CAR_Public/190423.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 23, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 81

                            Headlines

3M CO: San Antonio Likely Venue of Veterans' Earplugs Class Suits
A PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Pay for Clinicians
A. CARDENAS LABOR: Underpays Farm Employees, Gomez Suit Claims
ABBVIE INC: Union Files Class Action Over Biosimilar Collusion
ACUTECARE HEALTH: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices

AFL: John Barnes Joins Concussion Class Action
ALDER HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Roper Suit Claims
ALL ABOUT PARKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phan Suit Alleges
ALL TEMPORARIES: Vongkhamchanh FLSA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter

AMERICAN RENAL: Vandevar Says Financial Report Misleading
AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Locksmiths, Chatfield et al. Say
AMERICAN WEB: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss Solomon's RICO Suit
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Court Grants Certification of Settlement Class
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Securities Fraud Claim v. Ex-VP Dismissed

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Suit Dismissal
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
B23 LLC: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ponciano Suit Alleges
BERKELEY NURSING: Jones Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Judge Tosses $5MM Class Action

BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Manko Gold Discusses Class Action Dismissal
BIG HEART: Removes Roper Suit to Eastern District of California
BIG HEART: Roper Case Moved to Eastern District of California
BOEING COMPANY: Misled Investors over Aircraft Safety, Seeks Says
BRIGHTON HALL: 201 Investors Receive $1.5MM in Claims

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Belcarra Residents Mull Suit Over Speculation Tax
BROEDELL PLUMBING: Nunez Seeks Overtime Pay
BUNZL PROCESSOR: Rivera Suit Removed to C.D. California
CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Morales Remanded to Superior Court
CANADA: Day School Settlement Process Won't Challenge Survivors

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Raymond Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sims Suit Removed to C.D. California
CARLE PLACE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Hernandez Suit Alleges
CBS INTERACTIVE: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Suris Says
CHARLES SCHWAB: Investors File Class Action Over Client Trades

CHECKR INC: Pays Out $4.4MM in Damages in Class Action Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Penn. AG Gets Favorable Ruling in Royalty Case
CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Suit Alleges
CLOUD 9 SMOKE: Freeman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice

CLUBHOUSE DINER: Viscomi et al. Seek Final Class Certification
COMEX FOOD: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip-Pooling
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Bid to Remand Adame to State Court Denied
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
COSTA DEL MAR: Sued Over False and Deceptive Business Practices

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Order in Smith Suit Affirmed
CREE INC: Wedra Suit Alleges False Labeling and Advertising
CVS HEALTH: R. Hyams Can File 2nd Amended Labor Suit
DATA ENTERPRISES: Neb. App. Affirms Keith Dismissal With Prejudice
DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: McCray Seeks to Certify Class

DELAMOR ENTERPRISES: Wilmott Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Workers
DELUXE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mansapit Claims
DO & CO: Kissoon Sues over Illegal & Improper Wage Practices
DUNDRUM LLC: Adsit FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
DUPLIN COUNTY: Lang Seeks Conditional Class Certification

EDWARD D. JONES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Bland Suit
ENVIROPLUS INC: Chavez Seeks Approval of Class Notice
EPOCH LLC: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
FACEBOOK INC: Fights Cambridge Analytica Consumer Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Civil Rights Suits Over Ad Discrimination

FIAT CHRYSLER: Crump Seeks Damages Over Vehicle Recall
FIELD MUSEUM: Conner Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Sullen Suit over Unpaid Overtime
FORMULA 5: Shanahan Sues over Telemarketing Calls
FORWARD AIR: Removes Ibarra Suit to Northern District of Illinois

FOUR SISTERS INNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzalez Alleges
GENESCO INC: Court Orders Further Briefing in Dias Labor Suit
GOPRO INC: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
GRAND CAMPUS: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Weiss Suit Denied as Premature
HENDERSON KITCHEN: Court Certifies Non-Managerial Employees Class

HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camp et al. Allege
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Avant Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
HOWARD SCHULTZ: Sent Spam Text over Book Tour, Vallianos Claims
ICOT HEARING: Roberts Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
ILS PRODUCTS: Removes ILS Products Suit to C.D. California

IMKO WORKFORCE: Faces Foster Suit in Sacramento California
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Granted Creditor Protection Following Ruling
INSTALLATION INC: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay
JACKSON HEWITT: Robinson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
JOHNS MANVILLE: Retina et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Narrows Claims in E. Miszczyszyn's Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LAKES VENTURE: Marcum Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees
LEXMARK INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Firefighters Suit Denied
LM WIND: Sanford Law Named Class Counsel in Bobo Labor Suit

LOUISIANA HEALTH: Sued over Inflated Prescription Drugs Costs
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action Suit
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
MAIN STREET: Weisberg Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kahn Swick Continues to Probe Officers

MASSAGE THERAPY BOARDS: Sued over Licensing Exam Rules
MAXIM LLC: LaRosa Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
MDL 2391: JPML Remands 20 Actions in Biomet M2A Magnum Suit
MDL 2437: $5.3M Attys' Fees/Costs Awarded in Drywall Antitrust Suit
MDL 2591: Allocation of CLC's Portion of Attys' Fees Awards Okayed

MIDLAND CREDIT: Hibert Files TCPA Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
MIDLAND FUNDING: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
MIMEDX GROUP: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Counsel in Gordon
MINNESOTA: Inmates Can Access Hepatitis C Drugs Under Settlement
MURPHY OIL: Judge Approves Sale Tax Class Action Settlement

NAT'L ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Class Action May Shake Up Industry
NESTLE USA: Sanford Law Named Class Counsel in Barrett Wage Suit
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Workers Drop Lawsuit Over Mass Layoff Notice
NEW HAMPSHIRE BALL: Luna Seeks to Certify Subclasses
NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Corporate Tax Refund Interest, Suit Claims

NEW YORK: Settles Workers' Race, Gender Bias Class Action
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Removes Lopez Labor Case to C.D. California
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Class in Buffkin Prisoners Suit
NVR INC: Smiths Seek to Certify Class Action
NY TRANSIT: Lacks Accommodations for Pregnant Workers, Young Says

OREGON: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in Jenkins Suit
PALMCO ADMINISTRATION: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
PARKING REIT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Nevada
PBG DELIVERY: Court Approves FLSA Settlement Agreement
PELLA CORP: Judge Approves $35MM Windows Class Action Settlement

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Judge Tosses L. Gomes's FDCPA Class Action
PRESS BUILDERS: Core Scaffolding Seeks Payment of Unpaid Invoices
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Plumb Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Webb Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RED LOBSTER: Faces Mullen Jr. ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

REED SMITH: 2d Cir. Affirms Injunction of State-Court Action
REGENCY HEALTHCARE: Zou Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
REGIONS BANK: Removes Estate of Tolliver Case to N.D. Alabama
REPUBLIC FIRST BANCORP: Shareholders Vote Invalid, Traher Says
RITE AID: Illegally Takes Donations from Consumers, Martinez Says

S & P MINI MARKET: Medina Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Deli Staff
SAN DIEGO, CA: Paradis' Role in DWP Litigation Sparks Controversy
SHELTER CLEAN: Underpays Drivers, Zapata Suit Alleges
SICHUAN PEPPER: Wei et al. Seek Overtime and Minimum Pay
SNOW & SAUERTEIG: Mafera Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana

SPARE, C.S.: Sarah Rich Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
STAMPS.COM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
STAMPS.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
STAMPS.COM INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
STAMPS.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Actions Lawsuit

STAMPS.COM INC: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
STATE FARM: Faces ERISA Class Action in Illinois
STATE FARM: Goodwin Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
STEINHOFF: Ex-Chair Open to Negotiations Over $4-Bil. Claim
SURPLUS DIABETICS: Sandusky Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages

SYNEOS HEALTH: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TEMPOE LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rule Suit Claims
TIGER LINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Khan Suit Alleges
TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas Files Wage-and-Hour Suit

TIMM MEDICAL: Geismann Seeks to Certify Class Action
TMX FINANCE: Can Compel Arbitration in J. Hanson's TCPA Suit
TOOTSIE ROLL: Court Dismisses P. Stemm's Suit Without Prejudice
TOUCHTUNES MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Refuses to Increase Attorneys Fees
TRAVEL NURSE: K. Call Can File 1st Amended Labor Suit

TRUEACCORD CORP: Leslie FDCPA Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
U.S. EXPRESS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit in Tennessee
UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Privacy Remanded to Ill. State Court
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
UNITED STAFFING: Faces Ramirez Suit in Sacramento

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit over Ultra Vires Collection Actions
UNITED STATES: May Detain Criminal Immigrations Without Hearing
UNITED STATES: Miller Thomson Discusses SSA Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Dismissal of Julian Suit Affirmed
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Accuses of Covering Up Tyndall Complaints

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Blocks Students Linked to Admissions Scam
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Bribery Class Suit Presents Novel Theory
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tulane Student Joins Admissions Case
VERDE ENERGY: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit
VMSB, LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Cooks

WELLS FARGO: Removes Labor Case to Eastern District of California
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Court Partly Certifies Class in Famular Suit
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Sandoval Suit Removed to S.D. New York
WINGMEN V. LLC: Underpays Managers, McDonald Suit Alleges
YOUNGEVITY INT'L: Canary TCPA Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend

ZILLOW GROUP: Underpays Business Consultants, Correa Suit Claims
ZULFIKAR VANAZARA: Naqvi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
[*] Common Fund Orders in Australian Class Actions Permitted
[*] Expert Testimony Plays Critical Role in Class Actions
[*] Manatt Attorneys Discuss Rule 23 Class Action Amendments

[*] New Zealand Legal Experts Call for Class Action Law Reform
[*] Total Securities Class Action Settlement Value Rises to $5-Bil.

                            *********

3M CO: San Antonio Likely Venue of Veterans' Earplugs Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrigan Miller and Kristen Mosbrucker, writing for San Antonio
Business Journal, report that the ultimate venue for dozens of
class action lawsuits filed by military veterans against Minnesota
manufacturing giant 3M Co. alleging hearing damage related to
defective earplugs while serving may end up in San Antonio.

Attorneys for military members in Bexar County, most of whom are
retired commanders, captains and colonels, filed a lawsuit against
3M (NYSE:MMM) on March 8 seeking damages that include back pay and
medical expenses after experiencing hearing loss, in addition to
physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and other punitive
damages.

In July 2018, 3M agreed to a settlement with the federal government
for $9.1 million related to its Combat Arms earplugs, which were
issued to military members from 2002 to 2013. The company admitted
to no wrongdoing as part of the federal settlement.

The original manufacturer of the earplugs, which plaintiffs claim
were too short to be effective on the battlefield, was Aearo
Technologies Inc. -- a company 3M acquired in 2008. The companies
withheld information about the effectiveness of the earplugs,
according to the allegations by the Department of Justice, which
invoked enforcement under the False Claims Act. The whistleblower
in the case was awarded $1.9 million.

3M denies that its products were faulty, according to a statement
to the Business Journal.

"3M has great respect for the brave men and women who protect us
around the world, and their safety is our priority. We have a long
history of partnering with the U.S. military, and we continue to
make products to help protect our troops and support their
missions," according to the statement. "We deny this product was
defectively designed and will defend against the allegations in
these lawsuits through the legal process."

Individual military members nationwide are seeking reimbursement
from the manufacturer. Plaintiffs claim that Aearo knew the
earplugs were defective as early as 2000. 3M discontinued the
earplugs in 2015.

Bexar County resident and U.S. Army veteran Joe Contreras, who
served from 2000 to 2014, used the 3M earplugs while training at
Fort Hood and while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to
the lawsuit. Contreras now has tinnitus, or constant ringing in the
ears, and uses hearing aids, according to the lawsuit.

There are roughly 262,700 veterans in Texas who served in the
military during the time frame of the class action lawsuit.

"We think that Military City USA is the proper venue for this
case," said TJ Mayes, a spokesman for San Antonio law firm Phipps
Deacon Purnell PLLC. "We believe there are hundreds of thousands if
not millions of service members who may have a claim. We believe
the conduct was pretty egregious. They deliberately withheld
information from the Pentagon."

The following attorneys are representing plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit filed in Bexar County led by Martin Phipps of Phipps
Deacon Purnell, in addition to Justin Rodriguez.

   -- Retired U.S. Army Col. Julie Hasdorff of Hasdorff & Convery
PC

   -- Retired Maj. Gen. Patrick Boone, who served in the Texas Air
National Guard, of Boone, Rocheleau & Rodriguez PLLC

   -- Retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Keith Gould with The Gould Law Firm

   -- Retired Capt. Ted Lee, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps
Reserves

   -- Retired U.S. Army 1st Lt. Rolando Rios of the Law offices of
Rolando Rios

   -- Retired U.S. Air Force Capt. Freddy Ruiz, attorney at law

The Western District of Texas includes Joint Base San Antonio and
Fort Hood in its jurisdiction. There are similar lawsuits pending
in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Utah, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The 3M's stock was trading at about $207 per share midafternoon on
March 13, down from its 52-week peak of $237 per share in mid-March
2018. [GN]


A PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Pay for Clinicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
A Personal Touch Home Care Services, LLC for violations of
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is captioned LATOSHA SHORT-JONES, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. A PERSONAL TOUCH HOME
CARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-CB (W.D. Pa.,
April 9, 2019).

Latosha Short-Jones alleges that Personal Touch failed to properly
pay overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of
Pennsylvania and federal law.  For at least three years preceding
the filing of this action, Personal Touch has maintained a
corporate policy of paying its registered nurses, physical
therapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists
and home health aids in its home health division, collectively
called clinicians, pursuant to a compensation method which includes
hourly payments. Personal Touch pays clinicians at an hourly rate
for some of their work, including, but not limited to, time spent
in case conferences, staff meetings, trainings and
recertifications. Personal Touch compensates clinicians for hours
worked but it did not compensate Short-Jones for all overtime wages
earned. Accordingly, Personal Touch is liable for its failure to
pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class for all hours
worked and time and one-half for hours in excess of 80 of their
bi-weekly work week at their regular rate. Short-Jones asserts that
she and the putative class who are or were Pennsylvania employees
are entitled to overtime wages of one and one-half times the
regular hourly rate, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to Pennsylvania and federal law.

Headquartered at 2203 Wylie Avenue, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania 15219, Personal Touch provides home health care
services in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
     ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     707 Grant Street
     Suite 2500
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
     Telephone: 412-281-7229
     Facsimile: 412-281-4229
     E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

        - and -

     Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: 215-592-1500
     Facsimile: 215-592-4663

        - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
     Washington, D.C. 20002
     Telephone: 202-470-3520
     Facsimile: 202-800-2730


A. CARDENAS LABOR: Underpays Farm Employees, Gomez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA ORTEGA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A. CARDENAS LABOR CONTRACTING,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19 CECG01007
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., March 19, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime compensation, damages,
attorneys' fees and cost.

The Plaintiff Gomez was employed by the Defendants as farm
employee.

A. Cardenas Labor Contracting, Inc. is engaged in the agriculture
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney B. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


ABBVIE INC: Union Files Class Action Over Biosimilar Collusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Davio, writing for The Center for Biosimilars, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed by United Food and Commercial
Workers Local 1500 (UFCW Local 1500) against AbbVie for alleged use
of a patent thicket to maintain a monopoly for its brand-name
adalimumab, Humira. The complaint also alleges that AbbVie and a
number of its biosimilar competitors colluded to divide the market
for adalimumab between Europe and the United States.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of UFCW Local 1500, the largest
grocery-worker union in New York State, and filed in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claims that
UFCW Local 1500's membership and others who are similarly situated
paid artificially high prices for brand-name Humira, and that they
were deprived of the benefits of early, robust competition from
biosimilars as a result of wrongful conduct.

The complaint alleges that AbbVie's patent estate for Humira is
"designed solely to insulate Humira from any biosimilar competition
in the US for years to come," and that the company secured patents,
many of them overlapping and noninventive, in advance of the expiry
of its primary patent in 2016 as a means by which to ensure that
protracted litigation would prevent a US biosimilar launch.

The suit also alleges that AbbVie entered into illegal
market-division agreements with biosimilar developers Amgen,
Samsung Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, and
Momenta, all of whom are named as codefendants in the suit. Each of
the biosimilar developers named has entered into its own settlement
with AbbVie that does not allow for US marketing of a biosimilar
adalimumab product prior to 2023, though the biosimilar developers'
products were eligible to be launched as early as October 2018 in
the European market. According to the suit, "AbbVie has cooked up a
monopoly scheme that has US patients paying higher monopoly prices
while patients in Europe benefit from competition."

Gregory Asciolla, cochair of the antitrust and competition
litigation practice at Labaton Sucharow, which is representing UFCW
Local 1500 in the suit, said in a statement that "AbbVie has used
its patents as leverage with the other drug manufacturers to delay
their entry into the US market. With this lawsuit, AbbVie will have
to open the doors to competition and compensate those who have paid
exorbitant prices for their medication. AbbVie's unlawful scheme to
keep out biosimilar competition has cost the healthcare system
billions of dollars."

In an email to The Center for Biosimilars(R), a representative of
Pfizer said the company "stands by the lawfulness of its patent
settlement with AbbVie, which will allow Pfizer's lower cost
alternative adalimumab biosimilar to enter well before expiration
of the patents AbbVie asserted against Pfizer, thereby offering
patients expanded access sooner. We believe the lawsuit is without
merit and that there are multiple grounds supporting dismissal of
the plaintiffs' claims."

The lawsuit's filing comes amid renewed questions about AbbVie's
use of its patents in the US context. In a February 2019 hearing
before the US Senate Committee on Finance, AbbVie's chief executive
officer, Richard Gonzalez, faced questions from lawmakers about
AbbVie's intellectual property strategy related to Humira, and
responded that AbbVie's portfolio of patents evolved as the company
discovered Humira's applications in various disease states. Given
its broad range of therapeutic applications, "Humira is like 9
different drugs," he said.

Gonzalez also called the settlements struck with  biosimilar
developers a "reasonable balance" that will allow for market entry
after patents on adalimumab expire. "We don't block any biosimilars
. . . We've given license to every biosimilar player but 1,"
Gonzalez told senators. [GN]


ACUTECARE HEALTH: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMA VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02511-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March
21, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Alison J.
Nathan.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFL: John Barnes Joins Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Chloe Hart, writing for ABC, reports that John Barnes suffers from
crippling memory loss, mood swings and epilepsy -- symptoms that he
believes are a direct result of head knocks during an Australian
Football League career spanning 15 seasons.

"It's terrible. I can't shower or bath on my own, I can't cook, I
can't drive a car, I can't be left alone. I have to be watched
pretty much 24/7 -- all the things people take for granted I just
can't do," said the 49-year-old retired ruckman.

Barnes, who played 202 matches for Geelong and Essendon, said he
was a shell of his former self and found himself dazed and confused
after unexplained outbursts of rage.

"My temper's pretty short at the moment. The things I find myself
doing, I don't really know why I am doing them to be honest. It's
terrible . . . and gets worse by the day," Barnes said.

Barnes is heading a planned class action against the AFL that he
says more than 100 footballers have joined.

"At the moment what they [the AFL] are doing is not working. How
they've been able to get away with that for so long is what we are
about -- hockey and cricket offer workers' compensation," he said.

His medications alone cost hundreds of dollars a month and he had
to give up his job driving a garbage truck, which he said he
enjoyed.

"Jobs are hard to get once they find out you're epileptic -- they
don't want to know you," Barnes said.

"Compensation for things like that, you look at quality of life,
which everyone else has got, which I haven't got."

Barnes said the AFL had its head in the sand on the issue and he
was happy to take the organisation to court.

"It's getting pretty close to the numbers that we want; it could be
happening pretty quickly, could be four weeks' time to lodge it --
we are ready to go," Barnes said.

Some current sportsmen believed concussions were simply part and
parcel of playing a contact sport.

"It's my life, I'll do what I want to -- well within certain bounds
-- but what's the alternative? I kinda like what I am doing. [The]
consequence of that sometimes is you get hit on the head," said NRL
prop James Graham, who plays for the St George Illawarra Dragons.

Neuroscientist calls for more action from all football codes
Neuroscientist Alan Pearce said he was not surprised former
footballers were presenting with epilepsy.

"There's evidence to show the risk of a number of different
conditions including epilepsy can occur as a result of a history of
head trauma and concussions," said Dr Pearce, an associate
professor at La Trobe University.

Dr Pearce said many athletes and former athletes came to his
research laboratory showing signs of epilepsy.

"Repeated concussions or even repeated sub-concussive hits can
manifest itself over decades -- someone who you wouldn't think
would get epilepsy or seizures then starts to show uncharacteristic
signs of brain seizures," he said.

Dr Pearce said he backed calls for more action on the issue from
all sporting codes.

Dr Pearce said longer rest periods should be introduced, and
cultural change was needed.

"We need to change the culture so people are not going to say, 'I
am fine, I need to go back and play, I don't want to let my team
mates down' -- to allow them to have healthy playing careers as
well as quality of life after they retire," he said. [GN]


ALDER HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Roper Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01222-MLB (N.D. Ga., March 18, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Alder Holdings, LLC is a company doing business in Orem, Utah.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          3315 Charleston Court
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Telephone: (404) 725-5697
          Facsimile: (775) 320-3698
          E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ALL ABOUT PARKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phan Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SON PHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL ABOUT PARKING INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV345042 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., March 22, 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 Phan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.

All About Parking Inc. provides parking management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL TEMPORARIES: Vongkhamchanh FLSA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice the case, Ariene
Vongkhamchanh, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. All Temporaries Midwest, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-00976-KMM (D. Minn.).

A final settlement was reached in the class action litigation and
the Court granted its final approval of the settlement on April 27,
2018.  In the April 27 Order, the Court anticipated that the
parties would file a stipulation of dismissal sometime in 2021,
after all settlement checks were distributed.  However, the Court
now believes that it is a better and more efficient use of judicial
resources to close the case but retain jurisdiction over it should
problems in effectuating the settlement arise.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the case with
prejudice.  The Court retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction
over the litigation for the purposes of supervising, implementing,
interpreting, and enforcing the April 27, 2018 Order and Settlement
Agreement until April 27, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 22, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eeq4er from Leagle.com.

Ariene Vongkhamchanh, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Michele
R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Philip Bohrer
-- phil@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady, LLC, pro hac vice & Scott
Earl Brady -- scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady, LLC, pro hac
vice.

All Temporaries Midwest, Inc., Defendant, pro se.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Echeverria, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP and LVNV
Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00283-A (N.D. Tex.,
April 4, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The complaint asserts that the Defendants used false, deceptive or
misleading representations or means in the collection of a
$2,158.15 alleged credit card debt from Credit One Bank N.A. when
they provided false, deceptive or misleading settlement savings
percentages.  The Letter, dated March 27, 2019, offered the
Plaintiff three settlement opportunities of 60% off, 55% off and
45%.

Plaintiff suffered an informational injury from the Defendants'
actions, says the complaint.

Defendant Alltran is a collection agency headquartered at 5800 N
Course Dr, Houston, TX 77072.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
     SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
     6136 Frisco Square Blvd, Suite 400
     Frisco, TX 75034
     Phone: (214) 210-9910
     Fax: (214) 594-6100
     Email: Shawn@jafflaw.com


AMERICAN RENAL: Vandevar Says Financial Report Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALI VANDEVAR, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES
HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH A. CARLUCCI, JASON M. BOUCHER, and JONATHAN
L. WILCOX, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09074 (D.N.J., March
28, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
American Renal between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, both
dates inclusive.

On August 9, 2016, American Renal filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2016 with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which provided the Company's second quarter 2016 financial results
and position. The Report was signed by Wilcox. The Report also
contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 by Carlucci and Wilcox attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) issues
with American Renal's accounting process for revenue recognition,
collections, and related matters would give rise to an SEC
investigation into the same, and increased regulatory scrutiny by
the SEC; (2) American Renal's financial statements for the fiscal
years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports for
the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed
consolidated financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016
through 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (3) American
Renal had material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, the awsuit says.

On November 9, 2018, American Renal filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC
in which the Company disclosed that in October 2018, SEC staff
"requested that the Company voluntarily provide documents and
information relating to certain revenue recognition, collections
and related matters." On this news, shares of American Renal fell
$0.74 per share or over 4% to close at $10.46 per share the next
trading day, November 12, 2018.

