60008-BB (S.D. Fla.), Ms. Bolton asks
the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of Putative Minimum Wage
      Class and Putative Overtime Wage Class pursuant to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act:

      Putative Minimum Wage Class:

      "all Massage Therapists who were classified by Defendants as

      an independent contractor for at least one (1) workweek
      during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit
      and did not receive proper minimum wages for all hours
      worked. This class excludes out-of-town therapists engaged by

      Defendants only for poker tournaments."

      Putative Overtime Wage Class:

      "all Massage Therapists who were classified by Defendants as

      an independent contractor for at least one (1) workweek
      during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit
      and did not receive proper overtime wages for all hours
      worked above 40 in any given week. This class excludes out-
      of-town therapists engaged by Defendants only for poker
      tournaments";

   2. requiring Defendants to identify all Putative Class Members
      by providing their last known address, telephone number,
      and e-mail within 10 days of an order granting
certification;

   3. approving notice of the collective action and consent to
      join form by email and U.S. Mail to each Putative Class
      Member;

   4. requiring Defendants to post notice of the collective action
      and a consent to join form in a conspicuous place at
      Defendants' place of business;

   5. requiring Defendants to include notice of the collective
      action and a consent to join form in the next
      paycheck/paystub provided to Putative Class Members; and

   6. appointing J. Freddy Perera, Esq., Brody M. Shulman, Esq. and

      Valerie Barnhart, Esq. of Perera Barnhart as counsel for the

      Putative Classes.

The Defendants' alleged violations center around FLSA's minimum
wage and overtime provisions and are grounded in the Defendants'
improper practice of classifying all Massage Therapists as
independent contractors.

The Defendants operate a massage therapist business within the
confines of the Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood,
Florida.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          Waynice Green, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART
          12555 Orange Dr., Second Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: 786-485-5232
          E-mail: valerie@pererabarnhart.com
                  freddy@pereralaw.com
                  brody@pererabarnhart.com
                  waynice@pererabarnhart.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Mark Goldstein, Esq.
          1835 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Suite 211
          Miami, FL 33179
          Telephone: (305) 342-4839
          E-mail: markgoldsteinattorney@gmail.com

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Esposito, writing for Rockland/Westchester Journal News,
reports that when a high-profile New York City research hospital
sent out letters to thousands of possible child abuse victims, one
of those letters traumatized its recipient and set in motion a
unique legal tactic.

That man is now claiming in a class action lawsuit that the letter
itself triggered long buried memories of sexual abuse at the hands
of one of the hospital's most esteemed doctors. The suit was filed
on the first day that New York signed into law the Child Victims
Act, which extended the window in which victims of child sex abuse
could file civil lawsuits.

The class action nature of the suit worries some advocates for
child sex abuse victims.

Filed in the Southern District of New York, the suit was initiated
by a former Union County, New Jersey, resident now living in South
Florida, who said the letter stirred up so much past trauma for
him, he filed a lawsuit against the hospital.

"I don't think they had a desire to actually do anything to help
the individuals," said Corey Stern, of Levy Konigsberg of
Manhattan, who is the lead attorney on the case. "The case we filed
isn't a sexual abuse lawsuit, it's a lawsuit based on the letter
Rockefeller University sent out."  

The suit was filed against Rockefeller University Hospital and
alleges that Dr. Reginald Archibald, now deceased but who lived for
years in Westchester County, sexually abused children he treated
for stunted growth, including fondling them during exams and
photographing them naked.

He was generally regarded as one of the leaders in this field in
the metropolitan region. The letter asked the recipients to
describe interactions they had with Archibald.

Archibald, formerly of Pelham, treated more than 9,000 patients
during his more than 40-year tenure at Rockefeller. He abused
hundreds and likely thousands of children, the suit alleged.

Archibald died in 2007, 20 years after he retired from
Rockefeller.

The hospital sent one of those letters to Jeffrey Poppel on Oct. 6,
2018.

The letter shocked him.

Poppel's suit claims it triggered him into reliving his experiences
with Archibald, a trauma that left him with weeks of sleepless
nights. When Poppel's family noticed his stress and sleeplessness,
he told them -- for the first time -- what had happened to him.

His mother and father were horrified, and his mother blamed herself
for not preventing it, according to the suit.

Poppel's long-term life partner was also horrified when he told
her.

From the letter's language, Poppel realized he might not have been
the only one.

"It was infuriating for Mr. Poppel to realize that he had been part
of a factory of abuse," wrote Stern in the suit. "Mr. Poppel had no
idea that Archibald had molested other children before reading the
letter."

Poppel now works as an attorney on the County Attorney Office legal
staff at the Public Health Trust/Jackson Memorial Hospital in
Miami-Dade County.

While the suit claims the alleged abuse left him emotionally unable
to have children of his own, he does have a stepdaughter.

Problem letter
In 2018, Rockefeller University Hospital hired a law firm to
investigate claims about Archibald, and the letters stemmed from
that investigation, said Stern.