On March 8, 2019, before the market opened, American Renal filed a
Form NT 10-K with the SEC, announcing it would delay the filing of
its earnings report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 as
it continues to examine reserve computations and other accounting
practices that may have an impact on the company's accounts
receivable and revenue for 2018, as well as previously reported
fiscal years ranging from 2014 through 2017. According the American
Renal, this followed the SEC's October 2018 request for documents
concerning American Renal's revenue recognition, collections, and
other related matters. On this news, shares of American Renal fell
$3.69 per share or 38% to close at $6.01 per share on March 28,
2019, damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

American Renal operates a dialysis services provider in the United
States. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and has locations
in New Jersey. American Renal's common stock is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ARA".[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Locksmiths, Chatfield et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO CHATFIELD; and LORENZO PATTERSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN
SECURITY GROUP A-1, INC. d/b/a A-1 LOCK & KEY; and MICHAEL NETTLES,
Defendants, Case No. 86604269 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., March
19, 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 Defendants as field
locksmiths.

American Security Group A-1, Inc. d/b/a A-1 Lock & Key line of
business includes specialized repair services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
          JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
          169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 441-8909
          Facsimile: (786) 523-0610


AMERICAN WEB: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss Solomon's RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROYCE SOLOMON, et al., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WEB LOAN et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:17cv145 (E.D. Va.), Judge Henry
Coke Morgan, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, denied AWL Defendants'
and Defendants Curry and Sol's (i) Motions to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (ii) Motions to Transfer; and (iii)
Motions to Compel Arbitration.

The Plaintiffs are four individuals who obtained loans from
American Web Loan.  They allege that Defendant Mark Curry, with the
assistance of Defendants American Web Loan, Inc. AWL, Inc.,
MacFarlane Group, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corp., Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP,
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Middlemarch Partners, Inc., DHI Computing
Service, Inc., doing business as GOLDPoint, Sol Partners, Inc., and
John Doe Defendants (1-100), have pleaded the sovereignty of the
Otoe-Missouria Indian Tribe as a defense to allegedly imposing
usurious interest rates on short-term loans issued to individuals
throughout the United States.

Altogether, the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges nine different causes
of action against the various Defendants.  In Count One, the
Plaintiffs allege that AWL, Curry, Sol, Medley and the Taubes
engaged in the collection of unlawful debt in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  In
Count Two, they allege that the AWL, Curry, Sol, the Medley
Defendants (which includes the Taubes), GOLDPoint, and Middlemarch
engaged in a RICO conspiracy.  In Count Three, Plaintiffs allege
the that the AWL Defendants, Curry, Sol, Medley, and GOLDPoint
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  In Counts Four through
Eight, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant AWL, Inc. committed
several violations of the Truth in Lending Act.  In Count Nine, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have been unjustly enriched
by their continued possession of funds illegally taken from the
Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

The Plaintiffs define the putative class of the Plaintiffs as all
persons who took out loans from American Web Loan.  Included in the
Class are any persons who took out loans through the American Web
Loan, doing business as entity known as Clear Creek Lending.  The
Class period begins on Feb. 10, 2010 and continues through the
present.

The Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint on Dec. 15, 2017.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 9, 2018.  On April 9, 2018,
the following motions were filed: (1) Medley Defendants and the
Taubes' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Failure
to Join a Necessary Party; (2) Medley Defendants and the Taubes'
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper
Venue; (3) AWL Defendants' Motion to Transfer; (4) AWL Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (5) AWL
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration; (6) AWL Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; (7) Middlemarch's
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; (8) GOLDPoint's
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; (9) Defendants
Curry and Sol's Motion to Transfer Case; (10) Defendants Curry and
Sol's Motion to Compel Arbitration; (11) Defendant Curry's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (12) Defendant
Sol's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction;
and (13) Defendants Curry and Sol's Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim.

These motions arise out of complicated lending scheme that appears
to weave tribal immunity, forced arbitration, and several layers of
corporate entities together in an attempt to avoid liability for
allegedly usurious interest rates.  The Court granted the parties
additional time to complete extensive jurisdictional discovery.

On Feb. 5 and 6, 2019, the Court held a lengthy hearing to hear
evidence and arguments concerning the various jurisdictional and
related motions filed by the Defendants.  

In the Opinion and Order I, Judge Morgan addressed the following:
(1) Defendants American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., and MacFarlane's
(AWL Defendants' or AWL's) joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (2) Defendant Curry's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (3) Defendant Sol
Partners' (Defendant Sol's) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction; (4) AWL Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue;
(5) Defendants Curry and Sol's Motion to Transfer Case; (6) AWL
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration; and (7) Defendants Curry
and Sol's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The Judge denied these motions.  He finds that at its core, the
case involves a lending scheme envisioned by Mark Curry, whereby he
and his corporate entities attempt to use the sovereign immunity of
the Otoe-Missouria Indian Tribe to evade the lawsuit.  Mindful of
the strong federal policy favoring tribal immunity,
self-governance, and a safe treasury, the Court cannot accept his
arguments.  The Plaintiffs have produced enough evidence to show
that Curry shifted all of the risk of his scheme to the Tribe and
kept the lion's share of the revenue for himself, through a scheme
that infringed upon the Tribe's self-governance and placed the
Tribe's treasury at risk.  In other words, the Plaintiffs have made
a sufficient showing that Curry was acting for himself, not for the
Tribe.

He concludes that the evidence presented shows that instead of
acting as an "arm of the tribe," Curry and his entities were merely
paying a contingent royalty to use the Tribe's immunity.  The
degree of control that Curry wielded over the scheme demonstrates
that this was truly his scheme, rather than one controlled by the
Tribe.  While the Tribe was required to waive its immunity as to
Curry, Curry seeks to use this immunity against the Plaintiffs.
Such intentional avoidance of federal and state law is not a
legitimate use of tribal immunity.  Any argument by the Defendants
that they are otherwise entitled to tribal immunity is without
merit.  The Clerk is requested to send a copy of the Order to all
the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Opinion and Order 1
is available at https://is.gd/PXsyPW from Leagle.com.

Royce Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Jodi Belleci, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Michael Littlejohn, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Giulianna Lomaglio, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kathleen Mary Donovan-Maher, Berman Tabacco, pro hac
vice, Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates, Matthew Bernard Byrne, Gravel &
Shea PC, pro hac vice, Steven Joseph Buttacavoli, Berman Tabacco,
pro hac vice, Steven Lev Groopman, Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice,
David W. Thomas -- dthomas@michiehamlett.com -- MichieHamlett,
Justin Nader Saif, Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice, Norman Berman,
Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice, Patrick T. Egan --
pegan@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice & Stephen
Ryan, Jr. -- sryan@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, pro hac
vice.

American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc. & MacFarlane Group, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Charles Kalman Seyfarth --
cseyfarth@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Daniel Volchok --
DANIEL.VOLCHOK@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Scott Turner --
eturner@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Jonathan Paikin,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Molly
Jennings, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert Allen Rosette, Rosette, LLP, pro hac vice, Saba Bazzazieh --
sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com -- Rosette LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas L.
Strickland -- THOMAS.STRICKLAND@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice.

Mark Curry & Sol Partners, Defendants, represented by Rachel
Shanahan Rodman, Williams & Connolly LLP, Robert Madison Cary --
rcary@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Kathryn Elizabeth Hoover,
Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice & Simon Andrew Latcovich --
slatcovich@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP.

Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corp.,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube & Seth
Taube, Defendants, represented by Christopher E. Ondeck, Proskauer
Rose LLP, Michael Richard Hackett, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac
vice, Timothy William Mungovan, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice &
William David Dalsen, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice.

DHI Computing Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Harold
Edward Johnson, Williams Mullen, Analise Quinn Wilson, Kirton
McConkie, pro hac vice, Benson Lewis Hathaway, Jr., Kirton
McConkie, pro hac vice & Ryan R. Beckstrom, Kirton McConkie, pro
hac vice.

Middlemarch Partners, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Lockerby
-- mlockerby@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, James B. Daniels --
jdaniels@buddlarner.com -- Budd Larner PC, pro hac vice &
Randi-Lynn Smallheer, Budd Larner PC, pro hac vice.

Middlemarch Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Lockerby, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Red Stone, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Charles Kalman
Seyfarth, O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Daniel Volchok, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Scott Turner ,
O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Jonathan E. Palkin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Molly Jennings, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Allen Rosette,
Rosette, LLP, pro hac vice, Saba Bazzazieh, Rosette LLP, pro hac
vice & Thomas L. Strickland, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Corona, as individuals and as representatives of the
classes, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth W. Hanes,
Consumer Litigation Associates, Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer
Litigation Associates, Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Beth
Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac
vice, Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC & Matthew William
Wessler, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice.

Native American Financial Services Association, Amicus, represented
by Frances Bishop Morris -- ftb@vnf.com -- Van Ness Feldman LLP.

Otoe-Missouria Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Commission,
Amicus, represented by William Rueger Poynter --
wpoynter@kaleolegal.com -- Kaleo Legal.


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Court Grants Certification of Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RONALD A. CUP, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated; and UNITED STEEL, PAPER
AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL, AND
SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, the Plaintiffs, v.
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, AKERS NATIONAL ROLL COMPANY, and
AKERS NATIONAL ROLL COMPANY HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00189-AJS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Arthur J. Schwab entere an order March 28, 2019:

   1. granting certification of Settlement Class:

      "Former employees of the Company or its predecessors at its
      manufacturing facility in Avonmore, Pennsylvania who: (I)
      retired before March I, 2015, (2) were represented by the USW

      at the time of retirement, and (3) were eligible for health
      care benefits from the Company as of January 1, 2017 (because

      they were not yet Medicare eligible); as well as the spouses

      or surviving spouses of former employees of the Company or
      its predecessors at its manufacturing facility in Avonmore,
      Pennsylvania who: (1) retired before March 1, 2015 and (2)
      were represented by the USW at the time of retirement; where

      such spouses or surviving spouse were eligible for health
      care benefits from the Company as of January 1, 2017 (because

      they were not yet Medicare eligible)";

   2. appointing Ronald A. Cup to represent the Settlement Class;

   3. appointing Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, as Class
       Counsel; and

   4. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement subject to
      notice and a fairness hearing. The Court preliminarily finds

      that the Settlement is capable of being finally approved
      under the Third Circuit's factors guiding the approval of
      class action settlements.[CC]

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Securities Fraud Claim v. Ex-VP Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
Weil secured the dismissal, with prejudice and without leave to
amend, of a securities fraud claim brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation's former vice president of Environment, Health and
Safety (EHS).

The claim was one of several brought under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10-b by an Anadarko stockholder against the
company and three of its senior executives. Weil represented the
former VP of EHS, while Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
represented Anadarko and the other two individual defendants.

The plaintiff attempted to base its lawsuit upon a fatal explosion
of a home near an Anadarko well in Firestone, Colorado, in April
2017. On April 26, 2017, Anadarko announced that one of its wells
might have been involved in the explosion, and on May 2, 2017, the
Firestone-Frederick Fire Department reported a link between the
Anadarko well and the explosion. Anadarko's stock price dropped
following each disclosure.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' purported
misrepresentations concerning Anadarko's safety and regulatory
compliance practices had artificially inflated Anadarko stock
prices and that, when news of an Anadarko well's link to the
Firestone explosion broke, stock prices dropped and investors
suffered losses. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the
former VP of EHS had signed his name to an annual "Health, Safety,
Environment and Sustainability Overview" that contained the
statement, "Anadarko operates its global onshore and offshore
operations in compliance with the applicable laws and associated
regulations." The plaintiff further alleged that the statement was
false because Anadarko was violating various Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission rules through certain of its operations in
central Colorado. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the former VP
of EHS "knew" that the statement was false because he had access to
documents and information suggesting that there were "issues" or
"problems" associated with these operations.

In a 37-page memorandum and opinion granting the defendants'
motions to dismiss (issued after oral argument on March 1, 2019),
Chief United States District Judge Lee Rosenthal agreed with Weil's
argument that the plaintiff's complaint failed to plead scienter as
to the former VP of EHS because, among other things, the plaintiff
had failed to adequately allege (1) that the former VP of EHS had
any motive to commit fraud beyond the generic and universally
shared motive – not credited by the Fifth Circuit – that the
company wanted to "raise capital in the normal course of business";
(2) that the former VP of EHS personally benefited from any
purported misrepresentation; (3) that the former VP of EHS either
knew of or recklessly disregarded any purported violation of
Colorado oil and gas operations regulations; or (4) that the former
VP of EHS -- responsible for overseeing Anadarko's global EHS
initiatives and not for implementing local oil and gas operations
regulations -- had a duty to monitor Colorado oil and gas
operations regulations that would give rise to liability under Rule
10-b. Judge Rosenthal further credited Weil's argument that the
plaintiff had improperly attempted to revise and augment the
allegations of its complaint by means of its opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Co-defendants' counsel also secured the dismissal with prejudice of
the plaintiff's claims against Anadarko and the other two
individual defendants.

Weil's team was led by Ray Guy, Head of Weil's Dallas litigation
practice, and included Dallas Complex Commercial Litigation
associates Jennifer Brooks Crozier and Shelby Perry.

Involved fees earner: Jennifer Brooks Crozier, Esq., Weil, Gotshal
& Manges; Ray Guy, Esq., Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Shelby Perry,
Esq., Weil, Gotshal & Manges;

Law Firms: Weil, Gotshal & Manges;

Clients: former VP of EHS Anadarko [GN]


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 13, 2019, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a motion
to dismiss claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in a putative
class action against an oil and gas exploration and production
company and certain of its officers.  Edgar v. Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation, et al., No. 17-cv-01372 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2019).
After the Court dismissed the prior amended complaint as noted in
our prior post, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
attempting to add allegations supporting an inference of scienter.
The Court held, however, that the amended complaint still failed to
adequately allege scienter, and therefore dismissed the action with
prejudice.

In dismissing the prior complaint, the Court held that claims based
on the company's statement that its operations were in compliance
with applicable laws -- even if untrue because the company
allegedly violated a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
rule -- nevertheless failed to adequately plead scienter because
they did not show that the individual officer defendants were aware
of a failure to comply with the Commission's rule at the time the
statement was made.  The amended complaint attempted to address
that deficiency with allegations against three individual
defendants.

With respect to the first individual defendant, plaintiff alleged
that a factsheet posted to the company's website and allegedly
approved by that defendant falsely stated that the company could
remotely monitor all of its wells in Colorado.  Slip op. at 14-15.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant should have known the
factsheet was false because he attended the "majority" of biannual
meetings discussing important topics or else sent a representative,
and that during "one or two" of the meetings the fact that only
half the wells had remote monitoring and control capabilities was
described in PowerPoint slides.  Id. at 15.  The Court held,
however, that these allegations failed to adequately plead scienter
because the allegation that the defendant approved the factsheet
was based solely on defendant's title and, therefore, did not
adequately support an inference that he "made" the statement, as
required under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  Id. at 17.  Moreover,
even if the defendant was deemed to have "made" the statement, the
Court held, scienter could not be inferred from the mere fact that
the defendant went, or sent a representative, to biannual meetings
without particularized facts indicating which meetings defendant
attended, when the relevant information was presented, whether the
defendant specifically received or reviewed presentation materials,
and whether specific concerns were relayed to him.  Id. at 18.  The
Court also rejected an inference of scienter based on the
allegation that an employee raised concerns about Colorado staffing
issues, holding that this complaint was about personnel strength,
not remote monitoring and control capabilities; and in any event
the concerns were raised after the factsheet was posted on the
company's website.  Id. at 19.

Regarding two other individual defendants, the Court rejected
plaintiff's arguments that they had the motive to commit fraud
because the company's losses from environmental fines and
settlements required it to raise cash through a stock offering.
Id. at 20.  The Court held that this was impermissible "group
pleading," and that the desire to raise capital in the normal
course of business does not support a showing of scienter "because
virtually all corporate insiders share this goal."  Id. at 21-22.
Moreover, the Court emphasized that the company conducted the stock
offering at issue two years after posting the loss from the fines
and settlements, plaintiff failed to allege that the company was in
critical negotiations to seek financing or needed to raise a
certain amount of money to complete a "crucial" transaction, and
most of the company's losses during this time period were from the
collapse of oil prices, not environmental fines and settlements.
Id. at  22.  Additionally, plaintiff failed to assert that the
defendants personally benefited from the offering.  Id. at 23.   

In addition, the Court addressed allegations of circumstantial
evidence against the same two defendants.  Plaintiff alleged that
one defendant was reckless is not knowing that the company's policy
and practice violated Colorado law, recklessly ignored that the
company did not know the location of every Colorado flow line, as
required by Colorado law, and had access to information showing
conditions that could adversely affect the safe and proper
operations of the company's pipeline.  Id. at 26-28.  The Court
held that these allegations failed to give rise to a strong
inference of scienter because they lacked particularized facts
indicating that the defendant knew, or was told, that the company
was violating Colorado law.  Id. at 28.  Instead, the allegations
at most supported an inference that the defendant should have known
the company's operations were unsafe, which "conflates safety with
legal compliance and reduces scienter to negligence."  Id. at 30.
The Court found scienter inadequately pleaded against the other
defendant because allegations that he attended certain of the
biannual meetings and received other presentations and reports from
managers did not show when, and if, he ever learned that the
company violated Colorado law.  Id. at 33.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's argument that defendants had a
"duty to confirm" before making the statement that the company
complied with all laws.  The Court determined that neither of these
defendants had a duty to confirm statements about compliance, as
they were not specifically responsible for compliance with the
Colorado Commission Rules, and there were no allegations that they
were specifically informed of the Colorado law violations.  Id. at
35-36. [GN]


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and
onbehalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARKANSAS
TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET
COMPANY, LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.)
the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order:

   1. approving form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff;

   2. directing the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
      Plaintiff the names and addresses of all persons who were
      employed by them as Care Coordinators during the specific
      time within 14 days from the entry of the Order. The
      Defendant shall provide the information in electronic format

      only if it is currently maintained in electronic format. The

      Court hereby authorizes a 90 day opt-in period from the date

      the notice is mailed.; and

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      conditional certification, for approval and distribution of
      notice and for disclosure of contact information, on behalf
      of:

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

The Court said, "Plaintiff claims that she and all putative class
members performed the same or similar job duties which inevitably
required more than 40 hours of work per week. The Plaintiff claims
that the duties performed by her and all of the members of the
putative class included providing various services, to include
traveling to meet clients, assisting clients with day-to-day tasks,
scheduling and accompanying clients to their appointments and
related tasks. Much of the work took place at the Defendants'
clients' locations, although some work was performed at Defendants'
office location. The Plaintiff claims that they were required to
write extensive client notes each evening prior to the beginning of
the next work day. Plaintiff contends that all care coordinators,
including Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs, regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week due to the mandatory client note-taking. The
Plaintiff claims that all Care Coordinators were paid by the hour
by the Defendants but were not paid any wages for hours spent
writing the mandatory client notes each evening.  After carefully
considering these factors, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has
provided enough information to establish that she is similarly
situated to the putative class members at this stage of the
litigation. The Court finds that conditional certification is
proper under the FLSA for purposes of notice and discovery, and
accordingly, certifies the class requested by the Plaintiff."[CC]

B23 LLC: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ponciano Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO PONCIANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B23 LLC D/B/A BAREBURGER; GEORGE
DELLIS; GEORGE RODAS; and DIONISIOS MANOLATOS, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01334-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Mr. Ponciano was employed by the Defendants as kitchen worker.

B23 LLC d/b/a Bareburger operates a chain of restaurants that offer
organic food in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


BERKELEY NURSING: Jones Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Berkeley Nursing and Rehabilitation Center,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04353 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., April
4, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant to stop
Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals'
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct.

This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiff and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which
capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future, notes the
complaint.

The Defendant's practice of collecting fingerprints from its
employees is unlawful and a serious invasion of its workers' right
to privacy concerning their biometric information. The Defendant
has failed to provide the required disclosures to inform its
workers that it is collecting their biometric identifiers and
information, and failed to inform the workers of how long it
intended to keep this highly sensitive information, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a nurse at Defendant's nursing
home in approximately August 2017.

Defendant owns and operates a nursing home in Oak Park,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank Castiglione, Esq.
     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 356-3200
     Fax: (312) 386-5800
     Email: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
            kasif@khowajalaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 201-0575
     Fax: (312) 332-0600
     Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
            cpsons@bormeslaw.com



BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Judge Tosses $5MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Waste360 reports that Judge Chad Kenney of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed a class action alleging that odors from
Waste Connections' Bethlehem Landfill in Bethlehem, Pa.,
constituted a nuisance.

Last summer, residents in Freemansburg, Pa., filed a $5 million
federal lawsuit against the Bethlehem Landfill operated by Waste
Connections, claiming that its alleged odors and pollutants are
making them uncomfortable and unable to use the outdoor areas on
their properties.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not plead a public
nuisance regarding the alleged odors because they did not show
specific impacts on them beyond the impacts on the public at large.
In addition, the court noted the plaintiffs could not plead a
private nuisance because private nuisance is limited to claims by
neighboring landowners and that the negligence claim failed because
the plaintiffs could not identify a duty of the landfill to prevent
offsite odors and could not rely on allegations of regulatory
violations to establish a standard of care for negligence.

"The company is pleased with the decision dismissing the complaint
against Bethlehem Landfill and appreciates the court's close
attention to how landfills are thoroughly governed by state law and
permits, not private lawsuits," said Pat Shea, senior vice
president and general counsel of Waste Connections, in a statement.
"Waste Connections works diligently to run best-in-class landfills
with minimal odors and defends aggressively unwarranted allegations
that landfills -- which are critical public infrastructure -- could
somehow be a nuisance."

The case is Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co. et al., No. 18-2691,
2019 WL 1219709 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2019). [GN]


BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: Manko Gold Discusses Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett D. Trego, Esq. -- gtrego@mankogold.com -- of Manko Gold
Katcher & Fox, in an article for Lexology, reports that Judge Chad
F. Kenney, former Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge and
recent appointee to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Defendant Bethlehem
Landfill Company's motion to dismiss a putative class action
alleging that landfill odors created a public and private nuisance
for all households within a 2.5-mile radius of the facility.
Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co. et al., No. 18-2691, 2019 WL
1219709 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2019). The lead plaintiffs, Robin and
Dexter Baptiste, reside 1.6 miles from the facility and allege that
odors from the facility impacted their property value and ability
to enjoy their property. Id. at *5. They alleged that the
conditions affected 8,400 households within a 2.5-mile radius. Id.
They styled their claims as claims for public nuisance, private
nuisance, and negligence. Id. at *1.

Judge Kenney's opinion is premised upon an apparent lack of
sufficiency in pleading that the plaintiffs had suffered any harm
above-and-beyond that suffered by the general public. First, in
addressing plaintiffs' public nuisance claim, Judge Kenney
acknowledged that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case
that a public nuisance exists. Id. at *7. He reasoned, however,
that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(“PADEP”) is charged with regulating public nuisances created
by landfills under Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act
(“SWMA”). He concluded that the plaintiffs lacked a private
right of action to address the public nuisance because they had not
alleged suffering a unique harm, other than their general proximity
to the facility. Id. at *9-10.

Second, Judge Kenney found that plaintiffs, who live 1.6 miles from
the facility, could not suffer a “unique” harm as required for
a private nuisance because plaintiffs are not direct neighbors to
the facility and hundreds of others are similarly situated. Judge
Kenney relied on a 1920 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case for the
principle that landfill odors generally affect the public at large,
not an individual neighbor, and therefore give rise to a public –
not private – nuisance cause of action. Id. at *11 (citing
Philips v. Donaldson, 112 A. 236, 238 (Pa. 1920)).

Third and finally, Judge Kenney dismissed plaintiffs' negligence
claim on the basis that plaintiffs failed to establish that
defendant had a duty to plaintiffs to avoid causing odors at
plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs based their negligence claim on
the general duty under the Solid Waste Management Act to avoid the
creation of public nuisances. Id. at *13. Noting the lack of a
private cause of action under the Solid Waste Management Act, Judge
Kenney reasoned that plaintiffs' claim was akin to a negligence per
se claim and concluded that such a claim is not available where the
statute on which the plaintiff relies is not intended to create a
new cause of action in favor of individual, private plaintiffs. Id.
at *14.

The case marks a rare complete victory for the defendant at the
motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs have 30 days from the March 13,
2019 decision to appeal. [GN]


BIG HEART: Removes Roper Suit to Eastern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc. removed the case, PENNIE ROPER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
CV-19-000848 (Filed Feb. 13, 2019), from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 28,
2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-at-00221 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the Defendants' violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
and the California False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff seeks "statutory damages in the maximum amount for
which the law provides," "monetary damages, including but not
limited to any compensatory, incidental, or consequential damages,"
"equitable monetary relief," and "punitive damages."[BN]

Attorneys for Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc.:

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: RRothste@winston.com

               - and -

          Megan L. Whipp, Esq.
          E-mail: MWhipp@winston.com
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

BIG HEART: Roper Case Moved to Eastern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heart Pet Brands, Inc. removes case, PENNIE ROPER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIG
HEART PET BRANDS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CV-19-000848 (Filed
Feb. 13, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 28, 2019. The Eastern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that Defendant violated the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
and the California False Advertising Law.

Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of
branded pet products for the U.S. retail market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          Megan L. Whipp, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: RRothste@winston.com
                  MWhipp@winston.com

BOEING COMPANY: Misled Investors over Aircraft Safety, Seeks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint has been filed against Boeing
Company and certain of its current executives for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78(j)(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The case is captioned RICHARD SEEKS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, DENNIS A. MUILENBURG, and GREGORY
D. SMITH, Defendants, Case No. Case: 1:19-cv-02394 (N.D. Ill.,
April 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff asserts that throughout the class period, Boeing
misled investors about the sustainability of Boeing's core
operation -- its commercial airplanes segment -- touting its growth
prospects and profitability, raising guidance, and maintaining that
the Boeing 737 MAX was the safest airplane to fly the skies. Boeing
made these statements all while concealing the full extent of
safety problems caused by the placement of larger engines on the
737 MAX that changed the handling characteristics of the 737 MAX
from previous models. The handling characteristics included the
danger of the increased pitch-up tendency of the aircraft, which
required special safety features, some of which Boeing installed
only as extras or optional features.

As the news of the Boeing 737 Max crashes unfolded, investigations
into their causes, worldwide grounding of 737 MAX airplanes,
Federal criminal and other investigations, and order cancellations
soon followed, and the price of Boeing shares plummeted from their
high of about $440 during the Class Period to about $372 on March
21, 2019, damaging investors. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges the
Defendant's wrongful conduct has directly and proximately caused
the economic loss suffered by him and the Class. Accordingly, he
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Considered as the world's largest aerospace company, the Boeing
Company is the foremost manufacturer of commercial jet transports.
It is also a leading producer of military aircraft, helicopters,
space vehicles, and missiles, a standing significantly enhanced
with the company's acquisition of the aerospace and defense units
of Rockwell International Corporation in 1996 and its merger with
McDonnell Douglas Corporation in 1997. The company also provides
leasing and product support services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Telephone: (708) 628-4949
     Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
     E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -        

     Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
     Danielle Smith, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
             danielles@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


BRIGHTON HALL: 201 Investors Receive $1.5MM in Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Simpkins, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that around 201
investors have received approximately $1.5 million in one of
multiple class action claims against a former investment manager
and affiliated financial services businesses.

ASIC brought the claim against the now-bust Brighton Hall
Securities, which recommended Westpoint Group products, in
property-related investment scheme that collapsed in late 2005,
owing 3,000 to 4,000 investors $388 million.

The action was one of 19 civil actions brought by ASIC to recover
funds on the behalf of Westpoint investors it said, against
associated companies and their officers, the Westpoint auditor and
financial services licensees whose advisers recommended the
company's products.

The Federal Court in Perth dismissed proceedings brought by ASIC
against the firm on 7 March, seeking damages on behalf of a number
of clients of Brighton Hall Securities after the liquidator
completed the distribution of entitlements.

The entitlements rose from claims against the insurance money
recovered by the liquidator.

The final dividend represented a return of 22.35 cents in the
dollar on the involved investors' claims for $6,652,702.

"Most of the money raised for the various property development
schemes in the Westpoint group came from the issue of unsecured
promissory notes, promising investors returns of up to 12 per cent
per annum," ASIC noted.

In all, Westpoint investors received a return of around $160 to
$170 million of the $388 million in losses incurred, the watchdog
said.

The return, it added, consisted of approximately $78.5 million in
recoveries from both the liquidation process and Westpoint
companies not in liquidation and nearly $93 million compensation
from ASIC's actions.

Brighton Hall Securities operated its financial services business
from Applecross and South Perth in Western Australia prior to
entering into liquidation in September 2007. [GN]


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Belcarra Residents Mull Suit Over Speculation Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Zussman, writing for Global News, reports that a group of
residents in the community of Belcarra are getting closer to
launching a class action lawsuit against the B.C. government over
the controversial Speculation and Vacancy Tax.

Mayor Neil Belenkie says the provincial government is unfairly
targeting local owners who have second homes that are water-only
access and used primarily as summer homes.

"This goes beyond Belcarra's residents alone," Belenkie said.

"Belcarra and other affected residents have now started to band
together, and I understand there are multiple lawyers that
specialize in class action lawsuits now being engaged in a
selection process to represent the non-speculators."

Belcarra residents visited the B.C. legislature to raise their
concerns about the tax.

One of the residents, Nancy Strain, owns a taxable second home that
her father built. The cabin is assessed at $26,500 but the land is
worth more than $1.3 million.

Strain says she cannot afford the tax and is still in the early
process of deciding whether to be part of the class action. The
71-year-old has sent a letter to Finance Minister Carole James
about her concerns around the tax.

"I understand the Hon. Ms. Carole James advised that she would
review our request for an exemption, but it would not apply until
the next year," the letter read.

"It is unacceptable to apply this tax to the year 2018 as this
legislation was only passed on November 27, 2018.  It is very
unfair to impose a tax prior to it being made law.

"We need immediate attention to this matter.  I personally cannot
afford to pay this onerous tax from my income of Old Age Pension
and Canada Pension.  How do you justify levying such an onerous tax
on your low-income citizens. Why should we be forced to either pay
this exorbitant tax or lose the use of our own cabin which is a
legacy to the family."

WATCH: Negative billing means B.C. homeowners could be forced to
pay speculation tax, even if they are not speculating

The B.C. government introduced the legislation to address housing
affordability and to increase the number of rental properties
available in the province.

The province has repeatedly said that 99 per cent of British
Columbians will not have to pay the tax.

In the case of Strain and other cabin owners in Belcarra, the tax
will average around $6,000 a year. It is unclear how quickly a
formal class action lawsuit could be filed.

"I don't think they have any choice. They are being backed into
this," Belenkie said.

"No one in the NDP, in every conversation I have had, has indicated
that Belcarra is being correctly targeted by the speculation tax
nor have have any residents been accused of being speculators.

"This is the best way they have available to them based on all the
options that have been exhausted to protect themselves from this
misapplied tax."

About 40 per cent of the homes in the Metro Vancouver community
located west of Coquitlam are only accessible by water, and the
area has not been exempted from the tax. Belcarra has 300 homes in
the jurisdiction.

READ MORE: ‘We aren't speculators': Belcarra property owners ask
B.C. government for speculation tax exemption

Retired teacher Charline Robson was given two properties by her
aunt three years ago. One lot sits empty, while the other has a
summer home on it.

The waterside cabin has been in the family since the 1950s and has
no potable water access or sewer. The cabin itself is worth $15,000
while the land is worth $1.3 million.

"The goal has multiple potential outcomes. The first is to convince
the NDP to properly apply the tax towards the targeted individuals
it should be applied towards. The financial compensation may allow
them to afford the tax," Belenkie said.

The government also hopes the tax will turn empty homes into
housing for people and raise revenue that will go to supporting
affordable housing.

The speculation tax has been criticized by mayors in Kelowna,
Langford and West Kelowna for hurting the local housing market. The
tax was brought in as a crucial part of the B.C. government's
housing affordability plan. [GN]


BROEDELL PLUMBING: Nunez Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
The case, ELIAS M. NUNEZ, And other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff (s), v. BROEDELL PLUMBING SUPPLY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00591 (M.D. Fla., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or
more weeks on or after September 2018 without being compensated
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly
warehouse employee, working in the receiving department, and he had
all the duties corresponding to a receiving department. The
Plaintiff's regular wage rate was $14.50 an hour and his overtime
rate was $21.75 an hour.

The Defendant is a distributor of top-quality plumbing supplies,
all kind of accessories, and related products for kitchen and
bathrooms.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

BUNZL PROCESSOR: Rivera Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TIMOTHY RIVERA, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated; EDUARDO
GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUNZL PROCESSOR
DISTRIBUTION LLC, an unknown business entity; BUNZL DISTRIBUTION
USA, INC., an unknown business entity; BUNZL, an unknown business
entity; BUNZL USA, INC., an unknown business entity; BUNZL
DISTRIBUTION CALIFORNIA, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01044807-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 3, 2019, and assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00626.

The Plaintiffs allege they worked in excess of eight hours in a
day, or in excess of 40 hours in a week, yet Defendants
intentionally and willfully failed to pay overtimes wages.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Evan R. Moses, Esq.
     Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213-239-9800
     Facsimile: 213-239-9045
     Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com
            marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Morales Remanded to Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, REGINO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC; VISTA
OUTDOORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09457-AB (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court on Sept. 17, 2018. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated various California labor laws.  

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.  According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have had a
consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including minimum and
overtime wages, to the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in
the State of California.  He similarly alleges that the Defendants
have had a consistent policy of failing to provide him and the
other similarly situated employees or former employees within the
State of California" uninterrupted meal and rest periods,
compensation for unprovided meal and rest periods, wages owed to
them upon termination or resignation, and accurate wage
statements.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint in
Los Angeles County Superior Court on Sept. 17, 2018.  The Complaint
asserts seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
(2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5) Failure to Pay
Due Wages at Termination; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; and (7) Unfair Competition under California Business
and Professions Code section 17200.

The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of a putative class.
The Complaint defines the "Non-Exempt Employee Class" as all
current or former employees of the Defendants within the State of
California at any time commencing four years preceding the filing
of the Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the
class action is provided to the class.  The Plaintiff and the
members of the Non-Exempt Employee Class allege the first and
second cause of action.

The "Meal Period Class" and "Rest Period Class" is similarly
composed of all current and former employees of the Defendants who
qualified for a meal or rest period and allege the third and fourth
causes of action.   The "Late Pay Class" asserts the fifth cause of
action, and the "Wage Statement Class" asserts the sixth cause of
action.

On Nov. 7, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court.  On
Dec. 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand.  The
Plaintiff argues that the action should be remanded to Los Angeles
County Superior Court.  He claims the Defendants have not carried
their burden of proving the requisite amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence.

The Defendants filed an Opposition, and the Plaintiff filed a
Reply.  On Feb. 6, 2019, the Court took the Motion under
submission.

Judge Birotte finds that the parties do not dispute that the
Plaintiff's class is larger than 100 members and that the parties
are minimally diverse.  Thus, he must determine only whether the
Defendants have satisfied the amount in controversy requirement.

He finds that the Defendants' damages calculation is not
reasonable.  Essentially all of their calculations are inflated
because they depend on the entire class of employees and are not
tailored to the number of employees in the applicable sub-class for
each claim.  Two of the Defendants' largest calculations, based on
the failure to pay rest break and meal period premiums, utilize
high violation rate assumptions without reasonable ground. Finally,
the attorneys' fee calculation derives from these unreasonable
calculations and is therefore itself unreasonable.  The Judge
therefore cannot rely on any of those calculations, and the
Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  Accordingly, CAFA
does not establish subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Birotte granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.  The matter is remanded to Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VNZJA3 from Leagle.com.

Regino Morales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mehrdad Bokhour --
mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com -- Bokhour Law Group APC & Ryan J. DeRose --
ryan@bokhourlaw.com -- Bokhour Law Group PC.

Camelbak Products, LLC & Vista Outdoor, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian P. Long -- bplong@seyfarth.com --, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Christopher Im -- cim@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.


CANADA: Day School Settlement Process Won't Challenge Survivors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Martens, writing for APTN News, reports that former Indian
day school students should have an easier time claiming
compensation than residential school survivors, says a lawyer for
the class-action settlement announced by the federal government.

Robert Winogron says day school students won't have to testify
about the abuse they suffered and won't have to hire and pay a
lawyer 15 per cent of their claim.

"I can tell you the government's not interested in challenging
someone's experiences," Winogron says.

"If they say they were sexually assaulted -- nobody's going to
challenge that."

Winogron, a partner with Gowling WLG in Ottawa, says the day school
compensation process, which still has to be approved by a court,
was designed to improve on problems that plagued the Indian
Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

Specifically, the problem with lawyers financially exploiting
vulnerable clients and the "horrific" grilling of survivors via
Independent Assessment Process hearings.

"There was a lot of re-traumatization," he says.

So instead of being "cross-examined" former day school students
will be "presumed to be telling the truth."

Register here www.indiandayschools.com

The out-of-court settlement announced by Crown-Indigenous Relations
Minister Carolyn Bennett will pay compensation of between $10,000
and $200,000, depending on the severity of abuse.

Winogron said it was crafted so:

Only one firm -- Gowling -- would handle compensation claims to
reduce risk of financial abuse by various lawyers,
An administrator would receive and process the claims.
Former students won't testify about physical and sexual abuse in
individual adjudication hearings.
But there will be steps to protect the settlement from fraud,
Winogron says, noting the administrator will review and confirm day
school attendance.

"The McLean Action -- my action -- is the only certified
class-action and it's the only one that's subject to a settlement
agreement," he adds.

"My action governs every person who went to a day school. Period."

The action is named for Garry McLean of Manitoba, a former day
school student and original lead plaintiff in the $15-billion
lawsuit against the federal government, who died of cancer in
February.

"He was such a gentleman, such a champion," Winogron says of
McLean, who wanted Indigenous survivors to keep as much of the
compensation achieved through a settlement as possible.

Already, the firm has 30,000 former day school students registered
in its database and, Winogron says, is on track to surpass IRSSA,
which has paid out just under $5 billion, as the largest
class-action in Canadian history.

Gowling will receive $50 million from Canada for settling the case,
plus an additional $7 million for work on behalf of survivors.

Survivors won't pay any legal fees – again, says Winogron, to
reduce the risk of being financial exploited.

Under IRSSA, lawyers were paid 15 per cent per claim and could
charge an additional 15 per cent to earn up to 30 per cent per
survivor.

Of course, as with any settlement agreement, a certain number of
claimants can complete forms to opt out of the deal. Winogron says
the number needed to scuttle the deal has not yet been made
public.

As well, a consortium of law firms from western Canada is opposed
to parts of the settlement, which is scheduled to go to court in
May, and has filed material to intervene.

View the Notice of Certification and Settlement Approval here.

Lawyer and spokesperson Joan Jack said the group wants claimants to
choose their own legal representation.

"They deserve to have counsel that they know and trust to help
them," she says in a release, "not someone chosen by the
government."

Claudette Commanda, a day school survivor from Kitigan Zibi First
Nation in Quebec, says it's hard to imagine Jack's group is
concerned about anything other than money.

"I believe they're upset because they're looking at the funds," she
says, confirming she's confident Gowling will protect survivors.
"They're not looking at the money."

Commanda, one of the lead plaintiffs now, says she agreed to let
her name stand if the process was different from IRSSA.

"It cannot be in the control of the federal government or lawyers,"
she says, "and you cannot traumatize the victims."

Under IRSSA, there were an estimated 80,000 living residential
school survivors compared to about 130,000 day school survivors.

IRSSA recognized 100 residential schools while the McLean action
has 720 day schools. [GN]


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Raymond Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA RAYMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01663-RJD-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Raymond J. Dearie and referred to
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy.

Capital Accounts LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          237 Club Dr
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (718) 855-3834
          Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
          E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sims Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Sims, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; PROGRESSIVE LOGISTICS SERVICES,
LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06506 was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on April 3, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02534.

The complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) "Failure to Pay
Wages"; (2) "Meal Break Violations"; (3) "Rest Break Violations";
(4) "Wage Statement Violations"; (5) "Violation of Labor Code §
212"; (6) "Failure to Pay Wages At Time Of Termination"; and (7)
"Unfair Business Practices".[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
     Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 460-5000
     Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
     Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
            jriley@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Justin Curley, Esq.
     Megha J. Charalambides, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 397-2823
     Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
     Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
            mcharalambides@seyfarth.com


CARLE PLACE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Hernandez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARLE PLACE DINER LLC; GEORGE ANGELAKIS; and
ANTHONY ANGELAKIS, Defendants, Case No. CV191520 (E.D.N.Y., March
18, 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.

Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as kitchen worker.

Carle Place Diner LLC is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of New York. The Company operates as a
restaurant. [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


CBS INTERACTIVE: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Suris Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action case, YAROSLAV SURIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CBS INTERACTIVE INC.
and CBS SPORTS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01772-LDH-PK
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019), seeks retribution for the Defendants'
actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in
New York and within the United States in violation of the American
with Disabilities Act.

CBS has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf, and deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals access to goods and services provided
to non-disabled individuals through their Website,
www.cbssports.com

The Defendants provide goods and services to the public through its
Website. However, due to barriers that make it difficult for deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Website, the Plaintiff
and other deaf and hard of hearing individuals cannot understand
the audio portion of videos on the Website. The Defendants exclude
the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation
on their Website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations,
television network and is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the ADA.

As a result of the Defendants' Website not being accessible to deaf
and hard-of-hearing persons, the Defendants violate state and
federal law civil rights laws. The American Disabilities Act
prevents discrimination against people with disabilities. Website
barriers that prevent accessibility to deaf and hard of hearing
individuals is a discriminatory act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 415-0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706-6631

CHARLES SCHWAB: Investors File Class Action Over Client Trades
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a
proposed class action by investors has targeted Charles Schwab &
Co. alleging the discount brokerage failed in its duties to perform
best execution in client trades. In early March, the same investors
filed a complaint seeking to compel UBS to produce documents about
the trades, which are the subject of their dispute with Schwab.

The two-pronged legal strategy seems likely to lead investors to
make related claims against UBS, lawyers believe.

The investors have filed complaints in federal courts in San
Francisco and Manhattan, both of which focus on trades executed by
Schwab between 2011 and 2014.

According to the complaint filed in San Francisco, Schwab omitted
material facts about its duty of best execution and failed to
disclose a handling agreement that permitted UBS to direct retail
orders to dark pools -- private exchanges not accessible to the
investing public.

The complaint alleges:

"Schwab's clients' orders were unsophisticated, and UBS made them
available to [high frequency trading platforms] HFTs. HFTs executed
many thousands of times the number of trades that an average retail
investor made by utilizing computer algorithms to rapidly trade
securities. These programs allowed the HFTs to opportunistically
move in and out of positions in seconds, profiting by fractions of
a cent, hundreds of thousands of times a day. As a result, the
HFTs, and UBS, profited from Schwab's customers because they could
exploit that order flow to obtain better prices on the same
securities and monitor the marketplace."

In the Manhattan federal court, the investors filed a complaint in
early March asking the court to order UBS to produce documents
related to the trades.

"Potentially, the greatest harm coming from this dispute to UBS or
Schwab will be the bad publicity if it is determined that either
benefited from trades in a way that wasn't beneficial to
investors," says Thomas Lewis, an attorney at Lawrenceville,
N.J.-based firm Stevens & Lee, who represents both financial
advisors and their employers but none of the parties in this
litigation.

It is likely the Manhattan court will order UBS to produce the
documents and that the investors will then add UBS as defendant in
the San Francisco case, Lewis says.

"There is a better chance than not that UBS will be named," he
says.

For UBS advisors, however, the real risk will only come with the
publicity, Lewis predicts.

"Their biggest problem is the court of public perception. I think
this will be a nonevent for the advisors except when the articles
get out and clients start asking questions," Lewis says.

A UBS spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation.

In an emailed response, a Schwab spokesperson said: "We are
committed to providing clients with best execution and have a
strong track record of meeting those obligations. Execution quality
always takes priority when determining where to route orders. We
will continue to vigorously defend against plaintiffs' claims,
which are entirely without merit." [GN]


CHECKR INC: Pays Out $4.4MM in Damages in Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Feathers, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
more than 40 people have sued Checkr for violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act in recent years, according to federal court records,
and in December, the company settled a class-action lawsuit
alleging that it illegally included information about low-level
offenses like traffic infractions on background checks for more
than 96,000 people.

Checkr agreed to pay out $4,460,000 in damages plus attorneys
fees.

Checkr representatives did not respond to written questions or
multiple requests for comment.

The company has also settled many of the individual lawsuits
brought by people like Tucker, who claim that Checkr included
erroneous criminal convictions or expunged records on their
background checks, leading to lost job opportunities.

It is impossible to know how many other people were fired or
weren't hired due to inaccurate reports, but decided not to contest
it in court, or how many actual criminal records Checkr might have
missed. [GN]


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Penn. AG Gets Favorable Ruling in Royalty Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Legere, writing for Post-Gazette, reports that the
Pennsylvania attorney general's case alleging that two natural gas
companies misled landowners and cheated them out of royalty
payments cleared an important hurdle on March 15 when a state
appeals court largely ruled against the companies' efforts to get
the case thrown out at its preliminary stages.

In a 6-1 decision, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the attorney
general can bring claims in the public interest under
Pennsylvania's consumer protection law -- even though the
landowners were technically sellers, not consumers, when they
signed leases with companies to extract Marcellus Shale gas from
under their land.

Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy Corp. said it plans to appeal to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The attorney general's office filed the case in 2015. It alleged
that Chesapeake violated the state's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law by inflating gas shipping costs and passing
the higher costs on to landowners, whose monthly royalty checks
shrank even as huge amounts of gas were pulled from their
property.

In this April 2010 photo, workers move a section of well casing
into place at a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well site near
Burlington, Pa., in Bradford County.

Landowner advocates estimate that the questionable deductions have
amounted to more than $100 million in lost royalties for northeast
Pennsylvania property owners.

The state also accuses Chesapeake of engaging in deceptive leasing
practices and colluding with Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
to split the northeastern Pennsylvania market and not compete with
one another for leases there.

On March 15, the Commonwealth Court majority found that oil and gas
lease agreements fall into the broad definition of commerce covered
by the consumer protection law.

The court also held that Chesapeake and Anadarko are subject to
lawsuits brought by the attorney general under the law, regardless
of whether the companies are considered buyers or sellers in the
lease transactions.

The General Assembly intended "that the law be liberally
interpreted, so as 'to benefit the public at large by eradicating,
among other things, 'unfair or deceptive' business practices,'"
Judge Ellen Ceisler wrote in the majority opinion.

The court rejected the attorney general's claim that Chesapeake and
Anadarko's agreement to divide the market intrinsically violated
the law, partially reversing the trial court in northeastern
Pennsylvania's Bradford County.

But it said the companies' allegedly deceptive behavior could be
considered one of the kinds of unfair trade practices that the law
prohibits.

In a dissent, Judge Anne Covey wrote that "the majority's analysis
and ruling is a gross misinterpretation and misapplication" of the
consumer protection law.

The ruling "creates a dangerous precedent," she wrote.

The state's case depended on courts upholding the attorney
general's right to bring such consumer protection claims on behalf
of landowners with gas leases, but it was an untested theory. The
case includes issues of first impression, meaning state courts had
never weighed in on how to interpret them before.

A Chesapeake attorney had warned in December 2017 -- during a
judicial conference about settling related royalty cases -- that if
Pennsylvania appeals courts rejected the attorney general's novel
use of the consumer protection law, it would mean "a complete
collapse" of the state's case.

Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer said the company is pleased
that the court partially reversed the lower court's decision, but
it disagrees with the majority's decision to allow the attorney
general to move forward with claims under the consumer protection
law.

"As stated in the dissent's opinion, the majority's decision is
'judicial overreach' because the attorney general has no statutory
authority to bring this claim," he said.

Anadarko did not respond to a request for comment.

The companies had hoped to settle the attorney general's case at
the same time they resolved private class-action cases related to
many of the same lease issues. The sides participated in settlement
conferences with the judge in Bradford County in February, May,
August and September last year without reaching an agreement.

Separately, Chesapeake secured a $7.75 million settlement agreement
resolving two class-action cases last year that covered about
two-thirds of its Pennsylvania natural gas royalty owners. The
company negotiated a settlement with other classes of royalty
owners who had more protective language in their leases, but a deal
has not been finalized.

Collectively, the class-action settlements were expected to amount
to $30 million.

"Chesapeake will continue to pursue resolution of this matter with
the attorney general so that our royalty owners can enjoy the
benefits of those settlements and choose their royalty formula
going forward," Mr. Pennoyer said.

The attorney general's office has said the cases are independent
and there's no reason its pursuit of claims under the consumer
protection law should hinder private settlements.

"I'm fighting for landowners who we charge have been ripped off,"
Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement, "and my office
will continue to pursue this case on behalf of northeast
Pennsylvanians." [GN]


CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10046 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 22, 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 was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
worker.