Stern argues that the letter made several critical failures, which
is the basis for the suit.

"It doesn't reference that the person sending it out is an
attorney, or that they're an attorney for the hospital," Stern
said. The letter, on hospital letterhead, asks the recipients to
contact Helen Cantwell of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, with any
information about their visits with Archibald.

"If you have any information you would like to share regarding you
interactions with Dr. Archibald, please contact Helen," reads the
final sentence of the letter.

Stern said the letter asks people to give very sensitive personal
information without saying with whom it will be shared, or for what
purpose the information will be used. Stern saidhe thinks the
letter was sent out to gauge the number of potential claims.

"It's such an abomination of what you'd expect from a law firm like
that, and an entity that was aware of rampant abuse for so many
years," Stern said. "I think the purpose behind the letter was
extremely self-serving."

Stern is seeking more than $5 million in damages against
Rockefeller University Hospital for the harm the letter has
allegedly caused.

The hospital found credible claims against Archibald in a 2004
internal investigation, but did not inform potential victims,
according to the suit. In a statement, a hospital representative
said they had reported the 2004 allegations to the authorities.

Why Rockefeller University Hospital waited to ask former patients
about possible instances of abuse is a question that Stern thinks
he can answer.  

"It begs the question, why would you wait 14 years to send
correspondence to a group of folks that you believe were abused,"
Stern said. "I think the easy answer to the why is because 14 years
earlier there wasn't a prospect of the Child Victims Act passing,
and there wasn't this fear that all these victims were going to
have an avenue to sue for what happened to them."  

Months after it became clear that New York's governor and new
progressive legislature were going to make the act a priority,
Rockefeller took steps to get out in front of the possible claims,
Stern said.

Rockefeller University Hospital declined to comment on the suit.

The hospital sent out follow-up letters in the fall of 2018
offering more information about the hospital's attempt to reach
patients of Archibald. They also informed former patients that it
set up a therapy fund for victims.

Abuse claim detailed

Most of Archibald's patients were young boys -- though he treated
girls as well -- with growth problems. Court documents describe
Poppel's first encounter with Archibald:

Poppel had been living in Clark, New Jersey, about 25 miles from
the hospital across the Hudson River, when his mother took him to
see Archibald in 1975. He was 11 years old.

Archibald assured Poppel's mother that a nurse would be present
during the examination. When Archibald entered the room, he locked
the door behind him.

There was no nurse.

According to the suit, Archibald instructed Poppel to remove his
clothes. After photographing him, Archibald measured Poppel's
genitals, then instructed the boy to masturbate.

Poppel did not understand Archibald's command.

“I need to determine your future height," Archibald allegedly
told Poppel. "To do that, I need a semen sample.”

Poppel attempted to fulfill Archibald's request, but was unable.
Archibald then placed Poppel on his knee and began touching
Poppel's genitals, according to the suit.

Poppel would continue on as a patient at Rockefeller University
Hospital until 1980, seeing Archibald several more times, according
to court documents

Others have claimed similar treatment at the hands of Archibald.

Peter Katsikis described his single 1969 visit with Archibald, -- a
story similar to Poppel's -- in December 2018 to the Associated
Press. Archibald allegedly got Katsikis alone. He allegedly took
pictures of Katsikis's naked body and engaged in sexual touching.

Poppel didn't come forward then with Katsikis and others, making
this lawsuit the first time he's publicly talked about the abuse.

"Archibald stole something innocent, and sensitive, and sacred from
every child he abused," wrote Stern.

Possibly the first case under new act

On Feb. 14, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Child Victims Act, which
extended by five years -- to age 28 from 23 -- New York's statute
of limitations that allows victims of felony child sexual abuse
tofile civil lawsuits. It also provided a one-year, one-time-only
period to seek civil action, regardless of how long ago the abuse
occurred.

The act included a caveat that instituted a six-month hold after
the act was signed before anyone could file a suit under the new
law.

But Poppel wanted to be the first to take ownership of the case
against Rockefeller University Hospital and Archibald for the
others.

"It was important to our client that we file on, or about, the date
that the governor was going to sign the legislation," Stern said.
"He wanted to own this, he been living with this for over 40 years,
he didn't want to be initials in the complaint."   

Stern plans on amending the case after the six-month moratorium.
The suit will be against Archibald's estate and Rockefeller
University Hospital for various claims, including sexual abuse,
false imprisonment, battery, assault and gross negligence in hiring
and supervision, he said.

Where are the pictures?

At Rockefeller University Hospital, Archibald took many nude
pictures of his young patients. Some of which ended up in
scientific publications.

Poppel worries that his nude photos were published or are readily
available on the internet, according to the suit.

Poppel isn't alone in his worries about the photos.

In December 2018, Michael Pfau an attorney who represents about 100
former patients of Archibald's went looking for answers

Pfau, of Seattle-based firm of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, told
the Associated Press that the photos were a source of pain for his
clients.