Citizens of Humanity, LLC designs, manufactures, and markets
apparel for women and men. The company offers fit, skinny, slim,
straight, bootcut, flare, petite, boyfriend, wide leg, relaxed, and
crop jeans, as well as shorts, tops, jackets and vests, and legacy
apparel for women. It also offers fit, skinny, slim, straight, and
relaxed jeans, as well as jackets and twills for men. The company
distributes its products through stores and boutiques in the United
States and internationally; and online. Citizens of Humanity, LLC
was founded in 2002 and is based in Huntington Park, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio N, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


CLOUD 9 SMOKE: Freeman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY FREEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLOUD 9 SMOKE COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01509-AT (N.D. Ga., April 4, 2019) is an action
arising out of Defendant's practice of sending autodialed text
messages to individuals.

On August 2, 2018, Defendant began using Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number for the purpose of sending unsolicited text
messages. The text messages were sent as part of the marketing
campaign, the purpose of which was to advertise Defendant's
products and/or services to a large number of potential customers
in a short period of time.

Despite Plaintiff's repeated requests for Defendant to stop sending
him text messages, Defendant continued to send text messages to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or its agents with
prior written express consent to receive unsolicited text messages.
Defendant's actions violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Marietta, Cobb County,
Georgia.

Defendant is a Georgia business corporation based in Kennesaw, Cobb
County, State of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
     Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
     1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
     Norcross, GA 30093
     Phone: 678-395-7795
     Fax: 866-929-2434
     Email: shireen@agrusslawfirm.com
            shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com


CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARON ENGLISH and RICHARD PEPPE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
CHARLES K. NARANG, PAUL A. DILLAHAY, JAMES P. ALLEN, PAUL V.
LOMBARDI, CINDY E. MORAN, AUSTIN J. YERKS, DANIEL R. YOUNG, CLOUD
INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, CLOUD MERGER SUB, INC., and H.I.G.
CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. 2018-0221-AGB (Del. Ch.), Judge
Andre G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the

In January 2016, the board of directors of NCI, Inc. engaged two
financial advisors to solicit interest in a sale of the company.
In July 2017, after a sale process that lasted 18 months and
resulted in at least five other firms expressing interest in
acquiring NCI, the company entered into a merger agreement to sell
the company for $20 per share in cash to affiliates of H.I.G.
Capital, LLC.  The transaction was structured as a tender offer
followed by a merger.  Charles Narang, NCI's founder who held about
34% of NCI's shares and about 83.5% of the company's voting power,
tendered his shares for the same per-share consideration that every
other stockholder received in the transaction.

On March 28, 2018, over seven months after the transaction closed,
two former stockholders of NCI filed the action asserting two
claims against NCI's directors.  Count I asserts a claim for breach
of fiduciary duties against the Individual Defendants, contending
that they sanctioned a process and price that was not entirely fair
and failed to disclose material information.  Count II asserts a
claim for aiding and abetting against the H.I.G. Defendants.

On May 14, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim for relief.  Their lead argument is that
the complaint must be dismissed under Corwin v. KKR Financial
Holding LLC, because a majority (approximately 73.6%) of NCI's
disinterested stockholders tendered their shares in an uncoerced
and fully-informed tender offer, subjecting the transaction to
business judgment review.

The Plaintiffs advance two reasons why they believe Corwin should
not apply.  First, they contend that the transaction should be
subjected to entire fairness review on the theory that Narang
orchestrated a sale of the company for less than fair value to
address a personal need for liquidity prompted by his retirement as
the company's CEO in 2015 at 73 years of age.  Second, they contend
that the other stockholders who tendered their shares were not
fully informed when they did so because the recommendation
statement for the transaction was misleading and omitted material
information.

The Court heard argument on the motion on Dec. 18, 2018.

As to Count I, Judge Bouchard finds that the Plaintiffs have failed
to plead facts to support a reasonable inference that Narang's
retirement as NCI's CEO posed some sort of exigency or emergency
situation where he needed liquidity fast so as to create a
disabling conflict of interest with respect to the Transaction.
Accordingly, no basis exists to subject the Board's consideration
of the Transaction to entire fairness review.

He also finds that each of the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
Recommendation Statement fails to show that NCI's stockholders were
not fully informed when deciding whether to tender their shares in
connection with the Transaction, which indisputably received the
uncoerced support of a majority of NCI's disinterested
stockholders.  For this reason, and because entire fairness does
not apply to the Transaction and waste has not been alleged, the
Transaction is governed by the business judgment rule under Corwin
and its progeny.  Accordingly, Count I of the Complaint fails to
state a claim for relief and must be dismissed.

As to Count II, because the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty
claim fails to state a claim for relief against the Individual
Defendants, the aiding and abetting claim fails as well for lack of
a predicate breach of duty.  Accordingly, Count II will be
dismissed.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Bouchard concludes that both
counts of the Complaint fail to state a claim for relief.
Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.

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

Blake A. Bennett -- bbennett@coochtaylor.com -- COOCH AND TAYLOR,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; W. Scott Holleman --
ScottH@johnsonfistel.com -- and Garam Choe --
GaramC@johnsonfistel.com -- JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP, New York, New
York; Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com -- and Daniel M. Kirshenbaum --
dkirshenbaum@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Joshua Z. Rabinovitz --
joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago,
Illinois; Devora W. Allon -- devora.allon@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND
& ELLIS LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendants.


CLUBHOUSE DINER: Viscomi et al. Seek Final Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CAROL VISCOMI, PATRICIA HATCH & SUSAN
KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CLUBHOUSE DINER, CLUBHOUSE BENSALEM
HOLDING, INC., CLUBHOUSE BENSALEM, LLC, ESAM SALAH & MEYLINDA
ARDHYANI, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-04720-JD (E.D. Pa.,
March 28, 2019), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order
granting their motion for final class certification.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Edward J. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick G. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY & ASSOCIATES
          640 Sentry Parkway, Suite 100
          Blue Bell, PA 19422

Attorney for the Defendants:

          John F. Innelli, Esq.
          JOHN F. INNELLI, LLC
          Two Penn Center, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

COMEX FOOD: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip-Pooling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Perez, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Comex Food Service, Inc., Comex KC, LLC,
The Kickin' Crab, K.C. of Buena Park, Inc., K.C. of Chino Hills,
Inc., KC of Costa Mesa, Inc., K.C. of Hollywood, Inc., KC of
Irvine, Inc., K.C. of Baldwin Hills, Inc., KC of River-More, K.C.
of Rowland Heights, KC of Carrollton, Inc., and Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01821 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2019) is a
lawsuit against Defendants seeking unpaid wages and all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the
California Labor Code, the California Business & Professional Code,
for conversion, and for unjust enrichment under California common
law.

With respect to the gratuities/tips received from patrons, all of
Defendants' service staff members, including Plaintiff, were
required to participate in Defendants' mandatory
gratuity/tip-pooling policies and practices. The Defendants'
Kitchen Staff also participated in the tip pool, as they were
entitled to 5% of the tip pool. However, Defendants'
gratuity/tip-pooling policies and practices were unlawful, asserts
the complaint.

The complaint further notes that Defendants deducted $1.00 from the
gratuity/tip pool for every person contributing to the tip pool for
each lost crab cracker or crab splitter that was missing at the end
of the night. Similarly, Defendants also deducted money from the
tip pool to pay for other work items, such as missing condiments,
markers, pens, and pencils. The Defendant also made a dollar for
dollar deduction from the tip pool if the drawer was short at the
end of the night. A drawer being short was generally the result of
a customer walking out without paying or without paying in full.t.

Plaintiff Paula Perez was employed by Defendants from January 1,
2017 to August, 2018.

Defendants own and operate a large chain of casual dining
restaurants throughout California and in other states, which are
commonly known as The Kickin' Crab.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Email: crash@sommerspc.com
            kstoops@sommerspc.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Bid to Remand Adame to State Court Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case, ISABEL ADAME, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV 19-00779-CJC (SKx) (C.D. Cal.), to the
state court.

Adame filed the wage-and-hour class action in state court against
Defendants Comprehensive Health Management, Inc. ("CHMI"), Easy
Choice Health Plan, Inc., Wellcare Health Plans of California, Inc.
("WHPOC"), and Does 1 through 100.

The Defendants are all entities associated with WellCare Health
Plans, Inc., a provider of managed care services dedicated to
government-sponsored health care programs.  Defendant CHMI is a
Florida corporation with its corporate headquarters and principal
place of business in Florida.  Defendants WHPOC and Easy Choice are
California corporations.  The Plaintiff is a citizen of

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants employed the Plaintiff as
an hourly non-exempt employee from July 2, 2012 until May 21, 2018.
She seeks to certify seven different classes of employees who
worked within California and alleges that each class has over 100
members.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had a policy of
requiring off-the-clock work and rounding hours before and after an
employee's scheduled shift. These policies allegedly caused the
Defendants to fail to pay minimum wages and overtime rates.  She
further alleges that the Defendants failed to provide legally
compliant meal periods or vacation wages, engaged in pay stub
violations, and failed to pay their employees all wages due at the
time of termination or resignation.

The Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting there
was federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand to
state court.

Judge Carney finds that the Defendants have established that CAFA's
requirements are met.  First, there is minimal diversity.  Second,
the proposed class has more than 100 members.  And third, the
aggregated amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Next, the Judge finds that the complaint fails to establish that
the putative class seeks "significant relief" from Easy Choice and
WHPOC.  The Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs of suit, asseting that all three
Defendants employed her and that unnamed John Does acted upon each
Defendant's behalf to establish or ratify unlawful pay practices.
The complaint, however, does not specify which conduct is
attributable to which defendant or indicate how damages might
possibly be apportioned.  The mere fact that she seeks relief from
all the Defendants jointly and severally, without any factual
allegations specific to Easy Choice or WHPOC, is insufficient to
meet her burden to prove that the narrow local controversy
exception applies.

For similar reasons, the Plaintiff also fails to establish that
Easy Choice's and WHPOC's conduct is a "significant basis" for the
claims asserted by the putative class.  The Plaintiff does not
plead any facts that support her conclusory statements about Easy
Choice's and WHPOC's control over her employment.  She has not met
her burden of proving that the local controversy exception applies.
The Court has jurisdiction over the action under CAFA.

The Plaintiff also requests an award of attorneys' fees and costs
for filing the motion.  Because he finds that the local controversy
exception does not apply and the Court has jurisdiction over the
action under CAFA, the Judge finds that the Defendants had an
objectively reasonable basis for removal.  The Plaintiff's request
for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Carney denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Mg6lTd from Leagle.com.

Isabel Adame, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Lavi -- jlavi@lelawfirm.com --
Lavi and Ebrahimian LLP, Michael T. Massmann --
mmassmann@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi and Ebrahimian & Vincent Charles
Granberry -- vgranberry@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi and Ebrahimian LLP.

Comprehensive Health Management, Inc., a Corporation, Easy Choice
Health Plan, Inc., a California Corporation & Wellcare Health Plans
of California, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Ashley R. Li, McGuireWoods LLP & Sean Sullivan --
ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, disclosed that investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated ("Corcept" or the "Company") (NYSE: CORT) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Corcept securities during the period between
August 2, 2017 through February 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cort.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Corcept
had improperly paid doctors to promote its drug, Korlym; (2)
Corcept aggressively promoted Korlym for off-label uses; (3)
Corcept's sole specialty pharmacy was a related party; (4) Corcept
artificially inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales
practices through a related party; (5) such practices were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) as a
result, defendants' positive statements about Corcept's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cort or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Corcept
you have until May 13, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


COSTA DEL MAR: Sued Over False and Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Seaman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Costa Del Mar, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00373-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., April 3,
2019) is a deceptive practices case on behalf of a nationwide class
of Costa sunglasses purchaser. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
and damages, including costs of suit, interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, for Costa's false, deceptive, and unfair warranty.


The complaint asserts that the Defendant aggressively promotes and
advertises its sunglassers as being "backed for life", and touts
its sunglasses warranty as "the best in the industry", with "no
gimmicks and "no disclaimers". Costa proudly warranted: "If our
sunglasses are damages by accident, normal wear and tear, or
misuse, we replace scratched lenses, frames, and other parts for a
nominal fee".

But these claims are false, says the complaint. Consumers who
purchased sunglasses during the class period are not charged a
"nominal" fee for damages due to accident, normal wear and tear, or
misuse, but are instead charged far higher amounts.

As consequences of Costa's deceptive practice, Plaintiff and the
consumer class memebers purchased Costa sunglasses under the false
impression that their sunglasses are protected for life against
damages due to accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the class members have been damaged
because Costa charged, and they paid, far more than a "nominal fee"
to repair sunglasses, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a pair of Costa Triple Tail Singlasses.

Costa is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling
sunglasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter P. Hargitai, Esq.
     Joshua H. Roberts, Esq.
     Laura B. Renstrom, Esq.
     Michael M. Gropper, Esq.
     HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
     50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone (904) 353-2000
     Facsimile (904) 358-1872
     Email: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com
            joshua.roberts@hklaw.com
            laura.renstrom@hklaw.com
            michael.fropper@hklaw.com


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Order in Smith Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS B. SMITH, et al., v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2373, September Term, 2017 (Md. Spec. App.),
Judge Melanie M. Shaw Geter of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland affirmed the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
to compel arbitration in the contract action for the purchase of an
automobile.

On Nov. 15, 2013, the Appellants, Thomas Smith and Timothy Smith,
entered into a Retail Installment Contract to purchase a 2003
Cadillac Escalade from Anderson Automotive Group, Inc.
("Dealership").  The Dealership assigned all of its rights, title,
and interest, including its security interest, in and to the
Contract and the Vehicle to the Appellee, Credit Acceptance.

On Nov. 30, 2016, Credit Acceptance filed a lawsuit in the District
Court of Maryland, seeking to recover the unpaid deficiency
balance.  It claimed the Appellants were liable for failing to pay
amounts owed under the Contract.  In response, the Appellants filed
a Notice of Intention to Defend, which stated that the Plaintiff is
not entitled to a judgment in its favor and the Defendants deny the
allegations of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.

Credit Acceptance served limited interrogatories, which the
Appellants answered.  In response to one interrogatory, the
Appellants stated, "Plaintiff did not provide Defendants with
adequate notice related to the repossession (i.e. redemption, sale
and account).  The Plaintiff charged the Defendants fees to make
payments by phone.  Prior to receiving the interrogatory answers,
Credit Acceptance also filed a notice of intent to rely upon
business records. The parties did not engage in additional
discovery, file motions, or otherwise take any further action in
the District Court Action.  On July 11, 2017, just prior to trial,
Credit Acceptance voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit.

On July 19, 2017, the Appellants filed a Class Action Complaint in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which was subsequently
amended.  The Amended Complaint alleged Credit Acceptance violated
the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC") by
charging impermissible "convenience fees" when collecting payments
from the Appellants by telephone or through the internet, and
failing to provide adequate notice of the repossession and sale of
the Vehicle.  The Appellants sought statutory damages for the
asserted CLEC violations.

Before filing its response to the Amended Complaint, Credit
Acceptance invoked the Arbitration Clause in the Contract and
demanded the Appellants submit their claim to arbitration.  The
Appellants refused this demand.  Credit Acceptance then petitioned
the circuit court for an order to arbitrate the Appellant's claim.
The Appellants opposed the petition, arguing that Credit Acceptance
had waived its right to arbitrate by filing the District Court
Action.  On Jan. 12, 2018, the circuit court granted the petition.


The Appellants timely appealed the circuit court's ruling to the
Court.  They contend Credit Acceptance waived its right to
arbitrate the Appellants' claims filed in the Circuit Court Action
because it instituted the District Court Action.  Conversely,
Credit Acceptance argues it did not waive its right to arbitrate
the Appellants' claims because those claims are not "related" to or
"dependent on" Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court.

Judge Shaw Geter finds that Credit Acceptance did not waive its
right to arbitrate the claims in the Circuit Court Action.  None of
the Appellants' claims filed in the Circuit Court Action were
"raised and/or decided" in the District Court Action.  The sole
issue before the District Court was a breach of contract action
alleging Appellants were responsible for a contractual deficiency.


In the Circuit Court Action, the Appellants allege Credit
Acceptance violated the CLEC by charging impermissible "convenience
fees" when collecting their payments via telephone and internet and
its failure to provide adequate notices for the repossession and
sale of the Vehicle.  These claims were not raised or decided in
the District Court Action.

The Appellants argue their answer to an interrogatory in the
District Court Action sufficiently "raised" the issues alleged in
the Circuit Court Action as required by Charles J. Frank, Inc. v.
Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore, Inc.  The Judge
disagrees.  She finds that the answer to interrogatory stated that
the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendants with adequate notice
related to the repossession (i.e. redemption, sale and account).
The Plaintiff charged the Defendants fees to make payments by
phone.  However, answers to interrogatories are not a part of the
court record.  Also, the notice of intention to defend, filed by
the Appellants, was general and did specify any issues.  Further,
Credit Acceptance dismissed the lawsuit prior to trial.  The
Appellants also concede the issues alleged in the Circuit Court
Action were not "decided" in the District Court Action.

Finally, the Appellants' claims in the Circuit Court Action are
also not "dependent" on Credit Acceptance's claim in the District
Court Action under Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC.  The instant case,
unlike in Cain, where the Appellant's claims would not have existed
but for the Appellee's district court action against him, the
Appellants' claim that Credit Acceptance violated CLEC is wholly
independent of Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court.
The Appellants' claims involve Credit Acceptance's actions in
collecting payment under the Contract, while Credit Acceptance's
claim in the District Court Action was for a contractual
deficiency.  The Appellants' claims would exist regardless of
whether they breached the Contract or whether Credit Acceptance
instituted the District Court Action.  Accordingly, the Judge holds
the circuit court did not err in granting Credit Acceptance's
petition to compel Arbitration.

Judge Shaw Geter affirmed the Judgment of the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County.  The costs will be paid by the Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/G9MXzp from Leagle.com.


CREE INC: Wedra Suit Alleges False Labeling and Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cree Inc. for
alleged violations of the New York General Business Law Sections
349 and 350. The case is captioned STEPHANIE WEDRA, individually on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CREE, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-03162
(S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019). Plaintiff Stephanie Wedra alleges that
the Defendant violates the law by inaccurately describing,
labeling, marketing, and promoting it's the LED Lightbulbs. Wedra
also claims that the Defendant has been unjustly enriched to
Plaintiffs and the Class members' detriment as a result of
Defendant's unlawful and wrongful retention of money conferred by
Plaintiff and the Class who were unaware of Defendant's
misrepresentations. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class Members
seek monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief against Defendant.

Cree is an organization incorporated in North Carolina, with its
principal place of business at 4600 Silicon Drive, Durham, in
Durham County, North Carolina. The company manufactures
semiconductor products for power and radio-frequency (RF)
applications, lighting-class LEDs, and LED Lighting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  

     Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
     Michael Liskow, Esq.
     THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
     85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
     Telephone: (845) 483-7100
     Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
     E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
             liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

           - and -

     Michael A. McShane, Esq.
     S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
     Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
     Telephone: (415) 568-2555
     Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
     E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
             cwoods@audetlaw.com
             lkuang@audetlaw.com

              - and -

     Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
     Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 389-0600
     Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
     E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
             jbourne@pswlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: R. Hyams Can File 2nd Amended Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN HYAMS, an individual, on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, a Rhode Island Corporation, CVS PHARMACY, INC., a
Rhode Island Corporation, GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, a California
Corporation, and CVS RX SERVICES, INC., a New York Corporation,
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-06278-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

The Judge having considered the parties' Stipulation to Permit
Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint, submitted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), he granted their
Stipulation.  The Plaintiff will immediately e-file the SAC, which
was attached to the Stipulation.  The Defendants are deemed served
with the SAC by way of the Stipulation.  The Answer submitted to
the Court on Oct. 12, 2018 will remain the operative Answer, and
the Defendants need not file an additional responsive pleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1tJwjB from Leagle.com.

Ryan Hyams, an inidvidual, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Anne Gunn --
beth@gunncoble.com -- Gunn Coble LLP, Catherine Jean Coble --
cathy@gunncoble.com -- Gunn Coble LLP & David Z. Feingold, Gunn
Coble LLP.

CVS Health Corporation, a Rhode Island Corporation, CVS Pharmacy
Inc, a Rhode Island Corporation, Garfield Beach CVS LLC, a
California Corporation & CVS RX Services, Inc., a New York
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Jennifer B. Zargarof --
jzargarof@sidley.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Sonia Andrea
Vucetic -- svucetic@sidley.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


DATA ENTERPRISES: Neb. App. Affirms Keith Dismissal With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADY KEITH, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. DATA ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee,
Case No. A-17-654 (Neb. App.), Judge Riko E. Bishop of the Court of
Appeals of Nebraska affirmed the decision of the district court for
Lancaster County which granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The case arose from the printing of credit and debit card
expiration dates on the printed receipts issued to customers of a
Lincoln, Nebraska, restaurant.  Showing the expiration date on the
receipt was a violation of federal law.  The Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") is an act to amend the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), to prevent identity theft,
improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the accuracy of
consumer records, make improvements in the use of, and consumer
access to, credit information, and for other purposes.

Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc. ("BYBN"), owned and operated
several food retail locations in several cities in Nebraska,
including one on Andermatt Drive in Lincoln.  Data Enterprises
("DCR") is a Tennessee corporation engaged in the business of
providing services and equipment for the processing of credit and
debit card transactions.  Data Cash Register Co. is the predecessor
to Data Enterprises.

Because BYBN lacked the expertise to process credit and debit card
transactions, it entered into an agreement with DCR, whereby DCR
agreed to process credit card transactions for BYBN and to issue
receipts for such transactions.  DCR was fully and solely
responsible for establishing a system at BYBN's retail location to
process credit or debit card transactions and to issue receipts for
such transactions in compliance with state and federal law.

DCR first installed systems to process credit or debit card
transactions at BYBN's locations in June 2005.  Thereafter, BYBN
entered into yearly support agreements with DCR whereby DCR agreed
to provide support and maintenance for the systems installed by
DCR.  The yearly support agreements were in effect from August 15
of a given year until August 14 of the following year.  BYBN
entered into yearly support agreements with DCR every year starting
on Aug. 15, 2007 until Aug. 15, 2010.  Thus, DCR was required to
provide support and maintenance to BYBN from Aug. 15, 2007 until
Aug. 14, 2011.

The support and maintenance under the yearly support agreements was
provided by Merchant Link, a third party, but BYBN contracted with
DCR and made all payments to DCR, not to Merchant Link.  Merchant
Link acted on behalf of DCR in providing support under the yearly
support agreements.

Between Aug. 15, 2007 and Aug. 14, 2011, Keith and thousands of
other customers, used a debit or credit card to make purchases at
BYBN's Andermatt location.  In each purchase that occurred between
those dates, customers were given a DCR-generated cash register
receipt displaying the expiration date of the customer's card.

On May 25, 2011, Keith filed his "First Amended Complaint" against
BYBN in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.  The
federal complaint alleged that BYBN violated FACTA by issuing
receipts displaying the last four digits of customers' credit and
debit cards, as well as the expiration date for those cards.  The
federal complaint also sought to certify a "Class" composed of all
persons who used either a Visa or MasterCard debit or credit card,
or American Express credit card at the Andermatt Location, where
BYBN provided an electronically printed receipt at the point of
sale or transaction that displayed the expiration date of that
person's credit or debit card.

On July 1, 2014, Keith, on behalf of thousands of customers that
were certified as a Class, entered into a settlement agreement with
BYBN.  In the settlement agreement, BYBN agreed to the entry of a
Consent Judgment against them and in favor of Keith on behalf of
the "Class" in the amount of $2,792,400.  The U.S. District Court
for the District of Nebraska granted the settlement final approval
given on Feb. 20, 2015.

On Aug. 31, 2016, Keith, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint against DCR in the district
court for Lancaster County.  The complaint states the action was
brought to enforce a judgment assigned to Keith by BYBN, meant to
redress DCR's wrongful disclosure of Keith's personal financial
information.  The complaint alleged breach of contract (count I),
breach of contract (acts of Merchant Link as agent for DCR) (count
II), negligence (count III), indemnity (count IV), negligent
misrepresentation (count V), and violation of Nebraska's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") (count VI).  In each count,
Keith prayed for judgment against DCR in the amount of the Consent
Judgment, $2,792,400, plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, for its costs incurred herein, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as the court deemed just
and proper.

On Nov. 4, 2016, DCR filed a motion to dismiss each of Keith's
claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  DCR specifically alleged that Keith's claims for breach
of contract, breach of contract (acts of Merchant Link as agent for
DCR), negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
UDTPA were all barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
DCR further alleged that as to all claims, the purported class
action does not meet the commonality requirement or show that Keith
can satisfy any judgment on behalf of the class.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held in January 2017.  The
district court subsequently filed its "Order of Dismissal" on May
24.  In its order, the district court found that Keith's claims for
breach of contract, breach of contract (acts of Merchant Link as
agent for DCR), negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
violation of UDTPA were all barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  The court further found that based on the
allegations, the settlement, equitable principles, and principles
of law, Keith's claim for indemnification failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted, and that such failure could not
be cured by amendment.  Finally, the court found the complaint
failed to state a claim on behalf of a class.  The court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.