“Finding these photos is critical for our clients,” he said.
“Hopefully the hospital can do the right thing and accelerate the
investigation.

How it happened to so many

If, as the suit claims, Archibald abused thousands of his patients
during his time at Rockefeller University Hospital, that would make
him one of the most prolific abusers in history.

Stern thinks that Archibald's position allowed him access to more
children than other known abusers.

"With teachers, professors and coaches, as prolific as they may be,
they're typically limited to a group of people, whereas Archibald
was only limited to all the thousands of patients were seeing him,"
Stern said.

Stern alleges that Archibald's expertise and prominence in his
field afforded him an enormous patient list.

"He was widely considered one of the best specialists in the
northeast, if not the entire United States, for pediatric
endocrinology," wrote Stern in the suit.

High status masks crimes

Other cases show how abusers use the status of their universities,
and respect from colleagues to mask their crimes.

Rockefeller University Hospital is one of the oldest biomedical
research institutes in the United States. The hospital holds a $1.9
billion endowment, as of 2015. Past and current staff hold 36 Nobel
prizes.

Archibald was a widely recognized figure in the scientific
community, having published numerous articles in his field.

Rockefeller University Hospital bestowed the title of senior
physician emeritus on Archibald before his retirement.

News about alleged serial abusers -- including Penn State football
defensive coach Jerry Sandusky and U.S. Olympic team doctor Larry
Nassar -- shocked their communities, who had once held the men in
high esteem.

Experts question legal methods

Poppel's suit bundles all the recipients of the letter into one
group case, a questionable decision to some.

Joelle Casteix, a leading expert in child sex abuse cover-ups and a
survivor herself, thinks making the lawsuit a class action is a
mistake.

"Class actions, in sex abuses cases, only benefit the institution,"
Casteix said.

Casteix said class actions can keep the potential scope of the
abuse hidden.

"They don't allow for a deep dive into the cover up," Casteix said.
"Where there's one Archibald, there's five. If a system allowed one
predator, there could be more."

Such suits also limit individual input by victims, as they are
filed on behalf of the group, Casteix said.

"It's a great option for the hospital because it allows them to
tidy up everything quickly," Casteix said.

Stern, attorney for Poppel, stands by his case and is adamant that
he's helping Poppel and the other potential victims.

"I don't know if I've ever been more proud of something I've filed
then when I've filed that on behalf of Jeffrey and all the other
victims," Stern said. [GN]


ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC: Smith Sues over Pension Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Rockwell
Automation, Inc. and its related entities for alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
case is captioned Rickie K. Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Rockwell Automation,
Inc., the Rockwell Automation Employee Benefits Plan Committee, and
John/Jane Does 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00505 (E.D.
Wis., April 8, 2019).

Smith asserts that the Defendants failed to pay benefits under the
Rockwell Automation Pension Plan in amounts that are actuarially
equivalent to a single life annuity, as required by the ERISA. By
not offering benefits that are actuarially equivalent to the single
life annuity, Rockwell is causing retirees to lose part of their
vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA.  Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks an order from the court reforming the plan and
sub-plans to conform to ERISA, payment of future benefits in
accordance with the reformed plan and sub-plans, as required under
ERISA, payment of amounts improperly withheld, and such other
relief as the court determines to be just and equitable.

Rockwell is a manufacturer of industrial automation and information
technology with its headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rockwell
sponsors a pension plan as part of the company's employee benefits.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
     Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
     CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
     4532 North Oakland Avenue
     Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
     Telephone: (414) 210-3868
     Facsimile: (414) 433-4544
     E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
             ekd@cruegerdickinson.com

         - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Seth R. Klein, Esq.
     Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
     Oren Faircloth 29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Telephone: (860) 493-6292
     Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
             mkindall@ikrlaw.com


SAFELIFE 365: Vantine Seeks Relief over Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against SafeLife 365, Inc.
over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case is captioned JOANNE VANTINE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIERE GUARDIAN
PROTECTION, LLC d/b/a SAFELIFE 365, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00170 (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2019).  Vantine wants Defendant
to stop its practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) and an artificial or prerecorded voice to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent. Vantine also wants to enjoin Defendant
from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did
not provide their prior express written consent to receive them;
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Based in Shawnee, Kansas, SafeLife 360 provides medical alert
systems. It describes itself as the fastest growing medical
monitoring company in America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: scott@bursor.com


SAGE SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Funna et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON FUNNA; and GERTIE LEANO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01074-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 7, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as sales
representatives.

Sage Software, Inc. provides business management software and
services. Sage Software, Inc. was formerly known as Best Software,
Inc. and changed its name to Sage Software, Inc. in May 2005. The
company was incorporated in 1982 and is based in Lawrenceville,
Georgia. Sage Software, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Sage Group
plc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          1201 Peachtree Street, NE
          400 Colony Square, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


SHUN LEE WEST: Faces Zhang et al. Labor Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------
An employment class action complaint has been filed against T & W
Restaurant, Inc. trading as Shun Lee West, Bin Wu, Michael Tong, T
& W Payroll Services, Inc. for alleged violations of the Federal
Labor Standards Act and of New York Labor Law, arising from their
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices. The case is captioned YA QIANG ZHANG, JUN LING ZHAO, HUI
MIN ZHAO, JING GUAN, HUI LIANG ZHAO AND LI WENG, Plaintiffs, vs. T
& W RESTAURANT, INC. TRADING AS SHUN LEE WEST, BIN WU, MICHAEL TONG
AND T & W PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03094 (S.D.N.Y,
April 7, 2019). Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and/or attorney's fees and costs.

Shun Lee West is an Asian restaurant located in 43 West 65th
Street, New York, NY 10023. It describes itself as an upscale
Chinese restaurant that specializes in serving trendy and eclectic
cuisine. It has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. T&W
Payroll Services is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
New York and has its registered office at 97 Tennyson Drive,
Nanuet, NY 10950. It offers a suite of payroll and employer service
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Telephone: (718) 353-8588
     Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


SIBANYE GOLD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Gold Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of
New York.

Two purported class action lawsuits have been filed against Sibanye
Gold Limited (Sibanye-Stillwater), Neal Froneman and Charl Keyter
(collectively the Defendants) in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the US
securities laws.

The first lawsuit, Case No. 18-cv-03721, was filed on 27 June 2018
by Kevin Brandel, individually and on behalf of all other persons
who purchased Sibanye-Stillwater securities between 7 April 2017
and 26 June 2018, inclusive (the Class Period).

The second lawsuit, Case No. 18-cv-03902, was filed on 6 July 2018
by Lester Heuschen, Jr., also individually and on behalf of members
of the Class Period (collectively, the Class Actions).

The Class Actions allege that certain statements by
Sibanye-Stillwater in its annual reports filed with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission were false and/or misleading.
Specifically, the Class Actions allege that Sibanye-Stillwater made
false and/or misleading statements about its safety practices and
record and thereby violated the US securities laws. The Class
Actions seek an unspecific amount of damages.

The two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the court, on 17
December 2018.

Lead plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint by 1
April 2019, and the Defendants must file an answer or otherwise
request a pre-motion conference (which is procedurally required by
the Court's rules before a motion to dismiss may be filed by 16 May
2019).

Sibanye Gold said, "As the cases are still in the early stages, it
is not possible to determine the likelihood of success on the
merits or any potential liability from the Class Actions nor
estimate the duration of the litigation. Sibanye-Stillwater intends
to defend the cases vigorously."

Sibanye Gold Limited operates as a precious metals mining company
in South Africa, the United States, Zimbabwe, Canada, and
Argentina. Sibanye Gold Limited was incorporated in 2002 and is
headquartered in Weltevreden Park, South Africa.


SOLUTION MECHANICAL: Walker Seeks Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plainitff, vs. SOLUTION MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, LLC,
and JAMES WALKER, the Defednants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00204-DPM (E.D.
Ark., March 26, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and other construction workers lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Walker directly hired Plaintiff and other commercial heating and
air workers, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work
schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and
employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding
their employment.

The Plaintiff and other Commercial Heating and Air Employees
regularly met at the shop in Beebe to load any necessary equipment,
tools, and materials and to travel together in the company truck to
the job site. The Plaintiff and other Commercial Heating and Air
Employees regularly drove back to the Beebe shop after the work day
was over, and from there, each worker traveled back home
individually, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for STEVEN WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated:

          Allison Koile, Esq.
          Josh West, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR Z72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  west@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

SPLIT SECOND: Fails to Place Compliant "Tow Away Zone Sign"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Mr. Oxedine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPLIT SECOND TOWING & TRANSPORT, INC.,
and ASHBURN SQUARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., Filing No. 86824963
(13th Fla. Cir, Hillsborough County, March 13, 2019), seeks to
recover actual damages, statutory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, due to Defendant's intentional disregard of
Florida law including, without limitation, Florida Statutes
section.

Split Second is a towing company who, as part of its business
model, removes vehicles from private property without the vehicle
owner's consent in order to derive profit.

On or around December 21, 2018, Mr. Oxedine parked his vehicle, a
2014 Chrysler 300, at the property located at or near 4542 Ashburn
Square Drive, Tampa, Florida 33610.

Mr. Oxedine, a real estate photographer, was at the Subject
Property because he had been hired to take photographs of the unit
located at 4542 Ashburn Square Drive, Tampa, Florida 33610 to
assist in its sale. On December 21, 2018, without any justification
or request by the owners and/or managers of the Subject Property,
Split Second Towing performed a tow of Mr. Oxedine's vehicle.  The
lawsuit contends Split Second Towing allegedly performed the tow of
Mr. Oxedine's vehicle in order to derive profit at the expense of
Mr. Oxedine.