Keith appeals.  He assigns that the district court erred in (1)
determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact
despite his well-pleaded facts regarding indemnity in each claim
causing the court to find that the statute of limitations ran at an
earlier, dispositive date; and (2) denying his overall indemnity
claim by making a greater factual determination regarding the
parties' relationship that went well beyond a court's role in a
motion to dismiss.

Keith claims that the district court erred in determining that the
statute of limitations had run on counts I, II, III, and V.  He
does not challenge the district court's determination that count VI
(violation of UDTPA) was time barred.  Judge Bishop agrees with the
district court that counts I, II, III, and V are barred by their
applicable statute of limitations.  Keith cannot save any separate
causes of action for contract and tort against DCR by trying to
retitle them as indemnity claims; the district court properly
concluded that these claims were barred by the statute of
limitations.  However, Keith pled a separate count of indemnity,
and his indemnity claim will be addressed in its own right.
Notably, the district court did not find that Keith's indemnity
claim was time barred.

As to count IV, the Judge finds that Keith, standing in the place
of BYBN, does not have a right to indemnification from DCR under
FACTA because such right was neither expressly or implicitly
created by Congress, nor was the right one of federal common law.
Although the Judge's reasoning differs from that of the district
court, she agrees that Keith failed to state a claim for indemnity
upon which relief could be granted.  If a trial court arrives at
the correct result even though it uses a reason different from that
expressed by the Court, the judgment will still be upheld.
Although Keith, standing in the place of BYBN, did not have a right
to indemnification from DCR, federal law does not prohibit a
separate breach of contract claim or a separate tort claim, and
Keith did in fact bring such claims against DCR.  However, Keith
did not file his separate contract and tort claims within the
applicable statute of limitations.

Keith's final argument relates to the finding by the district court
that the complaint failed to state a claim on behalf of a class.
However, because he has already determined that Keith has failed to
state a claim for relief as to all counts in his complaint, the
Judge need not determine whether Keith needed to plead the state
court case as a class action.  An appellate court is not obligated
to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the
case and controversy before it.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Bishop finds that Keith has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and she
therefore affirmed the district court's order dismissing Keith's
complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TDU7JM from Leagle.com.

Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- of Spencer
Fane, L.L.P., for appellant.

Colin A. Mues and Emily R. Motto -- emotto@baylorevnen.com -- of
Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., for appellee.


DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: McCray Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DESSERI MCCRAY, the Plaintiff, v.
DEITSCH AND WRIGHT, P.A., the Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-00731-EAK-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying herself as the representative of a class of
      consumers with claims against Defendant Deitsch and Wright,
      P.A. under sections 1692e(10), 1692g(b) of the Fair Debt
      Collection Practices Act:

      "all individuals in the State of Florida to whom Defendant,
      between March 27, 2017 and March 27, 2018 and in an attempt
      to collect a debt, sent a letter based on the same template
      used to create October 26, 2017 letter"; and

   2. appointing Amorette Rinkleib of the Thompson Consumer Law
      Group, PLLC and Alex D. Weisberg of the Weisberg Consumer Law

      Group, PA as class counsel.

The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant arise from its use of a
standardized collection letter. While the Letter discloses the
recipient's rights under the FDCPA, it also: demands immediate
payment; states that Defendant -- a law firm -- had been authorized
to use any means at its disposal to collect the full balance; and
threatens that Defendant would be forced to take additional action
unless payment was promptly made.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter violates section 1692g(b) of
the FDCPA by overshadowing the disclosure of the consumer's rights.
She further alleges that the Letter violates section 1692e(10) by
creating a false sense of urgency, in that Defendant did not intend
to take legal action if she did not make payment.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 899-9189
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Meredith A. Chaiken, Esq.
          Steven K. Platzek, Esq.
          GRANER PLATZEK & ALLISON, P.A.
          720 Palmetto Park Rd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          E-mail: meredith@granerlaw.com
                  skp@granerlaw.com

DELAMOR ENTERPRISES: Wilmott Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN WILMOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELAMOR ENTERPRISES, L.P. and DELAMOR
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00051-KRG (W.D.
Pa., March 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Wilmott and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members
were hourly-paid restaurant workers who were victims of Defendants'
common unlawful policies in violation of the FLSA, PMWA and WPCL.

The Defendants required the hourly-paid restaurant workers to
perform work for over 40 hours a week but established payroll on a
twice a month basis. The Defendants deliberately made the paystubs
confusing so a view of the paystub would not allow the employee to
determine what hours were credited with what week, the lawsuit
says.

Further, the paystubs were in violation of the CFR that requires a
clear explanation of what hours worked are credited to what
workweek, so an employee can ensure that the overtime hours were
correct.

The Defendants used the confusion to short the employees' overtime
wages. The Defendants failed to pay some overtime wages at a rate
of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times their regular rate of
pay for at least some hours they worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

Specifically, Defendants used the confusing paystubs to pay
overtime at a straight rate of pay.

Delamor Management and Delamor Enterprises jointly operate and own
at least 10 franchised stores of McDonald's restaurant in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

DELUXE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mansapit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. MANSAPIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELUXE CORPORATION; DELUXE CHECK
PRINTERS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV344874
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 20, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

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

Deluxe Corporation provides checks, forms, marketing solutions,
accessories, and other products and services for small businesses
and financial institutions. The company was formerly known as
Deluxe Check Printers, Incorporated and changed its name to Deluxe
Corporation in 1988. Deluxe Corporation was founded in 1915 and is
headquartered in Shoreview, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DO & CO: Kissoon Sues over Illegal & Improper Wage Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MEYONKA KISSOON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DO & CO NEW YORK CATERING,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 506808/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 28,
2019), targets Defendant's alleged illegal and improper wage
practices.

The practices include requiring Office Workers to perform work
without compensation during meal breaks; requiring Office Workers
to perform work without compensation outside of their scheduled
shift; failing to pay Office Workers overtime of time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a
week; and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff and other Office Workers typically worked through
some or all of their meal period without any compensation. The
Plaintiff worked through 30 minutes of her meal break up to five
shifts per week. Thus, because of Defendant's improper compensation
policies, on average, the Plaintiff was not paid for approximately
two hours and 30 minutes of work time per week during meal breaks
in violation of the New York Labor Law.

In addition, the Plaintiff and other Office Workers performed work
outside of their scheduled shift and were not paid for this work.
The Plaintiff worked on 30 minutes after the end of her shift up to
4 days a week.

DO & CO offers inflight catering services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative New York Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105

DUNDRUM LLC: Adsit FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER L. ADSIT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUNDRUM, LLC; and LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES R. VAUGHAN, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00110-SMJ
(E.D. Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, and
Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.

On Sept. 14, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed class settlement between the parties.  The proposed
Settlement resolves all claims against the Defendants in exchange
for their agreement to provide certain monetary and nonmonetary
relief in the form of debt forgiveness as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims.  Pursuant to the
Court's prior order, notice was given to the Settlement Class.

Now, before the Court are the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement.  On March 19, 2019, Judge Mendoza held a fairness
hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the
Settlement.  He heard argument from the counsel.  No class members
objected to or otherwise appeared to testify regarding the
settlement.  Moreover, no class member has objected to the fee
application.

The Judge has considered all the papers and proceedings in the
matter.  Having reviewed the file in the matter, he finds the
proposed Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it is
the result of extensive arm's length negotiations.  He therefore
certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
and approved the parties' Settlement.

He maintains the previous appointment of the Class Representative
and the Class Counsel, and now turns to the Plaintiff's application
for an award of attorney's fees, costs, and service award -- which
are separate from the settlement funds to be paid to the Settlement
Class.

The Judge's final calculated lodestar, which is presumptively
reasonable, is $30,233.75.  While this figure is different from the
Counsel's calculation of $29,925.95, the Judge sets aside the
difference given that the Counsel requests $30,000 in total for
both fees and costs -- which is a reduction from either figure.
Accordingly, he grants the Counsel's unopposed motion and awards
fees and costs in the amount of $30,000.  This award accurately
conveys the level of success achieved by the Class Counsel in the
case.

The Class Counsel requests a service award payment to the Class
Representative in the amount of $2,000.  Ms. Adsit dedicated
substantial effort as the representative, stepping forward to serve
as proposed class representative, assisting in the investigation,
reviewing the factual allegations in the complaint, keeping abreast
of the litigation, responding to discovery requests, and meeting
and communicating with the Class Counsel on an ongoing basis
regarding the progress of the litigation, settlement efforts, and
settlement terms. Again, there were no objectors to such a payment.
To compensate her for the time and effort she dedicated to the
case, the Judge awards Ms. Adsit the reasonable amount of $2,000.
This does not undermine her representativeness.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Mendoza granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, and
Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.  

On Sept. 14, 2018, in the Court's Order of Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement, the Court conditionally certified the following
proposed Settlement Class for settlement purposes: (A) All persons;
(B) Who are Judgment Debtors; (C) In a case filed by or assigned to
Dundrum, LLC; (D) Based upon an assigned account for an obligation
for the payment of money or thing of value arising out of any
agreement or contract, express or implied, and not based upon a
claim assigned by any municipality; (E) In a Court in the state of
Washington; (F) Where a writ of garnishment was filed on or after
Feb. 23, 2016; (G) Where the writ of garnishment was sent to any
third party in conjunction with a letter that is not specifically
authorized by law; (H) Where Dundrum sent the judgment debtor a
Notice of Garnishment and of your Rights for a non-wage
garnishment, which stated that the defendant was entitled to a $200
exemption for cash on hand or in a bank account.

As he did then, the Judge finds the proposed Settlement Class
satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).  Accordingly, he made final the conditional certification
set forth in the Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.
A single member of the Class, Orlando Sanchez, has timely
requested to be excluded from the Class and the Settlement.
Accordingly, the Order will not bind or affect Orlando Sanchez.

The Judge granted final approval to the Settlement.  He dismissed
with prejudice all claims of Settlement Class members against the
Defendants that arise out of or relate in any way to their debt
collection efforts based on the garnishment forms.

As an incentive payment in compensation for the time, effort, and
risk she undertook as the representative of the Settlement Class,
the Judge awarded $2,000 to Plaintiff Jennifer L. Adsit.

He awarded attorney's fees and costs to compensate the Class
Counsel and his paralegal for their time and expenses.  He approved
the Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application, and awarded to the
Class Counsel fees and costs in the total aggregate amount of
$30,000.  All such fees are in lieu of statutory fees that the
Class Representative and/or the Settlement Class might otherwise
have been entitled to recover.

The Defendants will pay the fee award to the Class Counsel and the
incentive fee to the Class Representative, as well as amounts due
to the eligible Class Members who timely filed a claim under the
Agreement, in accordance with and at the times prescribed by the
Agreement.

The Clerk's Office is directed to enter judgment of dismissal with
prejudice, strike all dates and deadlines, and close the file.  The
Clerk's Office is directed to enter the Order and provide copies to
all the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Settlement Order and
Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/BzLb5m from
Leagle.com.

Jennifer L Adsit, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D. Miller PS.

Dundrum LLC & Law Offices of James R Vaughan PC, Defendants,
represented by Adil A. Siddiki, Law Office of James R. Vaughn,
P.C..


DUPLIN COUNTY: Lang Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RYAN LANG, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DUPLIN COUNTY, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00077-BO (E.D.N.C.), Mr. Lang moves the
Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
      court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving proposed FLSA notice of the action and the consent

      form;

   3. producing names, last known mailing addresses, last-known
      cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
      dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days

      of the Order; and

   4. distributing the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail,

      email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the
      conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing
      to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-
      responding putative plaintiffs.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                 csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Wendy Sivori, Esq.
          Kenansville, NC 28349
          Telephone: 910-372-9332
          Facsimile: 910-296-1879
          E-mail: wendy.sivori@duplincountync.com

               - and -

          Norwood P. Blanchard, III
          CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES, PLLC
          5002 Randall Parkway
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 762-9711
          Facsimile: (910) 256-0310
          E-mail: norwood@cmclawfirm.com

EDWARD D. JONES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Bland Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAYNE BLAND, DANUTA DURKIEWICZ, DAVID BOWLES and ADAM
REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. and THE JONES FINANCIAL
COMPANIES, L.L.L.P., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1832 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Class and
Collective Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative collective and class action on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") (Count I) and several Illinois and Missouri statutes.

The Plaintiffs are all former Financial Advisors who worked for the
Defendants and participated in the Defendants' Financial Advisor
training program.  The Plaintiffs assert that the terms of the
training program, the wages they received during the training
program, and the wages they subsequently received as financial
advisors violate the FLSA, and a host of state laws.  Many of their
claims concern one of the terms contained within the "Financial
Advisor Employment Agreement" that the Plaintiffs and the class
they wish to represent were required to execute before beginning
their training.

Each of the Plaintiffs also received a "Compensation Agreement,"
that provides a schedule of compensation for both their time as
trainees and then as "New Financial Advisors."  The training
program comprises a 17-week "Study Calendar" period divided into
two stages.  During this Study Calendar period, trainees are paid
on a bi-weekly basis.  The trainees also qualify as overtime
eligible.

Although Defendants expect trainees to work 45 hours during the
first stage and 60 hours during the second stage, the projected
bi-weekly pay does not vary between the two periods.  Rather, they
adjust the hourly rate between the two periods such that
individuals like Plaintiffs are paid an almost identical amount in
both periods.  This "projected gross pay" includes the overtime
trainees are expected to work.

However, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants neither track
nor compensate trainees for the hours that they actually work.
They further allege that the Defendants' policy and practice
"knowingly discourages trainees from accurately reporting all of
the hours they work and fails to pay the trainees wages and
overtime for the work they perform.

Upon achieving "can sell" status, trainees become "new financial
advisors" and the Defendants classify them as overtime "exempt."
Financial Advisors are salaried, though the salary begins to
fluctuate based on performance after four months.  As new financial
advisors, individuals such as the Plaintiffs solicit "door knock"
contacts to become clients.  They receive little training during
this period, which primarily constitutes access to a Regional
Trainer and wholesaler presentations by preferred partner firms
whose products the Firm pushes new financial advisors] to sell to
clients.  However, their primary duty is to sell financial
products.

In fact, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants instructed them
to sell these financial products without regard to the clients'
individual needs, financial circumstances, or investment
objectives.  Nor were the Plaintiffs placed in job positions whose
primary duty was to perform work directly related to the management
or general business operations of Edward Jones or clients.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at various offices around
the country and at various periods between January 2014 and June
2016.  They each signed the Financial Advisor Employment Agreement
containing the TCR Provision.  Each worked well over 40 hours per
week, studying for the industry licensing exams, completing the
training program requirements, travelling to St. Louis or Tempe for
training, completing whatever tasks were assigned to them in the
office, working to develop a network of potential clients, and
selling financial products to clients, among other things.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were never compensated for all the
hours that they worked and did not receive the meaningful training
and/or "lucrative career" that they were promised.  Instead, they
allege that they were each constructively discharged or otherwise
forced to leave, and that the Defendants later demanded that they
pay either all or some portion of the $75,000 required under the
TCR Provision that exceeds the amount they were paid during their
entire employment with the Defendant.

In response to this conduct, the Plaintiffs filed the purported
collective and class action suit alleging multiple violations of
the FLSA and various Illinois and Missouri statutes on March 13,
2018.  On June 12, 2018, they filed an amended complaint further
detailing those claims.  

The Plaintiffs allege five separate violations of the FLSA (Count
I), a violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
(Count II), a violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (Count
III), and a violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (Count VI).
In addition, the Plaintiffs seek the rescission of the TCR
Provision (Count IV) and the disgorgement of funds under a theory
of unjust enrichment (Count V).

On July 10, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss.

Judge Dow finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims
under the TCR Provision, and in any event, fail to state a claim.
All the arguments that they raise against the TCR Provision are
either potential defenses to the enforcement of the contract that
Plaintiffs could raise if and when the Defendants attempt to
enforce the provision or possible reasons to invalidate the
contract as a matter of state law.  They are not reasons to find
that the TRC Provision violates the FLSA.  The Judge grants the
Defendants' motion as to the Plaintiffs' claims in Count I
regarding the TCR Provision.  However, because het concludes that
the Plaintiffs lack standing based on the complaint as pled, the
dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to replead.

Next, he finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a minimum wage
claim and an overtime claim.  The Plaintiffs have not provided a
single allegation regarding what their effective hourly wages were
during the relevant period, nor have they introduced any examples
of the total compensation they received during any given workweek.
The Defendants' compensation scheme may be condemnable, or
manipulative, but based on the facts before it, the Judge cannot
conclude that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a violation of
the FLSA's overtime requirements.  The Plaintiffs need to provide
more details about what they were or were not paid, and at least
one example of a pay period in which their pay was insufficient
given the number of hours they worked.

The Plaintiffs also allege that they are entitled to overtime after
they achieved "can sell" status and began working as financial
advisors because the Defendants' misclassified them as non-exempt.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs were not misclassified,
and that in any event, the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
that they worked overtime during the relevant period.  The Judge
finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' fail to allege that they worked
overtime; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations do not show they fail
the salary basis test; (iii) the Plaintiffs' allegations do not
show they fail the job duties test.

Although the Plaintiffs appear to concede in their briefing that
there is no private right of action under the FLSA for violations
of the that statute's recordkeeping requirements, it is well
established that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit for
recordkeeping violations under the FLSA.  The Judge therefore
grants the Defendants' motion as to the recordkeeping claims within
Count I with prejudice.

While he will allow the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint,
the Judge must dismiss Plaintiff Bowles with prejudice as to his
overtime and misclassification claims in Count I.  While the Court
generally refrains from dismissing claims on the basis of an
affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, the
allegations laid out above establish that Bowles employment
terminated more than three years before the Plaintiffs filed their
complaint in the case.  Thus, the Judge grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Bowles from Count I with prejudice as to any
claims that do not pertain to the TCR Provision.
Having granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the one federal
claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Judge addresses
whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,
Counts II-VI.  Finding no justification for departing from that
"usual practice" in the case, the Plaintiff's state law claims are
dismissed without prejudice.  However, the Plaintiffs may continue
to include their state law claims in any amended complaint that
they may file.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Dow granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff Bowles' claims in Count I are
dismissed with prejudice, except as to any claims that relate to
the TCR Provision, which are dismissed without prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs' recordkeeping claim in Count I is also dismissed with
prejudice. The remainder of Count I and Counts II-VI are dismissed
without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs are given until April 15, 2019
to file an amended complaint consistent with this opinion.  The
case is set for further status, on April 23, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/2w84Uq from Leagle.com.

Wayne Bland, Danuta Durkiewicz, David Bowles & Adam Reyes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Linda Debra Friedman --
Lfriedman@sfltd.com -- Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., George S. Robot --
grobot@sfltd.com -- Stowell & Friedman, Ltd. & Suzanne E. Bish --
sbish@sftld.com -- Stowell & Friedman, Ltd.

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. & The Jones Financial Companies,
L.L.L.P., Defendants, represented by James F. Bennett --
jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- Dowd Bennett Llp, Jennifer Smith
Kingston -- jennifers@sutton.com -- Dowd Bennett Llp, Michelle
Nasser -- mnasser@dowdbennett.com -- Dowd Bennett LLP, Brian
Frederick Amery, Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., pro hac vice, Carole
G. Miller, Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., pro hac vice, Julie B.
Porter -- porter@spplawyers.com -- Salvatore Prescott & Porter PLLC
& Stuart Dewane Roberts -- sroberts@bressler.com -- Bressler, Amery
& Ross, P.C.


ENVIROPLUS INC: Chavez Seeks Approval of Class Notice
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JOSE CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, v. ENVIROPLUS, INC., an Illinois corporation, SALVADOR
GARCIA , Individually, and RODOLFO MORENO, Individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07358 (N.D. Ill.), the the Plaintiff
asks the Court to approve and authorize the circulation of notice
to the class consisting of:

   "other similarly situated past and present employees who have
   worked for Defendants as hourly union laborer employees, as
   agreed upon by the Parties, within the pertinent statutory time

   period."

The notice provides for a 45 day "opt-in" period. The Parties
suggest a status date approximately 60 days from the Court's
granting of this Motion, at such time the parties will be in a
position to inform the Court of the scope of remaining discovery
and production of records needed to begin assessment of alleged
damages under Plaintiffs' theory of the case.

The Plaintiff has filed his claim for unpaid wages and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, known or unknown:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

EPOCH LLC: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Omar Matias Rossello, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Epoch LLC, FOT Investments
LLC, doing business as Domino's Pizza, and Clutch Consulting LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01307 (D. P.R., April 4, 2019) is an
action brought against the Defendants for withholding adequate pay
from their delivery drivers. Defendants have failed to reimburse
Plaintiff and the Class for the costs of the use of their
vehicles.

Specifically, the Defendants failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and the Class at the federally mandated minimum wage rate
for all hours worked in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), as well as pursuant to Puerto Rico
wage laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kevin Omar Matias Rossello is an adult who is a citizen
and resident of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, who works as a Pizza
Delivery Driver for Domino's Pizza.

Epoch LLC is a domestic limited liability corporation, which does
business under the commercial name Domino's Puerto Rico. Epoch is
the Master Franchisee in Puerto Rico of the main corporation
Domino's Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     FRANCISCO E. COLON-RAMIREZ, Esq.
     COLON RAMIREZ LLC
     PO Box 361920
     San Juan, PR 00936-1920 Tel.:
     Phone: (888) 760-1077
     Fax: (305) 507-1920
     Email: fecolon@colonramirez.com

          - and -

     KEITH ALTMAN, Esq.
     Excolo Law, PLLC
     26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
     Southfield, MI 48033
     Phone: (516)456-5885
     Email: kaltman@excololaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Fights Cambridge Analytica Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Marketwatch.com, reports that a year
after the uproar unleashed by the revelation a political data
analysis firm, Cambridge Analytica, got a hold of millions of
Facebook users' personal data, the social media giant's lawyers are
telling a federal judge a consumer lawsuit over the scandal is
baseless because the breach didn't harm anyone.

In court papers filed late on March 15, Facebook's attorneys said
it's not enough for users to complain their privacy was violated or
their information was shared. There's got to be "an actual or
imminent real-world injury," according to a dismissal motion filed
in the Northern District of California.

None of the users were saying they were subjected to anything of
the sort, Facebook maintained -- "no actionable identity theft,
emotional distress, or economic injury." Any "targeted advertising"
didn't count. Without real harm, the users didn't have a legal leg
to stand on, the company claimed.

Two plaintiffs say they've found their information for sale on the
dark web and others say they've endured phishing and data-breach
attempts.

But the plaintiffs in the more than 25 consolidated federal suits
say the harm has been all too real. According their filings, two
plaintiffs say they've found their information for sale on the dark
web and others say they've endured phishing and data-breach
attempts.

The now-shuttered Cambridge Analytica was working for now-President
Donald Trump's campaign, though the campaign reportedly has said it
didn't use the data harvested from Facebook to help Trump get
elected. The firm could have gotten a look at people's public
profile, location, likes and other data when any friends took the
"This Is Your Digital Life" personality quiz. Up to 87 million
accounts were affected, Facebook previously said.

The same day Facebook filed its dismissal bid, the app's developer,
Aleksandr Kogan, sued Facebook for defamation, alleging he was
turned into a "convenient scapegoat."

The plaintiffs said they were in the dark about what Facebook could
do with their data, and ended up with "invasive and unwanted
content." Now many said they spent hours scrutinizing their bank
accounts and credit reports for fear of hacking. Some said they now
had to deal with things like troll friend requests, spam calls and
texts.

The dismissal bid came on the end of a tumultuous week for
Facebook, which included a New York Times report about a grand jury
subpoena from Brooklyn federal prosecutors related to data sharing
practices.

Earlier in March, Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg said he
wanted a new privacy focus for the platform.

Courts aren't the place for consumers to resolve their complaints,
the company said in its filing. Lawmakers and regulators were
better suited for "sensitive policy making," instead of "one-off
litigation" where the judge was being asked to go along with
unfounded privacy right arguments.

Some lawmakers definitely want to get involved. For example,
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, a U.S. Senator
from Massachusetts, is proposing to break up "big tech," which
includes Facebook, Google GOOG, +0.41%  and Amazon AMZN, -0.23%

Meanwhile, California enacted a consumer privacy act related to
personal data collection that's set to go into effect in 2020.
Zuckerberg testified in April on Capitol Hill for hours on
information sharing issues and other things, like stopping the
spread of hate speech and illegal content.