On or about December 21, 2018, Mr. Oxedine went to Split Second's
place of business at or near 9303 Stannum Street, Tampa, Florida
33619, to regain possession of his vehicle. Mr. Oxedine was charged
$150 for the return of his vehicle.  He was charged $125 "towing
charge" and $25 "mileage." Mr. Oxedine was required to pay $150, in
cash, as the agents/employees of Split Second indicated to him that
they would not accept any other form of payment.

After paying the amount demanded in the towing invoice and
regaining possession of this vehicle, Mr. Oxedine discovered that
expensive photography equipment (a drone) was missing from the
trunk of his vehicle. The drone was located in the trunk of his
vehicle at the time of the tow.  He has since reported that item as
stolen. The Defendant failed to place or cause to be placed a
compliant Tow Away Zone Sign at the Subject Property.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
          Megan N. Daniel, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
          105 S. Edison Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813 463 0123
          Facsimile: 813 670 1288
          E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com
                  MDaniel@FulgencioLaw.com

STAFF PRO: Glaspie Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
RODNEY GLASPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STAFF PRO, INC.; U.S. SECURITY
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV10271 (Cal. Super., March 26, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay wages, failed to provide meal periods,
failed to permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment, and failed to reimburse necessary business expenses
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive wages for
all time worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages) and
that they were not receiving all wages earned for work that was
required to be performed, including but not limited to time spent
checking their schedules, among other tasks, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Taste of North China, Yongbin Sun, Qimin Cai, Jianguo Zhao, and
"John" Wang for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The case is
captioned BAO YU YANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TASTE OF NORTH CHINA, LTD d/b/a
Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC. d/b/a Taste of
North China; NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Taste of North
China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO ZHAO, and "JOHN" WANG,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392 (D.N.J., April 8, 2019).

Plaintiff Yang alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek. Accordingly, Yang seeks to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, out of pocket expenses
to delivery experts on the road, liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and cost.

Taste of North China is a restaurant located at 75 Montgomery St,
Jersey City, NJ 07302. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Telephone: (718) 762-1324
     E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


TASTES ON THE FLY: Faces Grillo Labor Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grillo, a tipped wait staff employee at the Boston
Beerworks restaurant, files an employment class action lawsuit
against Tastes on the Fly Boston, LLC for alleged violation of
Chapters 151 of the Massachusetts General Law.

The case is captioned STEPHEN GRILLO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TASTE ON THE FLY BOSTON,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-1073A (Mass. Cmmw., Cty. of Suffolk,
April 5, 2019).

Grillo asserts that the restaurant pays its employees, including
him, an hourly wage that is less than the basic minimum wage
required by law. In addition, Tastes on the Fly has required the
wait staff employees who work at the Logan Airport Boston
Beerworks, including Grillo, to participate in tip pools through
which a portion of their tips are paid to individuals who do not
qualify as wait staff employees under Massachusetts General Law,
Chapter 149, Sec. 152A.

On behalf of himself and that putative class, Grillo seeks to
recover compensatory damages for the minimum wages he and the
putative class members did not receive, as well as compensatory
damages for the tips that were improperly remitted to ineligible,
non-wait staff employees. Lastly, Grillo seeks an award of treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest, all as provided
for by law.

Tastes on the Fly Boston, LLC. is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It
operates the Boston Beerworks restaurant at Logan Airport, and
maintains its principal office in San Mateo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone. (617)607-3261
Facsimile. (617)488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
        brant@fairworklaw.com


TGI FRIDAY'S: Troncoso Says Potato Skins Product Deceptive
----------------------------------------------------------
SOLANGE TRONCOSO on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TGI FRIDAY'S INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02735 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2019), seeks redress for,
and a stop to, Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of
advertising and marketing its Potato Skins snacks as "potato skins"
products.  According to the complaint, Defendant's "Potato Skins"
representations are deceptive because the snack products do not
actually contain any potato skins. This labeling deceives consumers
into believing that they are receiving a healthier snack, but
Defendant's products do not live up to these claims.

Conscious of consumers' increased interest in more nutritious
snacks and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet
this preference, Defendant misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively
seeks to capitalize on these consumer health trends. The Defendant
sold and continues to sell products with deceptive or misleading
labels.  These are: TGI Fridays Potato Skins, Cheddar & Bacon; TGI
Fridays Potato Skins, Bacon Ranch; TGI Fridays Potato Skins, Sour
Cream & Onion; Any other TGI Fridays products representing that
they contain potato skins despite not containing any genuine potato
skins.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class:

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

TIMM MEDICAL: Removes TCPA Suit to Eastern District of Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMM Medical Technologies, Inc. removes case, RADHA GEISMANN, M.D.,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 19SL-CC00385 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019),
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
March 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00676 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Road
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Attorneys for the TIMM Medical Technologies, Inc.:

          Eric M. Walter, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Shulan, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314 621 5070
          Facsimile: 314 621 5065
          E-mail: ewalter@armstrongteasdale.com
                  jshulan@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Ezra D. Church, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 963 5000
          E-mail: ezra.church@morganlewis.com