At the time, he said the company had to make sure online
connections were positive.

"We have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure
that they're used for good," Zuckerberg said. "It will take some
time to work through all the changes we need to make across the
company, but I'm committed to getting this right," he said. "This
includes the basic responsibility of protecting people's
information, which we failed to do with Cambridge Analytica."

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
its filing and a lawyer for the consumer plaintiffs declined to
comment.

A company spokesman slammed Kogan's claims, telling NBC News, "this
is a frivolous lawsuit from someone who recklessly violated our
policies and put people's data at risk."

Oral arguments on the Cambridge Analytica consumer case are slated
for late May in front of Northern District Judge Vince Chhabria.
[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Civil Rights Suits Over Ad Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pema Levy, writing for Mother Jones, reports that Facebook has
reached settlements in three civil rights cases and two complaints
before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over ad
discrimination on its platform. As part of the settlements,
Facebook has promised to make significant changes to its ad tools
to curb the ability of advertisers to target users based on their
race, gender, age, disability, and other protected
characteristics.

Facebook has become a peerless source of demographic data for
advertisers. The information it gathers on its users allows
advertisers to target ads for their products and services to an
unprecedented level of precision. If you want to sell baseball gear
in Washington, DC, for example, you can target middle-aged mothers
with children who live in a wealthy ZIP code. But for years, civil
rights groups have been warning Facebook -- first in conversations,
then in a series of lawsuits -- that this hyper-targeting can run
afoul of civil rights laws.

On March 19, Facebook announced settlements with the National Fair
Housing Alliance, the Communications Workers of America, regional
fair housing organizations, and individual consumers and job
seekers, represented by the ACLU and two civil rights firms across
five different cases over ad discrimination on the platform.
Without admitting wrongdoing, Facebook agreed to major changes to
its targeting tools for ads in industries protected by federal
civil rights laws: housing, employment, and credit.

While it's legal to market baseball caps to men, for example,
federal civil rights laws prohibit targeting ads for housing,
employment, and loans based on protected characteristics like race,
gender, age, and disability. On October 31, 2016, ProPublica
published a bombshell investigation showing that advertisers could
target ads in protected industries by race. A job ad might be shown
just to white men, for example. The following month, the first
civil rights lawsuit against Facebook was filed in California, a
class-action suit on behalf of the millions of people of color who
were missing out on opportunities for housing, jobs, and credit due
to Facebook's ad tools.

In February 2017, Facebook announced that it had removed the
ability to target groups in these three protected areas. But a
subsequent ProPublica investigation in November 2017 showed that
Facebook's fix didn't work: Reporters had successfully placed
rental housing ads that excluded protected groups of people,
including African Americans, Jews, Spanish speakers, and people
interested in wheelchair ramps. This second story prompted another
major suit by fair housing advocates in New York. The following
year, the ACLU and the Communications Workers of America filed two
complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over
gender and age discrimination in employment ads. On March 19,
Facebook settled with all of them.

"There is a long history of discrimination in the areas of housing,
employment, and credit, and this harmful behavior should not happen
through Facebook ads," Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wrote in blog
post announcing the changes, adding, "We can do better."

Facebook's lawyers initially moved to have the cases against it
dismissed. In April 2018, when CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before
Congress, multiple lawmakers pressed him on the ProPublica stories
and Facebook's decision to fight the suits. Sen. Cory Booker
(D-N.J.) pressed Zuckerberg to explain how, as Facebook's court
filings claimed, people who were excluded from job advertisements
were not being harmed. Zuckerberg acknowledged at the time that
protecting people from illegal ad discrimination practices was a
work in progress.

Since that hearing, Facebook has agreed to a civil rights audit, a
holistic review of possible civil rights issues on its platform. It
has hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the ACLU in Washington,
to lead the project. Sandberg cited this audit in Facebook's
decision to settle the cases. "Civil rights leaders and experts --
including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus, and Laura Murphy, the highly respected civil
rights leader who is overseeing the Facebook civil rights audit --
have also raised valid concerns about this issue," she wrote in her
blog post. "We take those concerns seriously and, as part of our
civil rights audit, engaged the noted civil rights law firm Relman,
Dane & Colfax to review our ads tools and help us understand what
more we could do to guard against misuse."

But if Facebook has finally decided to take this issue seriously,
promising to roll out a series of changes this year to dramatically
reduce the ad targeting options in these protected categories, it
did so under the threat of litigation. The Justice Department had
sided with the fair housing advocates in the New York suit. If
Facebook had not settled the cases in California and New York and
instead had lost in court, it could have faced greater liability
for the content published on its platform.

"As the internet -- and platforms like Facebook -- play an
increasing role in connecting us all to information related to
economic opportunities, it's crucial that micro-targeting not be
used to exclude groups that already face discrimination," Galen
Sherwin, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said in a statement on
March 19. "We are pleased Facebook has agreed to take meaningful
steps to ensure that discriminatory advertising practices are not
given new life in the digital era, and we expect other tech
companies to follow Facebook's lead." Beyond Facebook, civil rights
groups hope that the settlement will create a benchmark for the
rest of Silicon Valley when it comes to ad discrimination.

As part of the settlement, Facebook will create a separate portal
for ads in the areas of housing, employment, and credit that will
limit the number of targeting categories available to advertisers.
In addition, the parties who filed the suits and complaints will
continue to work with Facebook for three years to monitor the
effects of the changes and study the potential for unintended
biases in its algorithms. And Facebook will make changes to one way
it develops target audiences for an ad so that it is no longer
taking protected classes like race and gender into account when it
creates an audience for an advertiser.

Despite these big changes, Aaron Rieke, the managing director at
Upturn, a nonprofit that researches the intersection of technology
and discrimination, says they don't go far enough. "These are real
improvements, but it's also not a complete answer to the problem,"
Rieki says. "The potential for discrimination still exists here,
certainly." Upturn submitted a brief in the California class-action
case highlighting the ways Facebook's algorithms and tools can
inadvertently discriminate. In those areas, Rieke believes the
settlements fall short.

But Morgan Williams, general counsel for the National Fair Housing
Alliance, which sued in New York, praised the settlement resulting
from that suit. "The agreement will set a new standard across the
tech industry concerning company policies that intersect with civil
rights," Williams said. "We're pleased with the settlement because
it involves Facebook making broad and unprecedented changes to its
platform." [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Crump Seeks Damages Over Vehicle Recall
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Crump, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.; FCA US
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00194-JR (D. Ariz., March 29,
2019) seeks all damages permitted by law, including compensation
for the monetary difference between the "Class Vehicles" as
warranted and as sold; compensation for the reduction in resale
value; the cost of purchasing, leasing, or renting replacement
vehicles, along with all other incidental and consequential
damages, statutory attorney fees, and all other relief allowed by
law.

Fiat Chrysler consumers did not receive what they paid for when
they bought or leased one of the following gasoline-powered
vehicles, (collectively, the "Class Vehicles"): 2011-2016 MY1 Dodge
Journey (FWD2); 2011-2014 MY Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger (FWD);
2011-2012 MY Dodge Caliber (FWD, CVT3); 2011-2016 MY Jeep
Compass/Patriot (FWD, CVT).

In the words of the Environmental Protection Agency's March 13,
2019 announcement, "owners of affected vehicles will receive
notification from [sic] FCA when parts are available for them to
bring their vehicle in to be repaired, and owners can continue to
drive their vehicles in the meantime. Owners who live in locations
subject to inspection and maintenance may be required to have the
recall performed prior to having the inspection performed".

The California Air Resources Board took a blunter approach in its
own announcement (the "CARB Announcement") in a significant
announcement for all affected consumers in California. CARB has
declared that consumers "who fail to get the necessary repairs will
not be able to register their vehicles."

After the EPA and CARB Announcements went live, FCA was contacted
for comment about the recall. FCA indicated that the recall "was
accounted for in last year's financial documents." But FCA has
still said nothing to the vast majority of its own consumers,
despite the fact that FCA has been under considerable scrutiny in
the wake of its EcoDiesel emissions issues, asserts the complaint.
Instead of disclosing to consumers the true nature and extent of
its vehicles' emissions issues, FCA has continued its ardent
efforts to boost its own bottom line, at consumers' considerable
expense and inconvenience.

Despite ample warning of what the applicable emissions standards
would be, on March 13, 2019, the EPA announced that "FCA has agreed
to voluntarily recall 862,520 vehicles in the United States." These
gasoline-powered vehicles are not compliant with emissions
standards, as discovered through "in-use emissions investigations
conducted by EPA and in-use testing conducted by FCA as required by
EPA regulations." Needless to say, as of March 13, 2019, FCA
consumers once again find themselves in an emissions bind, and once
again, this conundrum is of FCA's making, the complaint alleges.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Crump, a resident of Vail, Arizona, is the
owner of a 2014 Jeep Compass with her husband, Geoffrey Crump.

Defendant FCA US LLC ("FCA") is a Delaware limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ron Kilgard, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
     Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
     Phone: (602) 248-0088
     Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
     Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     Rachel Morowitz, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
            rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Alison Chase, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Facsimile: (205) 456-1497
     Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com


FIELD MUSEUM: Conner Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FIELD MUSEUM, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02290 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2019) is a civil rights class
action against Defendant for failing to design, maintain, and own a
website that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by,
blind people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind
individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods
and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers
through www.thefieldmuseum.com. The Website provides to the public
a wide array of the goods, services, price discounts, and other
programs offered by Defendant.

Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult,
if not impossible, for blind customers to use the Website, asserts
the Plaintiff. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for
blind users to even purchase museum entry tickets on the Website.
By failing to make the Website accessible to blind persons,
Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both
state and federal law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a blind individual.

Defendant owns and operates a museum under the name The Field
Museum which is a place of public accommodation located in Illinois
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     73 West Monroe Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Sullen Suit over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against FirstService
Residential California, LLC for alleged violations of California
Business and Professions Code and the California Labor Code. The
case is captioned SHARA SULLEN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-575131 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 9,
2019).

Plaintiff Shara Sullen brings this class action on behalf of
herself and a California class, defined as all individuals who are
or previously were employed by Defendant and classified as
non-exempt employees. At any time during the period beginning on
the date four years prior to the filing of this complaint and
ending on the date as determined by the court, the Defendant failed
and continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay Sullen and
the other members of the California class for their overtime
worked. Defendant unlawfully and unilaterally failed to accurately
calculate wages for overtime worked by Sullen and other members of
the California class in order to avoid paying these employees the
correct overtime compensation. As a result, Sullen and the other
members of the California class forfeited wages due her for working
overtime without compensation at the correct overtime rates.
Defendant's uniform policy and practice to not pay the members of
the California class the correct overtime rate for all overtime
worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by
Defendant's business records.

FirstService Residential California, LLC is a full-service property
management company based in Irvine California. It provides property
management services for properties of all types and sizes,
including single 12 family homes, high-rise buildings and mixed use
developments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Website: www.bamlawca.com


FORMULA 5: Shanahan Sues over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that Formula 5 Capital, Inc., and
other Defendants, in the course of selling their services, placed
thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message
to consumers' cell phones nationwide.  Unfortunately, the
Defendants did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The TCPA restricts the use of sophisticated telemarketing equipment
that could target millions of consumers en masse. Congress found
that these calls were not only a nuisance and an invasion of
privacy to consumers specifically but were also a threat to
interstate commerce generally.

The case is captioned TERRENCE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. FORMULA 5
CAPITAL, INC., a California corporation; DENTEMAX, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; JEREMY LENZ, an individual, RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a North Carolina corporation; MICHAEL L.
GABBARD, an individual, TAMIKA BRYANT, an individual MACK MILLS, an
individual; MARC WILSON aka "SGT. MARK", an individual; JOHN DOE 1
aka "COACH JOSH" an individual; DAVID SHARPE, an individual d/b/a
LEGENDARY MARKETING; DNSIMPLE CORP., a Delaware corporation;
HOSTGATOR.COM LLC, a Florida limited liability company; INMOTION
HOSTING, INC., a California corporation; GODADDY INC., a Delaware
corporation, and ETISON LLC d/b/a CLICKFUNNELS.COM, an Idaho
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00135
(D. Neb., March 28, 2019).[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          210 S Ellsworth Ave No. 486
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: 402 301-5544
          Facsimile: 402 396-7131
          E-mail: javitchm@gmail.com

FORWARD AIR: Removes Ibarra Suit to Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of EDUARDO IBARRA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORWARD AIR
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case
No. 2019-CH-02462) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 21, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01949. The
case is assigned to Honorable Virginia M. Kendall.

Forward Air Services, LLC provides transportation and related
logistics services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Hilton, 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: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Craig R. Thorstenson
          Becky Lynn Kalas
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          180 N Stetson Ave., Suite 1660
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 960-6116
          E- mail: CThorstenson@fordharrison.com
                   BKalas@fordharrison.com


FOUR SISTERS INNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzalez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SISTERS INNS; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09743 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 22, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize
wage statements.

The Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt, hourly-paid employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
          BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
          6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (323) 450-2777
          Facsimile: (310) 215-3416
          E-mail: greg@barklawfirm.com


GENESCO INC: Court Orders Further Briefing in Dias Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDSEY DIAS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENESCO, INC. and HAT WORLD,
INC. d/b/a LIDS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-10691-WGY (D.
Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ordered the parties to notify the Court
as to the status of settlement talks.

In 2011, the Congress enacted the Jurisdiction and Venue
Clarification Act.  Among other things, the Clarification Act
elucidated the procedure for analyzing whether removing defendants
meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.  Here, the named
Plaintiff, Dias, challenges the removal of her suit from the
Massachusetts Superior Court on the ground that the Defendants
miscalculated the damages that her suit seeks.

The action arises out of Dias' employment as a store manager at a
North Attleboro, Massachusetts retail store, Lids, from January
2015 until September 2015.  In March 2018, Dias filed a putative
class action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court alleging
that Lids failed to pay store managers overtime.  

Dias claims the conduct violated the Massachusetts Overtime Law,
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151, section 1A, and seeks back
pay, treble damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs.  Her
complaint does not specify a particular amount of damages, and the
civil cover sheet that she filed alongside her complaint lists
damages as "TBD."

In April 2018, Lids timely filed a notice of removal, citing
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).  On April
20, 2018, Dias moved to remand, arguing that her damages fell short
of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction.  Although Dias
and Lids briefed Dias' motion to remand, neither Dias nor Lids
cited the Clarification Act's standards for calculating the amount
in controversy.  The Court heard oral argument on Dias' motion on
July 23, 2018 and took the matter under advisement.  On Sept. 19,
2018, the parties jointly moved to stay the case for 45 days. The
Court granted the motion and administratively closed the case on
Sept. 20, 2018.

Considering more than 45 days have passed without update from
either party, the Court turns its attention to Dias' motion to
remand.  Dias suggests that the Court remands the action to the
Superior Court because the amount in controversy does not exceed
$75,000.  In response, Lids posits that if Dias were to succeed in
her suit, she would be entitled to damages totaling more than
$75,000, accounting for the attorney's fees she incurred throughout
the suit.  Dias disputes whether the Court ought to include her
prospective attorney's fees in its calculation of the amount in
controversy.

Judge Young cannot deem the amount in controversy the sum that Dias
demanded in her initial pleading for a simple reason: her complaint
makes no specific demand.  Nor does the civil cover sheet she filed
in the Superior Court.  He thus must analyze whether it may accept
the figure asserted in Lids' notice of removal.  Although the
notice of removal also does not specify the exact amount in
controversy, it does assert that it exceeds $75,000.

The Judge acknowledges that Dias controverts whether, as matter of
law, the Court ought to ever consider prospective attorney's fees
in deciding whether a removed complaint meets the amount in
controversy.  He reserves ruling on this issue but makes the two
observations.

First, if the Judge were to rule that he could consider prospective
attorney's fees, such a ruling might not provide much succor to
removing defendants, who would still carry the burden of showing,
by a preponderance of the evidence or reasonable probability, that
the case meets the amount-in-controversy requirement.  Beyond the
practical difficulties of showing certain attorney's fees, if one
were to take an economic view of the litigation, one would expect
certainty about attorney's fees to facilitate settlement.  In any
event, he doubts that he could find any amount of prospective
attorney's fees proven by a preponderance of the evidence or
reasonable probability at the beginning of a case, although he
reserves judgment on this particular motion.

Second -- and on the other hand -- the Judge notes that it is well
established that events subsequent to removal that reduce the
amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum do not
divest a federal court of jurisdiction.  Dias frames the issue
differently; she says that the work conducted after removal cannot
count in the amount-in-controversy calculation.  If Dias
characterizes the issue correctly, then, it would seem that
attorney's fees would never count in the amount-in-controversy
calculation.  In any event, the Judge declines to decide these
issues here.  Instead, considering the case's procedural posture,
the parties must clarify the status of the case and their positions
in light of the Opinion.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Young ordered the parties to
notify the Court as to the status of settlement talks.  If the case
has not settled, he ordered the parties, within 30 days of the date
of the Order, to provide supplemental briefing explaining whether
and how the Clarification Act affects the Court's analysis of the
amount in controversy.  He further ordered the parties to clarify
Dias' first name.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/SdzGIg from Leagle.com.

Lindsey Dias, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brant Casavant --
brant@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work P.C. & Hillary A. Schwab --
hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C.

Genesco, Inc. & Hat World, Inc., doing business as LIDS,
Defendants, represented by Bonnie Keane DelGobbo --
bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Joel
C. Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP,
pro hac vice, Mary Caroline Miller -- mcravatta@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy J. O'Brien --
tobrien@lokllc.com -- Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC &
Tyler J. Smith -- tsmith@lokllc.com -- Libby O'Brien Kingsley &
Champion, LLC.


GOPRO INC: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge has tossed a
proposed shareholder class action against GoPro Inc. and three of
its executives over alleged misstatements regarding the company's
financial health.

Co-lead Plaintiffs in this matter are Julie Wiegand and Michael
Birlenbach ("Plaintiffs").
Their allegations are based upon personal knowledge with respect
to the Plaintiffs' own acts and based on information and belief as
to all other matters.  Defendant GoPro is a company incorporated in
Delaware with its principal office in San Mateo, California.
Defendant Woodman has at all relevant times been the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of GoPro.  Defendant Prober has at all
relevant times served as GoPro's Chief Operating Officer.
Defendant McGee has at all relevant times served as GoPro's Chief
Financial Officer.

The class includes all persons other than the Defendants who
purchased or acquired common shares of GoPro stock between November
2, 2017 and January 5, 2018, both dates inclusive.
The Plaintiffs' claims arise from violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Defendant "GoPro, Inc. develops and manufactures wearable and
gear-mountable cameras along with related accessories."  Its most
prominent product offerings include: the HERO5 and HERO6 which are
cloud connected cameras; as well as, the Karma which is a drone,
and Karma Grip which is a "handheld and body-mountable camera
stabilizer to capture zero-shake and smooth video."  GoPro sells
its products mostly through retailers, distributors, and its
website.

The case is JONG MIN PARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOPRO, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00193-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 15, 2019 is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyqag36j from Leagle.com.

Jong Min Park, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen ,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Larry Ladd, Plaintiff, represented by Patrice L. Bishop , Stull,
Stull & Brody.

Julie Wiegand, (Lead Plaintiff), Plaintiff, represented by Jacob
Alexander Goldberg , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Jennifer Pafiti , Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen , The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. & Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP.

Julie Wiegand, Plaintiff, represented by Leigh H. Smollar ,
Pomerantz LLP.

Michael Birlenbach, (Lead Plaintiff), Plaintiff, represented by
Jacob Alexander Goldberg , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Jennifer Pafiti , Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen , The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP & Leigh H. Smollar
, Pomerantz LLP.

Vikas Aora, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti , Pomerantz
LLP, Hui M. Chang , Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Alexander
Hood, II , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman ,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh H. Smollar , Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V.
Dahlstrom , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Peretz Bronstein ,
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, pro hac vice.

GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman & Brian McGee, Defendants,
represented by Catherine Duden Kevane , Fenwick & West LLP, Marie
Caroline Bafus , Fenwick and West LLP, Susan Samuels Muck , Fenwick
& West LLP & Vincent Barredo , Fenwick & West LLP.

Charles J. Prober, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane
, Fenwick & West LLP & Marie Caroline Bafus , Fenwick and West
LLP.


GRAND CAMPUS: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Weiss Suit Denied as Premature
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA WEISS, Plaintiff, v. GRAND CAMPUS LIVING, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00434-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind.),
Judge James R. Sweeney, II of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, (i) denied as
premature RealPage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's
Nationwide Class Allegations; and (ii) denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument.

The Plaintiff alleges that RealPage and Defendant Grand Campus
caused her to receive text messages promoting rental properties
managed by Grand Campus.  She brings claims on behalf of herself
and a putative class of those similarly situated for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of all persons
in the United States and its Territories who, within the four years
prior to the filing of the class action complaint, were sent one or
more text message advertisements by or on behalf of Aspen Heights
and Grand Campus to their cellular telephone, and for whom the
Defendants do not have a written record of consent to receive such
message.

Judge Sweeney finds that the Court does not have general
jurisdiction over any defendant in the case, as neither RealPage
nor Grand Campus is "at home" in Indiana.  It does, however, have
specific jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims against Grand
Campus because Grand Campus purposefully directed its suit-related
conduct to Indiana by texting the Plaintiff on her Indiana-based
cell phone.

RealPage moves to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's claims on
behalf of the class members who did not receive a text message in
Indiana, arguing that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction to
adjudicate such claims.  RealPage's argument relies on the Supreme
Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
Cal., where a group of plaintiffs -- consisting of 86 California
residents and 592 residents from 33 other States -- filed eight
separate complaints in California Superior Court.  The Supreme
Court held that the California state court lacked specific
jurisdiction over the non-resident plaintiffs' claims against
non-resident defendants because there was no connection between
California and those claims. RealPage argues that in the instant
matter, there is likewise no connection between Indiana and the
claims of the Plaintiffs who did not receive text messages in
Indiana.

But Judge finds that Bristol-Myers was a direct mass action -- the
592 non-resident plaintiffs were named plaintiffs -- not a class
action.  The Seventh Circuit has not decided whether Bristol-Myers
Squibb applies to absent class members in a class action, and
district courts -- in the Circuit and elsewhere -- are divided on
the issue.

RealPage moves to strike Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations
under Rule 12(f).  The Judge finds that RealPage makes no showing
that the class allegations constitute "redundant, immaterial,
impertinent or scandalous matter," and the allegations clearly are
not "an insufficient defense."  

RealPage's motion to dismiss the claims of the unnamed, absent
class members for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)
is likewise premature.  He finds that the district courts
nationwide have held that dismissal of the absent class members'
claims for lack of personal jurisdiction would be premature prior
to a motion for class certification.  

Finally, unlike a non-final order on a motion to dismiss or strike,
an order on class certification may be appealed immediately under
Rule 23(f), so that reserving ruling until class certification
promotes the efficient determination of the action.

Accordingly, for thes reasons, Judge Sweeney (i) denied as
premature RealPage's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's
Nationwide Class Allegations; and (ii) denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RmWsbG from Leagle.com.

LAURA WEISS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene Y. Turin --
eturin@mcgpc.com -- MCGUIRE LAW PC & Frederick William Schultz --
fred@greeneschultz.com -- GREENE & SCHULTZ.

GRAND CAMPUS LIVING, INC., a Texas corporation & ASPEN HEIGHTS
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by William Choslovsky --
wchoslovsky@ginsbergjacobs.com -- GINSBERG JACOBS LLC, pro hac
vice.

REALPAGE, INC., Defendant, represented by Alexandra Christine Fuson
-- lexi.fuson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, Erin L. Hoffman
-- erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, John
Joseph Tanner -- joe.tanner@FaegreBD.com -- BAKER & DANIELS & Peter
C. Magnuson -- peter.magnuson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
LLP, pro hac vice.


HENDERSON KITCHEN: Court Certifies Non-Managerial Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RUI TONG, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs.
HENDERSON KITCHEN, INC., et. al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01073-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kennedy
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
      certification only;

   2. conditionally certifying case as a FLSA collective action,
on
      behalf of:

      "current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees
      employed at any time from March 10, 2014 to the present by
      Henderson Kitchen, Inc. d/b/a Pin Wei Restaurant";

   3. directing parties to meet and confer regarding the issues
      pertaining to Plaintiffs' proposed notices; and

   4. scheduling status conference on Friday, April 12, 2019 at
      11:30 a.m. One named Plaintiff and one named Defendant must
      appear at this status conference so there is a complete
      understanding as to what is required for notice and the
      nature of sanctions if not followed; and

   5. directing parties to pay strict attention to and abide by the

      Scheduling Order dated December 3, 2018.