TRIVAGO N.V.: Court Tosses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order directing the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Defendants and terminate the
case and any motions pending in the case captioned, ANTHONY
HOLBROOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRIVAGO N.V., ROLF SCHROMGENS, AXEL
HEFER, NATIONAL CORPORATE RESEARCH, LTD., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES,
LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ALLEN &
COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., COWEN
AND COMPANY, LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08348-NRB (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act because they acted as
"controlling persons" of Trivago who participated in alleged
securities fraud.  The Court said, "to establish a prima facie case
of control-person liability under sections 20(a), the Plaintiffs
must sufficiently allege a primary violation by the controlled
entity. Because plaintiffs have failed to plead a primary violation
by Trivago, their Section 20(a) claims necessarily fail. NCR's
motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(5) is denied, and Defendants' motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) are granted in
their entirety and with prejudice. We also dismiss the
[Consolidated Amended Complaint] as to the unserved and non-moving
Individual Defendants "because the issues concerning [the
non-moving defendants] are substantially the same as those
concerning the other defendants, and [plaintiffs] had notice and a
full opportunity to make out [their] claim"."

Dharmanand Shetty was named lead plaintiff in the case.  The
plaintiffs brought this federal securities class action on behalf
of all individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired american depositary shares of trivago, N.V. between
December 16, 2016 and October 25, 2017, inclusive, pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on or about December 16,
2016.

Trivago operates a global hotel search platform that allows users
of the Company's website or mobile application to search for and
compare deals from a variety of hoteliers and online travel
agencies. Trivago offered access to approximately 1.3 million
hotels in over 190 countries as of December 31, 2016.[CC]

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Weissman Says Medical Plans Deceptive
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, KATE WEISSMAN, the Plaintiffs, vs.
UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICE,
LLC, AND INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. CHOICE PLUS PLAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10580 (D. Mass., March 26, 2019), Ms.
Weissman challenges UnitedHealthcare's deceptive and fraudulent
misrepresentations to the participants and beneficiaries of its
employee plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).

The company said it would deliver access to covered, medically
necessary healthcare for the treatment of cancer, and to challenge
UnitedHealthcare's deceptive and unfair administration of its ERISA
plans, including its prior authorization and utilization review
process for plan members seeking proton beam therapy, and its
adjudication and administration of claims for proton beam therapy
made under ERISA plans underwritten and administered by
UnitedHealthcare.

According to the complaint, UnitedHealthcare drafted and
implemented medical policy no. T0132 for proton beam radiation
therapy ("PBT") that relies upon outdated medical evidence, ignores
contemporary medical evidence, and relies more heavily on actuarial
calculation of risk pools insofar as policy no. T0132 provides that
PBT is covered for insured members younger than 19 years of age and
those 65 years of age and older.

UnitedHealthcare drafted and implemented policies and procedures
for prior authorization review and the adjudication of insured
members' claims that provide for an inadequate review of clinical
records by its medical directors prior to rendering a determination
of coverage.

UnitedHealthcare compounds its bad faith breach of fiduciary
duties, and confounds learned health care providers, by having
policy no. T0132 reviewed and applied to insured members' requests
for prior authorization and in the adjudication of insured members'
claims by medical directors who are unqualified to render
determinations of coverage for PBT, including medical directors who
are not board certified in the requisite specialty. This particular
breach of fiduciary duty is the result of UnitedHealthcare's
systemic, institutional abdication of its duty to screen, conduct
background checks, review available public records through state
medical licensing boards, and conduct meaningful interviews of
qualified candidates before employing candidates as medical
directors who are charged with making life and death decisions for
members who are entirely reliant upon the Plan for timely access to
medically necessary services, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mala M. Rafik, Esq.
          ROSENFELD & RAFIK, P.C.
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 723-7470
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: mmr@rosenfeld.com

               - and -

          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
          E-mail: rcollins@callahan-law.com
                  deisenbrey@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net

UNITED STATES: Loses Immigrant Juvenile Status Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Siegelbaum, writing for Documented, reports that a New York
federal judge decided on March 15 that the Trump administration
broke the law by denying immigrants Special Immigrant Juvenile
Status. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl said only Congress and not
immigration authorities can deny the status, which can provide a
path to a green card, to immigrant adults under 21 years old.

Early last year, the administration began systematically denying
the status, which was created for children who were abused,
neglected or abandoned by a parent to obtain green cards. Latham &
Watkins and the Legal Aid Society filed a class action lawsuit
challenging the apparent policy change last June on behalf of a
plaintiff who had been beaten by relatives in Haiti. Another
plaintiff said they fled to the US from El Salvador after receiving
gang threats there.

On March 15, the judge instructed lawyers to begin implementing his
decision and granted class status to the plaintiffs. Legal Aid
lawyers estimated that 3,000 people were affected by the policy
change. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Loughlin, Huffman Made Court Appearances
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin made brief court
appearances on April 3 three weeks after they were charged along
with dozens of other wealthy parents in a nationwide college
admissions scandal.

Throngs of onlookers, including many self-proclaimed "Aunt Becky"
fans, waited outside the Moakley Courthouse in South Boston for the
stars to walk past.

The homage is a reference to Loughlin's role on "Full House" in the
early 1990s. Further fueling the case's Hollywood luster, the FBI
has dubbed the investigation "Operation Varsity Blues."

Loughlin, 54, and her 55-year-old husband, fashion designer Mossimo
Giannulli, are accused of paying $500,000 to get their daughters
scouted by the University of Southern California crew team.

The April 3 hearing also involved charges against Huffman, 56, of
"Desperate Housewives" fame. Huffman's husband, actor William H.
Macy, is not facing any charges but the actress is accused of
paying $15,000 to boost her oldest daughter's SAT score by having
another individual correct her work.

Three people charged in the case have already pleaded guilty,
including ringleader, William Rick Singer, who ran a college
admissions program called the Edge College & Career Network.

Prosecutors say the Edge College & Career Network offered ambitious
parents two options: one involved faking a learning disabilities to
get students more time when taking the SAT and ACT college-entrance
exams, and another involved bribing college coaches to designate
students as athletes so that they would face a lower academic
threshold for admission.

Along with Loughlin, Giannulli and Huffman, 10 other parents made
their first appearances in court this afternoon.

Each of the parents brought before the court on April 3 faces
charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The defendants made their initial appearances, but none were
arraigned, so none was required to enter a plea. They instead were
just required to affirm that they understood the charges they
faced.

Loughlin surrendered her passport in California, as per an order
from U.S. District Judge Page Kelley that the defendants not travel
internationally unless they must for business.

"In general, I am discouraging that," said Kelley. "Business travel
must be for a significant purpose."

Homayoun Zadeh, the chair USC's dental school, was the sole
defendant granted international travel.

Judge Kelley also reversed one of her previous orders by stating
that accused parents were now allowed to discuss the case with
their family, though she cautioned against discussing possible
obstruction charges with children who might get called to the
witness stand.

"I just don't think that's realistic, and I just don't think that's
good for parents to not be able to speak to their children without
counsel present," said Kelley.


US CORRECTIONS: White Seeks OT Pay for Extradition Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Corrections
LLC and South East Employee Leasing, Inc. for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) over the Defendants' failure to
compensate overtime, failure to maintain accurate and pay records
for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees. The
case is captioned DANA WHITE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. CORRECTIONS, LLC, US
CORRECTIONS, LLC and SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00390-LY (W.D. Tex., April 5, 2019).

US Corrections LLC is a fully licensed and fully insured armed
security service, providing a wide range of correctional and
security services to government agencies.

South East Personnel Leasing, Inc., founded in 1986, is
headquartered in the Tampa Bay area. The company provides payroll
and workers' compensation solutions to small and medium-sized
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


WALMART INC: Removes Van Buren Case to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walmart, Inc. removed the case, ROBERT VAN BUREN, for himself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Walmart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. C-02-CV-19-000472 (Filed
Feb. 13, 2019), from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on March 27, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00911-DKC to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the price
of sale-priced items purchased at Sam's Club in Maryland.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that when an item is on sale,
sales tax should be calculated based on the reduced price. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant calculated the sales tax
based on the original price (not the sales price) and thus
improperly represented the price to induce members to make a
purchase, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 230
          Annapolis, MD 21401

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
          1900 S. Norfolk Road, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403

               - and -

          Robert Persante, Esq.
          Darren M. Stotts, Esq.
          PersanteZuroweste, Esq.
          2555 Enterprise Road, Suite 15
          Clearwater, FL 33763-1118

Attorney for WalMart Inc.

          Dawn A. Ellison, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2101 L Street N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 331-3159
          Facsimile: (202) 261-4792
          E-mail: ellisond@gtlaw.com

WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap
---------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
gender discrimination lawsuit has landed at the House of Mouse, as
two female employees claim they receive far less pay than their
male co-workers at the Walt Disney Company and they are hoping to
have their case certified as a class action because they say the
problem is widespread.

Disney, the entertainment conglomerate, now includes a roster with
Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and most recently 20th Century
Fox, with a bevy of intellectual properties, tent-pole blockbuster
movie franchises and a group of 14 theme parks around the world.

LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore, both longtime Disney employees,
filed the equal pay complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on
April 2, claiming their salaries are tens of thousands of dollars
less than their male co-workers and management is aware of the pay
gap.

Rasmussen has worked for Disney more than 11 years and watched as
female employees were underpaid, passed over for promotions and
given extra work without just compensation, according to the
complaint.

Rasmussen, a product development manager, brought up the issue of
unfair gender inequality to Disney's human resources department in
2017 and after an audit the company gave her a raise, but said the
ongoing pay disparity within the company "was not due to gender."