The Court said, "If the parties reach an agreement as to the notice
provisions that will be sent to putative class members before the
status conference, the parties are to inform the Court and the
status conference will be cancelled. Once an agreement is reached,
counsel shall send the Court a proposed order addressing the
timeline for the notices and the personal information required for
each putative class member. If the parties cannot reach an
agreement, the parties must be prepared to discuss any remaining
issues pertaining to the notices at the status conference. No
notices can be sent to putative class members until the parties
agree to the scope and method of the notices or the Court issues a
ruling as to the scope and method of the notices."[CC]

HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camp et al. Allege
---------------------------------------------------------
DELMER CAMP; and ADRIANA CORREA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV344872 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 20, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employee.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., doing business as The Home Depot, owns and
operates home improvement retail stores. It offers building
materials, lawn and garden equipment, kitchen products, lighting
products, floor designing products, and storage products. The
company was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Home Depot,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          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
                  scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


HOST INTERNATIONAL: Avant Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Avant, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Host International, Inc. a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04357 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., Ill., April 4, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against
Defendant to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage
of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
Defendant's conduct.

This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiff and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which
capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future.

The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on
the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers'
fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute
and the privacy interests it protects, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at O'Hare International airport
at a Starbucks coffee shop, in approximately February 2013.

Defendant is a private company that operates food, beverage and
merchandising concessions at airports, on toll roads and at other
travel and entertainment venues throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank Castiglione, Esq.
     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 356-3200
     Fax: (312) 386-5800
     Email: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
            kasif@khowajalaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 201-0575
     Fax: (312) 332-0600
     Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
            cpsons@bormeslaw.com


HOWARD SCHULTZ: Sent Spam Text over Book Tour, Vallianos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CASSANDRA VALLIANOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOWARD SCHULTZ, a
Washington individual, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00464 (W.D.
Wash., March 28, 2019), seeks to stop Schultz from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited,
autodialed text messages to consumers, including to consumers who
have registered their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call
registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief
for all persons injured by Schultz's conduct.

Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, commenced a book tour on January
28, 2019 to promote his new book "From the Ground Up." As Schultz
himself wrote in an open letter "I'll be in many cities talking
about my book, my childhood, and sharing thoughts about the
changing roles of leadership, business and citizenship in
America."

Schultz, in an interview with the New York Times on January 27,
2019, said he "planned to crisscross the county for the next three
months as part of a book tour before deciding whether to enter the
presidential race."

Schultz's book -- "From the Ground Up - A Journey to Reimagine the
Promise of America" is sold in book stores and online between $14
and $18.

In order to promote his book and to explore his potential
presidential bid as a centrist, Schultz engaged in text message
marketing in violation of the TCPA. Schultz or his agents,
collected voter records of individuals who registered as "No Party
Affiliation" -- who may be drawn to Schultz's message and his book
-- and sent them text messages directing them to his website where
they could watch one of his speaking engagements and where they
could purchase his book "From the Ground Up," the lawsuit says.

Schultz sends these solicitation text messages without any consent
from the text recipients. To make matters worse, Schultz sent these
solicitation text messages to consumer phone numbers that are
registered on the DNC for the specific purpose of avoiding these
types of unwanted text messages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Classes:

          Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: (206) 605-1424
          E-mail: edraluck@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

ICOT HEARING: Roberts Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ICOT HEARING SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a
LISTENCLEAR, a Georgia limited liability company, and ICOT
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00068-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 3, 2019) seek to stop
Defendants'  practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") and/or using "an artificial or prerecorded
voice" to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without
their prior express written consent; to enjoin Defendants from
continuing to place autodialed telephone calls to consumers who did
not provide their prior written express consent to receive them; to
enjoin Defendants from calling consumers who are registered on the
do not call registry; and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by their conduct.

In an attempt to promote ListenClear's products and generate sales,
Defendants conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale
telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making of
unsolicited, autodialed phone calls to consumers' phones, all in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
asserts the complaint.

By making the autodialed calls, Defendants caused Plaintiff and the
other members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal
injury, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Joseph Roberts is a natural person and resident of
Cumming, Georgia.

Defendant ListenClear is a company that manufactures and sells
hearing devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
     Shamp Jordan Woodward LLC
     1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Email: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
     3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: 720-213-0675
     Fax: 303-927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com



ILS PRODUCTS: Removes ILS Products Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ILS PRODUCTS, LLC, doing business as:
Industrial Lighting Systems, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No.
30-02019-01050756-CU-BT-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 21, 2019. The clerk of
court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00566-DOC-DFM. The case is assigned to Judge David O.
Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.

Balboa Capital Corporation, Inc. provides business financing
solutions in the United States. The company offers small business
loans, equipment financing, commercial financing, equipment vendor
financing, and franchise financing. It provides commercial business
loans for construction, food manufacturing, manufacturing, mining,
oil and gas, pharmaceutical, private equity, technology, and
trucking industries. The company was founded in 1988 and is based
in Costa Mesa, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Matthew C Klase, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE AND LEMOND LLC
          1900 The Exchange S E Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0998
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: matt@webbllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael P McCloskey, Esq.
          David J Aveni, Esq.
          Marty B Ready, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDLEMAN
          AND DICKER LLP
          401 West A Street Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 881-3326
          Facsimile: (619) 321-6201
          E-mail: michael.mccloskey@wilsonelser.com
                  david.aveni@wilsonelser.com
                  marty.ready@wilsonelser.com


IMKO WORKFORCE: Faces Foster Suit in Sacramento California
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Imko Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned as TOMMIE PENNYWELL
FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMKO ENTERPRISES, INC; IMKO WORKFORCE
SOLUTIONS; MARY ANN'S BAKING CO., INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00252683-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
March 18, 2019).

IMKO Workforce Solutions is a staffing and recruiting company
providing light industrial and clerical recruitment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER, LLP
          1965 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (866) 663-3308


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Granted Creditor Protection Following Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Imperial Tobacco Canada is the
latest company to receive a temporary reprieve from compensating
100,000 Quebec smokers after securing creditor protection in an
Ontario court.

A judge granted Imperial Tobacco Canada creditor protection on
March 12, and JTI-Macdonald Corp. was granted creditor protection
on March 8.

The two companies, along with Benson & Hedges, lost an appeal of a
landmark $15-billion class-action lawsuit in the Quebec Court of
Appeal on March 1.

The Ontario Superior Court decision suspends legal proceedings
against all three companies until April 5, even though only
Imperial Tobacco Canada and JTI-Macdonald sought protection from
creditors.

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health led two class actions
against the companies and won in 2015, when Quebec Superior Court
Justice Brian Riordan ordered the companies to make payments of
more than $15 billion to smokers who either fell ill or were
addicted.

At the time, the ruling was believed to be the biggest class action
award in Canadian history.

"Imperial Tobacco Canada continues to disagree with the judgments
by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Quebec Superior Court," the
company said in a statement on March 12.

"Canadian consumers and governments have been aware of the health
risks associated with smoking for decades, and the Company has
always operated and sold its legal products within a regulatory
framework dictated by governments."

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health has said that the Ontario
court's ruling can be extended beyond April 5 and victims could
never see any money.

"Companies are very good at finding strategies to avoid paying
damages they were ordered to pay," spokesman Mario Bujold said on
March 11.

"The Superior Court in Ontario is suspending the rights recognized
by six judges in Quebec. It's unacceptable." [GN]


INSTALLATION INC: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, vs. INSTALLATION,
INC. AND COMPLETE LANDSCAPES, INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:19-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex., March 28, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Taylor was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt laborer from
February 1, 2018 through February 2019. Taylor was paid on an
hourly basis, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants provide commercial and multifamily property
landscaping services in and around Austin, Texas.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

JACKSON HEWITT: Robinson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action lawsuit, JESSICA ROBINSON, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON
HEWITT, INC, JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICES INC., and TAX SERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09066 (E.D. Va.,
March 24, 2019), alleges that Defendants conspired to supress the
wages of its employess through agreements with its franchisees not
to compete for workers in violation of the Sherman Act.

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

Jackson Hewitt is a tax preparation company and franchisor.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Conrad Shmadine, 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 -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 south 6th Street Suite 2600
          Minneappolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliam@gustafsongluek.com

JOHNS MANVILLE: Retina et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP,
INC.; and ACUTECARE HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE OLSON RESEARCH
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01997, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
March 26, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01250-GJP to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Gerald J. Pappert.

The Olson Research Group, Inc. is an agency providing fieldwork,
data collection and marketing research services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerouian, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: Rschmierer@deittislaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Narrows Claims in E. Miszczyszyn's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVELINA MISZCZYSZYN, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-3633 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part Chase's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and
12(b).

Miszczyszyn filed the putative class action against Chase, alleging
that Chase violated the parties' contract (Count I) or, in the
alternative, unjustly enriched itself at the Plaintiff's expense
(Count II); and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA")
(Count III).

On Feb. 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage with
Guaranteed Rate, Inc. for her home in Chicago.  The mortgage was
insured through the Federal Housing Administration, which rendered
it subject to certain regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.  Chase acquired the servicing rights to the
mortgage on Feb. 22, 2016.

On May 17, 2016, Chase served the Plaintiff with a complaint for
foreclosure at her home alleging that she had defaulted on the
mortgage on Dec. 1, 2015.  In that complaint, Chase sought a
judgment of foreclosure and the sale of the property.  As part of
the Foreclosure Action in the Illinois Circuit Court, Chase filed a
motion for judgment of foreclosure, attached to it an affidavit
from Cynthia L. Erving  detailed the amounts "due and owing" under
the mortgage.

One of line items in the Erving Affidavit was a charge for the
property inspections conducted at Chase's direction after the
Plaintiff allegedly defaulted on her mortgage.  At the time, the
charges totaled $70.  Chase continued to charge for property
inspections after the submission of the Erving Affidavit, however,
which included a charge for $14 on Sept. 17, 2016.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts two claims on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a nationwide class: common law breach of contract
(Count I) -- or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment (Count II)
-- and a violation of the ICFA (Count III).  She alleges that after
conducting its first inspection on Jan. 28, 2016, Chase knew or
should have known that she had not abandoned her home and that, at
the latest, Chase had to know she was still living at the property
when it served her with notice of the Foreclosure Action at her
home.

The Plaintiff further complains that even though Chase knew she had
not abandoned her home, it continued to charge her for visual
inspections of her house. As of the date of the complaint, these
fees totaled $84.  The Plaintiff alleges that the assessment of
these fees violated certain HUD regulations that were incorporated
into her mortgage and seeks to represent a nationwide class of
similarly aggrieved mortgagees.

The Plaintiff originally filed the claim as a class action
counterclaim in the Foreclosure Action; however, the circuit court
severed the counterclaim and granted her leave to file it as a
separate action, which she did.  Chase subsequently removed the
case to the Court.

Currently before the Court is Chase's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint.  It seeks the dismissal of the Plaintiff's
complaint on the basis of several pleading deficiencies.
Additionally, Chase asserts that the Plaintiff may not
simultaneously pursue a claim for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment under Illinois law.  However, before addressing either
of those arguments, the Court must address Chase's argument that
the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup.
Ct. of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) ("BMS"), requires
dismissal of the purported class action claims of all non-Illinois
residents under Rule 12(b)(2).

Chase argues that BMS forecloses the Court from exercising personal
jurisdiction over Chase to resolve the purported clss action claims
of non-Illinois residents.  The Plaintiff retorts that BMS does not
apply to unnamed class members in a purported class action, and
that in any event, the Court may exercise general jurisdiction over
Chase.  There is a significant split among the courts in the
district, and across the country, regarding whether a plaintiff may
bring a nationwide class action when the court in question may only
exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant.

Judge Dow finds that it appears the Seventh Circuit may soon act to
resolve the split, at least in the district.  Given that the
Seventh Circuit has accepted an appeal regarding the specific issue
-- inclining the Court to stay these proceedings pending the court
of appeals' resolution of the issue -- and because the Plaintiff
has not yet stated a claim, he defers resolution of the issues
surrounding the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over any
non-Illinois class claims unless and until the Plaintiff files an
amended complaint.  Consequently, the Defendant's motion under Rule
12(b)(2) is denied at this time without prejudice to raising the
jurisdictional argument in response to any amended complaint(s).

Next, because the parties' relationship is clearly governed by an
express contract -- which the Plaintiff attached to her complaint
and referenced in her unjust enrichment allegations -- the
Plaintiff may not proceed with her unjust enrichment claim in the
alternative.  Furthermore, even if the Court allowed Count II to
proceed, the Plaintiff has not yet alleged facts to state a claim
under any count.

Chase seeks dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the
Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show she suffered
pecuniary damage necessary to state a claim under Illinois law as
to all three counts.  The Judge concludes that these allegations
are insufficient to state a claim for damages.

First, the Court has previously concluded that merely being
assessed a disputed fee, without paying it, does not constitute
actionable actual damage.  Likewise, the fact that the Plaintiff
challenged the fee  and before the state court in the foreclosure
action and incurred attorney's fees to do so does not constitute
actionable damages.  Similarly, the Plaintiff's allegation that the
assessment of the fees resulted in the accrual of additional
interest is implausible given that allegation is contradicted by
the exhibit attached to Plaintiff's complaint, the only plausible
reading of which demonstrates that property inspection fees are not
considered in the calculation of interest.  Any other conclusion
would strain credulity.  Finally, the Plaintiff's third and fourth
allegations -- that the assessment decreased her equity in the
property and that it negatively affected her bargaining position in
the bankruptcy -- are simply too speculative to constitute an
allegation of damages.

But, even if the two allegations were plausible on the face of the
complaint -- and they are not -- they are no longer plausible given
that Chase has dropped the fee from its demand in the foreclosure
action.  Thus, the Plaintiff has yet -- and perhaps may not ever be
able -- to provide any allegations that she has suffered actual
damages or that Chase is retaining a benefit to the Plaintiff's
detriment.  The Judge therefore grants Chase's motion to dismiss
the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

For the reasons he explained, Judge Dow granted in part and denied
in part Chase's motion.  The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim is granted and the Plaintiff's
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiff is granted
leave to file an amended complaint no later than April 19, 2019.
The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction is denied at this time without prejudice to raising a
similar jurisdictional argument in response to any amended
complaint.  The case is set for further status on April 24, 2019 at
9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Pmq7iC from Leagle.com.

Evelina Miszczyszyn, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur C. Czaja, Law
Office of Arthur C. Czaja, Jeffrey Alan Berman --
jberman@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca & Patrick J. Solberg --
psolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Andrew James
Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- Covington & Burling Llp, Jessica Merry
Samuels -- jsamuels@cov.com -- Covington & Burling Llp & Victoria
R. Collado, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, PC.


KRAFT HEINZ: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of The Kraft Heinz Company (NASDAQ: KHC) from May 4,
2017 through February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kraft Heinz investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Kraft Heinz class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1514.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kraft's internal
controls, specifically with respect to its procurement area, were
inadequate; (2) Kraft would be forced to write down a significant
amount of goodwill and certain intangible assets in its Kraft
natural cheese business, its Oscar Mayer cold cuts business, and
its Canada retail business due to supply chain issues; (3) Kraft
failed to advise investors of the foregoing issues; and (4) as a
result, Kraft's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 25,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1514.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


LAKES VENTURE: Marcum Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, DONNA MARCUM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LAKES VENTURE, LLC, d/b/a
FRESH THYME FARMERS MARKETLLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00231-DJH (W.D. Ky., March 28, 2019), seeks to recover all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act resulting for
Defendant's failure to pay employees overtime wages.

During Marcum's employment with the Defendant, she was not paid for
all of her compensable hours worked due to a companywide meal
period policy that resulted in the deduction of 30 minutes per
shift of five hours or more, and in which Plaintiff therefore did
not receive a bona fide meal period. The company-wide meal period
policy resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the three years
preceding the filing of this complaint.

THe Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an
amount not presently ascertainable. In addition, the Plaintiff
seeks liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees, and all
other remedies available, as result of Defendant's willful failure
and refusal to pay overtime wages.

The Defendant is a grocery store chain with locations in at least
11 states, including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

LEXMARK INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Firefighters Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., PAUL A. ROOKE, DAVID
REEDER, and GARY STROMQUIST, Defendants, Case No. 17cv5543 (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge William H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.

The putative class includes all persons and entities who acquired
Lexmark's publicly traded stock between Aug. 1, 2014 and July 20,
2015.  Lexmark is a global manufacturer of printers and related
supplies.  The Individual Defendants were Lexmark senior executives
during the Class Period.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and investor conferences between Aug. 1, 2014 and
May 28, 2015 in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5.  The Plaintiffs also bring a Section 20(a) claim
against the Individual Defendants for control person liability.

The Defendants move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), to dismiss the Complaint in the putative securities fraud
class action.

The Plaintiffs contend that their claims rest on both misstatement
and omission theories.  Half-truths -- representations that state
the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting crucial qualifying
information -- can be actionable misrepresentations under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  Even if "literally true," affirmative
statements may be rendered false by what they fail to disclose.
Such misleading statements are actionable if there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable investor would find the omitted
information important in making an investment decision.

Judge Pauley finds that the Complaint includes an extensive 24-page
catalogue of alleged misstatements, explanations as to why they are
misleading, and careful identification of the speaker and date for
each statement.  First, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
misrepresented Lexmark's printer supplies channel inventory levels
by claiming that (1) channel inventory levels were "flat,"
"neutral," or that they only increased "a bit"; and (2) the
estimated change in printer supplies channel inventory was expected
to have a "minimal impact" on revenue growth rates.  Second, they
aver that the Defendants misrepresented the impetus behind
Lexmark's printer supplies revenue growth during the Class Period
by attributing the growth to "robust," or "good," or "strong"
end-user demand and describing end-user demand as the "primary
driver" of year-to-year growth.

The Judge finds that the Defendants' arguments that the Plaintiffs
failed to allege any actionable misstatements of material fact are
not persuasive.  From the outset, the Defendants' blanket
characterization of the statements as mere opinions strains
credulity.  But even if these disclosures were statements of
opinion, they may still be actionable.  Thus, the Plaintiffs
satisfy the first prong of a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim.

Next, he finds that omission is actionable under the securities
laws only when the defendant is subject to a duty to disclose the
omitted facts.  First, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
had a duty to disclose omitted information about channel inventory,
end-user supply, and price harmonization to make their corporate
statements accurate or not misleading.  Their second omissions
theory rests on a purported violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K
under the Securities Act of 1933, which "gives rise to specific
duties to disclose."

The Judge finds that these allegations are sufficient to plead an
actionable Item 303 omission with respect to 1Q15.  The length of
this alleged nine-month trend is sufficiently distinguishable from
the Defendants' cited authorities, where the Plaintiffs'
allegations concerned time periods as brief as two to five months
or would have required near-instantaneous disclosure.  The
Plaintiffs also satisfy the Item 303 knowledge requirement by
pleading, with some specificity, facts establishing that the
Defendants had actual knowledge of the purported trend.

As to scienter, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged scienter for the Individual Defendants, and by extension,
Lexmark.  None of the Defendants' arguments are availing.  The
Plaintiffs do not rely on any confidential witnesses, but the Court
is aware of no authority requiring confidential witness
allegations.  While the Olaintiffs do not allege any motive, the
"motive and opportunity" and "circumstantial evidence" theories are
separate strategies for pleading scienter.  Failure to plead one
does not preclude a plaintiff from pleading the other.  Thus, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims is denied.

Finally, with respect to Section 20(a) Claim, the Judge finds that
the Defendants' argument that the Section 20(a) claim should be
dismissed rests entirely on the Plaintiffs' presumptive failure to
plead a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  And the
Defendants concede that if the Plaintiffs meet their burden to
allege a primary violation, the Section 20(a).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  The Clerk of Court
is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 65.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/GyHLHW from Leagle.com.

District No. 9, I.A. of M. & A.W. Pension Trust, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Bailie L. Heikkinen -- bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack
Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Maureen Elizabeth Mueller,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Robert Jeffrey Robbins --
RRobbins@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Francis Paul McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com
-- Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow, LLP.

Bernard Segal, Movant, represented by Matthew Moylan Guiney --
guiney@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Lexmark International, Inc., Paul A. Rooke, David Reeder & Gary
Stromquist, Defendants, represented by William Joseph Sushon --
wsushon@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Gerard Savaresse --
gsavaresse@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Stuart Michael
Sarnoff -- ssarnoff@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


LM WIND: Sanford Law Named Class Counsel in Bobo Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSIE BOBO; and AMBER GRAYSON, Each Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. LM WIND
POWER BLADES ND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-230-DPM (E.D.
Ark.), Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, has issued an order
addressing the notice and settlement issues.

The Judge appreciates the parties' supplemental papers responding
to the Court's Order.  The revisions address the Court's concerns.
He understands now the reasons behind the language differences in
the release forms.  And not using text messaging is fine
considering the parties' intentions.  

But on the Joint Stipulation, No. 21-1, Claim Form, No 21-2 at 2,
and Notice, No 21-2 at 9, the Judge has some more tweaks:

     i. On page two of the Joint Stipulation, delete and/in the
class definition paragraph and add or both after the word
facilities.  The term and/or is ambiguous and should be eliminated
throughout the document with revisions, which the Court has tried
to note.

     ii. In the middle of Section 7(b), there's a hyphen after the
word allocated, which should be removed.

     iii. On Section 13(b), change cure said deficiencies to read
cure the deficiencies.

     iv. On pages 12 and 13, a few things: delete such in the first
sentence of Section 14(a); in the next sentence, replace Such
objection with an objection; and in Section 14(d), remove and/ in
the second line.  Also remove the and/ in Section 15 on the next
page.

     v. Take out the hereto in Section 27.

     vi. At the bottom of the large paragraph in the Claim Form,
No. 21-2 at 3, replace derivate with derive from.

     vii. Last, in the Notice's release paragraph, No. 21-2 at 13,
remove the /or and replace derivate with derive from.

He certified the following group as a collective action for
settlement purposes and as a Settlement Class: All current or
former hourly paid production employees who work or worked at LM
Wind Power's Little Rock, Arkansas or Grand Forks, North Dakota
facilities or both at any time between April 2, 2015 and March 1,
2019 who received at least one production or attendance bonus
during this period.

Judge Marshall appointed Bobo and Grayson as the class
representatives; Daniel Ford, Joshua Sanford, and Joshua West of
the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as the class counsel; and ND Legal
Administration as the Claims Administrator.

The Judge tentatively concluded that the proposed settlement
between the parties is adequate, fair, and reasonable.  He is
likely to be able to give final approval.  He also concluded for
the purposes of notice that the proposed attorney's fees are
reasonable considering the work involved.  He will revisit its
assessment at the fairness hearing.

He approved, as revised by the Order, the Joint Stipulation, Claim
Form, and Notice of Class Action Settlement.

He scheduled the fairness hearing for 9:00 a.m. on July 12, 2019.

Here's the schedule:

     a. May 24, 2019 - Deadline for Claims Administrator to
complete Notice mailing

     b. June 19, 2019 - Deadline for any objector's lawyer to file
an appearance in the case

     c. June 19, 2019 - Motion for final approval of settlement
due

     d. June 28, 2019 - Objections or Opt-Outs due

     e. July 12, 2019 - Fairness hearing

The Notice should be mailed as soon as practicable.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IT0VnY from Leagle.com.

Rosie Bobo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Amber Grayson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel D. Ford --
daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm, Joshua Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm & Joshua Lee West --
west@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm.

LM Wind Power Blades ND Inc, Defendant, represented by Leni D.
Battaglia -- leni.battaglia@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Eva C. Madison -- emadison@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


LOUISIANA HEALTH: Sued over Inflated Prescription Drugs Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SADIE BENNETT and MELISSA MANNINO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the the Plaintiffs, vs.
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY (doing business as
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA), the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00185-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., March 28, 2019), alleges that
Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) resulting from its violation of a health plan by
inflating prescription drugs costs, thereby causing consumers to
pay more than they otherwise should have paid for
medically-necessary prescription drugs.

The Plaintiffs received prescription drug benefits as participants
of a group health plan insured and administered by BCBS.