At the time, her base salary was $109,958, much less than six other
men with the same job title. On average, Rasmussen's salary was
about $26,000 less.

According to the audit, the lowest-paid manager received $16,000
more, while the highest-paid received almost $40,000 more than her
salary. A recently hired male manager who had less experience than
Rasmussen received $20,000 more than her, according to the
complaint.

Two other female senior managers received equal pay raises around
the same time, which Rasmussen says illustrates that Disney
recognized a widespread pay disparity.

Meanwhile, Moore worked at Disney for 23 years and currently works
as a senior copyright administrator in the studio's music label.
Moore said she was discouraged from applying for a manager's
position, which was later filled by a man. Moore said she thinks he
is making more money than her but performing similar job duties.

The women allege the administrative body that decides initial pay,
raises and bonuses is centralized within a "highly-concentrated and
male-dominated management regime."

Along with a lack of transparency over employee compensation, the
women say this management regime determines an employee's growth
and future within the highly-structured company and that this goes
on to benefit men.

With each major decision affecting an employee, Disney's management
considers previous salaries before joining Disney.

"In doing so, Disney's hiring policies and practices perpetuated
gender discrimination, since women's salary history tends to
reflect lower pay than men's," the women say.

Rasmussen and Moore are represented by San Francisco-based attorney
Lori Andrus with Andrus Anderson.

In a statement, Disney said the allegations made in the complaint
are uninformed and baseless.

"Even before California's Fair Pay Act, Disney created a
specialized team of Compensation professionals and lawyers to
analyze and address the company's pay equity practices," the
company said, adding Rasmussen's and Moore's allegations will be
found baseless.


WAYFAIR INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP has filed a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Wayfair Inc. (NYSE: W) Class A common stock during
the period between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 (the "Class
Period").   

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Wayfair Class A common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation.  The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice.  An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.  If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than March 11, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.
If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, you can
[click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

The complaint charges Wayfair and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Wayfair is an online purveyor of household retail goods.  The
Company offers approximately 10 million products for the home
sector under various brands.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Wayfair's business and prospects, including
that Wayfair had been experiencing significantly diminished demand
for its online product offerings and had significantly increased
advertising spending to grow sales. As a result of defendants'
false statements and/or omissions, the price of Wayfair stock was
artificially inflated to more than $149 per share during the Class
Period.  Meanwhile, with the price of Wayfair common stock
artificially inflated, certain of its senior executives and
directors cashed in, selling more than $87.75 million worth of
their personally held shares.

Then, on November 1, 2018, before the open of trading, Wayfair
issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial
results. The Company reported a massive $151.7 million GAAP net
loss for the quarter, or $(1.69) per share, compared with a GAAP
loss of $76.4 million, or $(0.88) per share, for the third quarter
of 2017.  In reality, advertising expenses had skyrocketed in the
third quarter to more than $202.5 million, an increase of 43%.
Following this news, the price of Wayfair common stock declined,
falling more than $14 per share, or nearly 13%, to close at $96.16
per share on November 1, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period between August
2, 2018 and October 31, 2018. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO AUTO: Faces Harrington Suit over Debt Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Harrington, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., Civil Docket No. 19-996
(Mass. Cmmw., Cty. of Middlesex, April 8, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations in its illegal
efforts to collect consumer debts. Allegedly, Wells Fargo's
practice is to call Massachusetts consumers more than twice a week
to attempt to collect consumer debts. The complaint also asserts
that Wells Fargo placed more than two collection calls to
Harrington within a seven-day period in an attempt to collect a
debt. Accordingly, Harrington seeks to represent all consumers
similarly situated and seeks injunctive relief to end Wells Fargo's
illegal practice, declaratory relief to make Wells Fargo's
violations known to the class, actual and statutory damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. is a California business entity with
a principal address of 2501 Seaport Drive, Chester, Pennsylvania
19013. Founded in 1971, the company offers automobile financing. It
operates as a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Woodman's Food
Market, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL).
The case is captioned JESSE WYNGAARD on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET,
INC. 2631 Liberty Lane Janesville, Wisconsin 53545, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP (E.D. Wis., April 5, 2019). This complaint
asserts that the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate all current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt Store employees for all hours worked and
work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay.

Woodman's Food Market, Inc. is a privately owned grocery store
chain headquartered in Janesville, Wisconsin. It owns, operates,
and manages approximately thirteen 13 store locations in Wisconsin
and 4 store locations in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YUCCA VALLEY FORD CENTER: Faces Allen Labor Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Yucca Valley Ford Center, Inc. for its alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code. The case is captioned SAMUEL ALLEN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. YUCCA
VALLEY FORD CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12118 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019).

Plaintiff says the action stems from Defendants' failure to pay
minimum and straight time 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, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Yucca Valley Ford Center, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. It is a
Ford car dealer that also offers automobile financing, repair, and
maintenance. It also sells a variety of car parts and accessories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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