About 90% of all United States citizens are now enrolled in private
or public health plans that cover some, or all, of the costs of
medical and prescription drug benefits. A feature of most of these
plans is the shared cost of prescription drugs. Normally, when a
patient fills a prescription for a medically-necessary prescription
drug under his or her health care plan, the plan/insurer pays a
portion of the cost and the patient pays the remaining portion of
the cost directly to the pharmacy in the form of a copayment,
coinsurance or deductible payment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant directed the pharmacies
to collect these cost-sharing payments on Defendant's behalf from
patients at the time the prescription was filled.  The Defendant
has overcharged patients for the cost of medically-necessary
prescription drugs. Patients, including the Plaintiffs and the
Class, paid excessive charges to participating pharmacies for
prescription drugs. The amounts that the Plaintiffs should have
paid for cost-shares for prescription drugs were set forth in the
Plans and were based on, in part, the actual cost of the
prescription drugs they purchased. Defendant directed the
pharmacies to misrepresent the cost-sharing amounts for
prescription drugs and charge the Plaintiffs excessive amounts, and
Defendant forced the Plaintiffs and the Class to pay excessive
cost-sharing amounts.

According to the complaint, this is not a matter of mistaken or
innocently erroneous calculations: it is a pervasive scheme to
overcharge the Plaintiffs and everyone similarly situated in
connection with their prescription drug purchases.

The Defendant -- as administrator of prescription drug benefits --
provides and administers pharmacy benefits to patients, including,
but not limited to, managing a network of pharmacies that will
serve as participating pharmacies at which patients obtain
prescriptions; setting and dictating copayment amounts, coinsurance
amounts, and deductibles (if applicable) to pharmacies; and
processing prescription drug claims and interfacing with patients
and pharmacies regarding applicable prescription drug coverage, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Matthew D. Camm, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          940 Gravier Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: 504-648-1480
          Facsimile: 504-648-1499 fax
          E-mail: mcamm@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: 860-882-1681
          Facsimile: 860-882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: 860 493-6292
          Facsimile: 860 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          10 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: 516 699-8890
          Facsimile: 516 699-8968
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
                  joseph@sarrafgentile.com

MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, has filed a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Maiden Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden") (NASDAQ: MHLD)
common stock during the period between March 4, 2014 and November
9, 2018 (the "Class Period").

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Maiden 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 April 12, 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. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the quality and nature of Maiden's underwriting and
risk management policies and practices and the risks of its
reinsurance portfolio. In particular, defendants misleadingly
claimed that they were subjecting AmTrust's insurance portfolio to
robust analysis and cross-checks to ensure that the Company had
appropriately priced the risk of reinsuring AmTrust's insurance
portfolio. In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient
underwriting and risk management protocols and had largely
abdicated its responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the
Company. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, the price
of Maiden stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period
to a high of $18.85 per share.

On February 27, 2018, Maiden reported a net loss of $133.6 million
and a net adverse development of $171 million stemming from the
Company's workers' compensation line of its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment and from two accounts in its commercial auto line of
business within the Diversified Reinsurance segment. On this news,
the price of Maiden common stock fell 16% to close at $6.00 per
share on February 28, 2018. On August 9, 2018, Maiden announced its
financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, revealing
that it had continued to sustain losses, suffering a net loss of
$5.9 million for the quarter, and disclosing that Maiden had
suffered an adverse prior year loss development of $28.4 million in
its AmTrust Reinsurance segment. The Company also revealed that its
CEO and CFO would be retiring. On this news, the price of Maiden
common stock fell 41% to close at $4.40 per share on August 9,
2018.

Then, on November 9, 2018, Maiden announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, including a massive
$308.8 million net loss and a $210.4 million adverse prior year
loss development in just its AmTrust segment. The Company also
revealed that the sale of Maiden's business assets had resulted in
an impairment loss of $74.2 million. Following this news, the price
of Maiden common stock fell nearly 32% to close at $2.40 per share
on November 12, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Maiden common stock during the Class Period between March 4, 2014
and November 9, 2018. There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Maiden Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MHLD) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, and indexed under 19-cv-08105, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of,  Maiden securities between March 4, 2014 and
November 9, 2018 (the "Class Period"), against Maiden and certain
of the Company's former executive officers seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Maiden securities during the
class period, you have until April 12, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Maiden is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides reinsurance
services through its subsidiaries.  Reinsurance is the process by
which one insurance company insures policies underwritten by
another insurance company, allowing that company to mitigate its
risk in the event of adverse developments that may cause policy
losses.  The insurance company pays premiums to the reinsurance
company and, if a loss triggered under the reinsurance policy
develops, the insurance company can cede the agreed upon amount of
loss to the reinsurer.

Because Maiden is a reinsurance company, the reliability of the
underwriting procedures and processes it uses to evaluate the
underlying policies it reinsures are critical to the Company's
success.  It is of central importance to investors that Maiden
accurately assess and disclose potential risks and liabilities
related to these underlying policies and, further, that the Company
appropriately prices its reinsurance policies to account for such
risks, establish adequate loss reserves, and avoid adverse
developments and unexpected losses.

Maiden has two reportable operating segments:  (i) Diversified
Reinsurance; and (ii) AmTrust Reinsurance.  The Diversified
Reinsurance segment consists of a portfolio of predominantly
property and casualty reinsurance business focusing on regional and
specialty property and casualty insurance companies.  The AmTrust
Reinsurance segment includes all business ceded by AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. ("AmTrust").

AmTrust and Maiden are closely-related entities, with Maiden noting
in financial filings that it "may be deemed an affiliate of
AmTrust."  AmTrust was founded in 1998 by the brothers Michael
Karfunkel ("M. Karfunkel") and George Karfunkel ("G. Karfunkel").
AmTrust underwrites and provides various niche property and
casualty insurance products.

Similarly, Maiden was formed in 2007 by M. Karfunkel, G. Karfunkel,
and M. Karfunkel's son-in-law, Barry Zyskind ("Zyskind"), primarily
to provide reinsurance services to AmTrust.  Zyskind is the current
Chairman of the Board of Directors for Maiden (the "Board"), as
well as the CEO, President, and Chairman of AmTrust.  Members of
the Karfunkel family are also principal stockholders of AmTrust and
owned or controlled about 49% of AmTrust's outstanding common
shares as of December 31, 2016.
             
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the quality and nature of Maiden's underwriting and
risk management policies and practices and the risks of its
reinsurance portfolio.  In particular, defendants misleadingly
claimed that they were subjecting AmTrust's insurance portfolio to
robust analysis and cross-checks to ensure that the Company had
appropriately priced the risk of reinsuring AmTrust's insurance
portfolio.  In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient
underwriting and risk management protocols and had largely
abdicated its responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the
Company.  These failures subjected the Company, and investors, to
catastrophic losses.  As those losses were realized, the price of
Maiden stock declined precipitously.
             
On February 27, 2018, Maiden reported a net loss of $133.6 million
and a net adverse development of $171 million stemming from the
Company's workers' compensation line of its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment and from two accounts in its commercial auto line of
business within the Diversified Reinsurance segment.  
             
On this news, Maiden's stock price fell $1.20 per share, or 16%, to
close at $6.00 per share on February 28, 2018.  
             
On August 9, 2018, Maiden announced its financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2018, revealing that it had continued to
sustain losses, suffering a net loss of $5.9 million for the
quarter, and disclosing that Maiden had suffered an adverse prior
year loss development of $28.4 million in its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment.  The Company also revealed that its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer would be retiring.  

On this news, the price of Maiden common stock fell $3.10 per
share, or 41.3%, to close at $4.40 per share on August 9, 2018.
             
Then, on November 9, 2018, Maiden announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, including a massive
$308.8 million net loss and a $210.4 million adverse prior year
loss development in just its AmTrust segment.  The Company also
revealed that the sale of Maiden's business assets had resulted in
an impairment loss of $74.2 million.

On this news, the price of Maiden common stock fell $1.12 per
share, or nearly 32%, to close at $2.40 per share on November 12,
2018.

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


MAIN STREET: Weisberg Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEISBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAIN STREET FINANCE GROUP, LLC; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02345 (C.D.
Cal., March 28, 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
Weisberg on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Beginning June 5, 2018, the Defendant contacted Weisberg on his
cellular telephone, (310) 776-0740, in an effort to sell or solicit
its services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing
system", to place its daily calls to the Plaintiff seeking to sell
or solicit its business services. At one or more instance during
these calls, the Defendant utilized an "artificial or prerecorded
voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

According to the complaint, the Defendant's calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant's calls were
placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service
for which the Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls.

The Plaintiff is not a customer of the Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including his cellular
telephone number, to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Defendant never received  the Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his
cellular telephone.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Kahn Swick Continues to Probe Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF continues its investigation into Marriott
International, Inc. (NasdaqGS: MAR).

On November 30, 2018, the Company disclosed that its investigation
of a September 8, 2018 security alert, led to the conclusion on
November 19 th that a massive security breach in a guest
reservation database had occurred potentially exposing the credit
card, passport and other personal data of "up to approximately 500
million guests" over a four year period in what news reports are
describing as one of the largest data breaches on record based on
scope of time and volume of potential victims.

The Company's actions, directed by its executives, in relation to
the data breach have exposed it to approximately 100 class action
lawsuits filed by consumers, a securities class action lawsuit for
failing to disclose material information to investors in violation
of federal securities laws, and numerous investigations by federal
and state governmental authorities including Attorneys General
offices from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the
Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and certain committees of the U.S. Congress.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Marriott's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Marriott's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Marriott shares and would like
to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn ( lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mar/ to learn more.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


MASSAGE THERAPY BOARDS: Sued over Licensing Exam Rules
------------------------------------------------------
BAOYU LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERATION OF STATE MASSAGE THERAPY BOARDS;
and DEBRA PERSINGER, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02139 (C.D. Cal.,
March 21, 2019) alleges that the Defendants prohibited the
Plaintiff and the class in taking the Massage and Bodywork
Licensing Examination (MBLEx) examination.

According to the complaint, the Defendants forbid people who do not
speak English or Spanish from taking MBLEx examination, and
depriving any opportunities to ever becoming a licensed massage
therapist.

The Plaintiff was turned away on December 22, 2015, due to her
inability to speak English or Spanish. The Plaintiff has since not
been able to sit for, and pass, the MBLEx examination.

The Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) is an
autonomous, not-for-profit organization comprised of state
regulatory boards and agencies that regulate the massage therapy
profession. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Herman Franck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Betowski, Esq.
          FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
          910 Florin Road, Suite 212
          Sacramento, CA 95831
          Telephone: (916) 447-8400
          Facsimile: (916) 447-0720


MAXIM LLC: LaRosa Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian LaRosa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maxim LLC a/k/a Maxim Realtors
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00208-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla., April 4,
2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from Defendant's knowing and
willful violations of the TCPA.

The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights,
notes the complaint. The Defendant's telemarketing consists of
sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase
and/or list their properties with Defendant. The Defendant caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the complaint
relates.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant provides real estate brokerage services which includes
the buying and selling of residential real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.533.4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


MDL 2391: JPML Remands 20 Actions in Biomet M2A Magnum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2391 (JPML), the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the action(s) on the
conditional remand order to its/their respective transferor
court(s).

The transferee court in the litigation has advised the Panel that
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s)
on the conditional remand order have been completed and that remand
to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. Section
1407(a), is appropriate.

Pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of the
Order to the transferee clerk for filing will be stayed seven days
from the date of the Order.  If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within the seven-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.  The
Order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of
the Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

Pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties will furnish the Clerk for
the Northern District of Indiana with a stipulation or designation
of the contents of the record to be remanded.

The actions are: (i) INN 3 16-00784 AZ 2 16-02553 Battaglia v.
Zimmer Incorporated et al; (ii) INN 3 17-00836 CAC 5 17-01751
Wright v. Biomet, Inc. et al; (iii) INN 3 14-01965 FLM 3 14-00439
Jeffers et al v. Biomet Inc. et al; (iv) INN 3 14-01898 FLM 3
14-00940 Macal v. Biomet Inc et al; (v) INN 3 16-00428 ILS 3
16-00568 Crumbacher v. Zimmer Biomet; (vi) INN 3 12-00569 LAE 2
11-02443 Turner v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al; (vii) INN 3
17-00303 MD 1 17-00747 Ringley v. Biomet, Inc. et al; (viii) INN 3
14-01482 MSS 1 14-00173 Stewart v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al;
(ix) INN 3 14-02002 NCW 3 14-00564 Wohlleber v. Biomet Inc et al;
(x) INN 3 16-00271 NCW 3 16-00164 Stayanoff et al v. Biomet, Inc.
et al; (xi) INN 3 17-00600 NE 8 17-00260 Scott et al v. Biomet,
Inc. et al; (xii) INN 3 17-00417 NJ 3 17-03433 Bryce et al v.
Biomet Inc et al; (xiii) INN 3 17-00504 NV 2 17-01364 Folmar v.
Biomet Inc et al; (xiv) INN 3 16-00454 NYW 6 16-06389 Natal v.
Biomet Orthopedics, LLC et al; (xv) INN 3 17-00382 OKW 5 17-00511
Gill et al v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al; (xvi) INN 3 17-00795
PAM 3 17-01862 Nagurney et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al; (xvii) INN 3
17-00532 PAW 2 17-00832 Lyons et al v. Biomet Inc et al; (xviii)
INN 3 17-00640 TXE 4 17-00526 Walton et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al;
(xix) INN 3 17-00246 UT 2 17-00062 Fritschle v. Biomet Inc et al;
(xx) INN 3 17-00160 WAW 3 17-05045 Kays v Biomet Orthopaedics LLC,
et al.

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


MDL 2437: $5.3M Attys' Fees/Costs Awarded in Drywall Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Indirect Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437,
No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued
a Memorandum on the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The final scene of the class action litigation is about to unfold
on the issue of award of attorneys' fees and costs for the counsel
for the Indirect Purchasers.  The record of the case contains
extensive pleadings, motions, and class action decisions, where the
Court denied a certification of class of indirect purchasers, but
approved settlements with the Defendants on behalf of the Indirect
Purchasers.

Initially, to deal with the raw numbers, the total amount of the
settlement for the Indirect Purchasers was $16.95 million, of which
$250,000 had been set aside for administration of the settlement.
The counsel has documented the total number of hours as 24,552.
Applying various hourly rates, the counsel has calculated a
proposed lodestar of $12,685,538, but request only one-third of
that amount.

The counsel has documented unreimbursed costs of $1,481,478, which
will be allowed in full, but Judge Baylson must note that the Court
had previously approved reimbursement of expenses totaling $665,992
from settlement proceeds.  Thus, the total costs in the case is
approximately 15% of the settlement.

Although these are large sums of money by any account, it is much
lower than the $200 million plus settlement that were achieved on
behalf of Direct Purchasers.  There are several aspects of the MDL
proceeding that are continuing as to which the Defendants may have
further exposure.  The first is the Ashton Woods case in which
there have been some settlements, but that case continues for 12
Homebuilder Plaintiffs against three defendants. There is also one
so-called "opt out" case recently transferred to the district where
Home Depot is suing LaFarge for damages.

The several aspects of the litigation which warrant discussion in
the context of an award of attorneys' fees are the following: (i)
the total number of hours which counsel assert were spent in
connection with the instant case; (ii) the hourly rate that is
claimed, and which is then multiplied by the number of hours to
achieve the lodestar; (iii) ascertaining that the time spent was of
value in the overall prosecution of the case, etc.; (iv) whether,
following Third Circuit principles for the award of counsel fees,
the appropriate lodestar determination will be adjusted by any
multiplier or reduction for performance of the counsel, and
comparison to a percentage ratio of attorneys' fees to total
settlement.

No opposition has been filed to the Petition for Attorneys' Fees.
The Defendants who settled with Indirect Purchasers agreed not to
oppose the fee petition, because the entirety of the counsel fee
award will come out of the gross settlement amount.

Judge Baylson accepts the validity of the total number of hours
that were recorded as being appropriate for consideration, but not
the hourly rate.  He believes that the class should recover
approximately two-thirds of the total settlement.  Therefore, he
will award attorneys' fees so that the total of fees plus costs do
not exceed one-third of the total settlement.  The Court will check
the adjusted lodestar against a percental of the overall recovery.
Under this calculation the fees will be $2,864,400.  This amount,
plus all of the costs, equal approximately one-third of the total
settlement.  Adding together all of the attorneys' fees and costs
awarded reveals a total of $5,279,000 which is close to one-third
of the settlement amount of $16.7 million.  An appropriate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/a2o7SM from Leagle.com.


MDL 2591: Allocation of CLC's Portion of Attys' Fees Awards Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, This
Document Relates to All Cases Except: Louis Dreyfus Co. Grains
Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 16-2788 Trans Coastal
Supply Co., Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 14-2637 The Delong
Co., Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 17-2614 Agribase Int'l Inc.
v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 15-2279, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D.
Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas adopted the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by
Kansas MDL Co-Lead Counsel ("CLC") concerning the allocation of the
Kansas portion of the Court's total attorney fee award.

The multi-district litigation (MDL) comes before the Court upon the
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by Kansas MDL Co-Lead Counsel
("CLC") concerning the allocation of the Kansas portion of the
Court's total attorney fee award.  The Court received responses
from two groups of Plaintiff attorneys objecting to the recommended
allocation: Mitchell Toups, Richard Coffman, and their associated
counsel ("Toups"); and Hossley Embrey, LLP and their associated
counsel ("Hossley").

By Memorandum and Order of Dec. 7, 2018, the Court granted final
approval of a settlement agreement resolving claims against
Syngenta and certified a settlement class.  At that time, the Court
also awarded total attorney fees in the amount of one third of the
settlement fund, or $503,333,333.33, which fees compensated for
work for the benefit for the settlement class and which also were
intended to account for all contingent fee recoveries from payments
to class members from the settlement fund.

By Memorandum and Order of Dec. 31, 2018, the Court ruled on
objections and adopted in large part a report and recommendation by
the special master concerning the initial allocation of attorney
fees.  The Court also allocated a portion of the total fee award to
a pool for individually-retained private attorneys ("IRPAs"), who
would share that portion pro rata based on the ultimate recoveries
by their claimant clients.  

It adopted the master's recommendations concerning which attorneys
were assigned to which common-benefit pools, and it proceeded to
allocate the total fee award among the four pools as follows:
$246,633,333.33 (49%) to the Kansas MDL common benefit pool;
$118,283,333.33 (23.5%) to the Minnesota state court common benefit
pool; $78,016,666.67 (15.5% to the Illinois federal court common
benefit pool; and $60.4 million (12%) to the IRPA pool.  Finally,
the Court adopted the master's recommendation that each of the
three courts be responsible for the further allocation among
attorneys of the portion of the fee award allocated to its common
benefit pool.

The Court consulted with the judges overseeing the related
litigation in Minnesota and Illinois, and all three judges
expressly approved of this framework and initial allocation of fees
and all other rulings contained in the Memorandum and Order.  The
three judges agreed that the three common benefit pools would be
allocated among particular attorneys based on any work that
benefitted the settlement class, whether or not such work was
performed pursuant to any common benefit order issued by a court.

Also by Order of Dec. 31, 2018, the Court designated CLC to
recommend the further allocation of the Kansas MDL common benefit
pool among the attorneys assigned to that pool.  On Feb. 1, 2019,
as ordered by the Court, CLC filed the instant R&R by which they
have recommended particular fee awards from the Kansas pool to
particular law firms and attorney groups.

CLC undertook the further allocation of the Kansas common benefit
pool amount ($246,633,333.33) among the 64 firms and attorney
groups assigned to that pool (listed on Schedule 1 of the R&R).
Five of those firms made only expense fund contributions and do not
seek recovery of attorney fees from the Kansas pool.  CLC
recommends allocation among the other 59 firms as set forth in
Schedule 2 of the R&R.

In making its recommendation, CLC has divided the firms into six
tiers.  Tier 1 consists of the four MDL Co-Lead firms and the
Seeger Weiss firm. CLC proposes applying a multiplier of 3.14 to
the lodestar for the four firms' work performed prior to their
initial attorney fee petition, and a multiplier of 0.9 for work
performed since the initial petition, which yields overall
multipliers ranging from 2.97 to 3.09.  In total, CLC recommends
that $214,895,659.86 be allocated to the firms in Tier 1 (112,377.1
hours, $70,772,240.10 lodestar).

Tier 2 consists of six firms, all involved since the beginning of
the litigation, whose work focused on litigation of the class and
bellwether cases.  The proposed allocations within this tier total
$21,026,771.70 (23,532.6 hours, $9,597,912.80 lodestar), and each
firm in this tier has agreed to CLC's recommendations.

Tier 3 consists of five firms that performed substantive legal work
on class and bellwether plaintiff claims, four of which served on
the Court-appointed Executive Committee. CLC proposes multipliers
of 1.6 for one firm and 1.3 for the other firms in this tier.  The
proposed allocations within this tier total $5,939,040.00 (5,170
hours, $2,472,629.50 lodestar), and each firm in this tier has
agreed to CLC's recommendations.

Tier 4 consists of 32 firms.  Twenty-nine of those firms
represented individual bellwether Plaintiffs or class
representatives or filed class-action lawsuits in various states to
protect against the running of statutes of limitation.  The other
three firms represented non-producer class representatives or
bellwether Plaintiffs.  The proposed allocations within this tier
total $2,546,876.50 (6,296.3 hours, $1,993,073.50 lodestar).
Twenty-nine of these firms have agreed to CLC's recommendations.
Hossley did not agree with its proposed allocation and has filed an
objection to the R&R.  Toups did not agree, but in its filed
objection to the R&R, it objects only with respect to its Tier 5
allocation.  The Law Offices of James S. Rogers did not agree, but
it has not filed any objection to the R&R.4

Tier 5 consists of nine firms that filed individual cases for the
Plaintiffs who were not part of the MDL bellwether discovery pool.
(CLC proposes that two of these firms, Toups and Hossley, also
receive allocations in Tier 4).  The proposed allocations within
this tier total $1,821,136.50.  Seven of these firms have agreed
with CLC's recommendations; Toups and Hossley did not agree and
have filed objections to the R&R.

Finally, a sixth tier consists of the three firms that served as
counsel for settlement subclasses 2, 3, and 4.  CLC proposes a 1.5
multiplier for these firms, for a total allocation to these firms
of $403,848.75 (346.5 hours, $269,332.50 lodestar).  These firms
have agreed with this recommendation.

Five firms (two in Tier 2, three in Tier 4) are also entitled to
seek fees from the Minnesota common benefit pool.  CLC has ensured
that work submitted for allocation from this pool is exclusive of
work submitted for allocation from the Minnesota pool.

Judge Lungstrum concludes that the CLC's recommended allocation
among the attorneys assigned to this attorney fee pool is fair and
reasonable and appropriate.  The Judge therefore adopted the R&R by
the Kansas MDL Co-Lead Counsel as the Court's own allocation of the
Kansas MDL common benefit pool of attorney fees, and fees are
awarded to particular attorneys in accordance with Schedule 2 of
the R&R, which has been incorporated into the Order as Attachment
A.  The objections to the R&R by the Toups/Coffman Plaintiffs'
Counsel and by Hossley Embrey, LLP are overruled in their
entirety.

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

All Plaintiffs, represented by Don M. Downing --
ddowning@grgpc.com
-- Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Stueve --
stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Richard L.
Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com
--
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac vice & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice.

All Defendants, represented by Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice &
Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz
Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman
-- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP.

Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W.
Mason
-- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice,
James J. Thompson, Jr. -- JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd
-- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com -- Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com --
Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac
vice.

David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark
Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP &
Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason
Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd,
Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E.
Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J.
Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy,
Sarah
Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP.

Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice,
Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J.
Brett
Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts
Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg -- paul@lundberglawfirm.com --
Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender --
TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC.

Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro
hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro
hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan,
PC.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X.
Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP.

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by
D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro
hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis,
Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com --
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel
PLLP,
Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene Espel
PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP.



MIDLAND CREDIT: Hibert Files TCPA Suit Over Auto-dialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN HIBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00637-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., April 4, 2019) seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Beginning in March of 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone in an effort to collect an alleged debt.
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its
daily calls.  However, the Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
her cellular telephone. Furthermore, Plaintiff orally revoked any
and all consent to be contacted using an automated telephone
dialing system, to the extent any ever existed, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff, MEGHAN HIBERT is a natural person residing in San Diego
County in the state of California.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. is debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
     Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 323-306-4234
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
            abacon@ toddflaw.com
            kkuberka@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq. -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard
Spahr LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
the parties in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC. have filed a joint
motion with the New York federal district court seeking preliminary
approval of a class settlement.

The plaintiffs' class action complaint in Madden alleged that a
debt buyer, which had purchased the plaintiffs' charged-off credit
card debt from a national bank, violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by falsely representing the amount of
interest it was entitled to collect.  The complaint also alleged
violations of New York usury law.  In an unexpected outcome, the
Second Circuit held that the purchaser of charged-off debt from a
national bank does not inherit the preemptive interest rate
authority of the national bank under Section 85 of the National
Bank Act (NBA).  Accordingly, the debt buyer could be subject to
the usury limitations provided by state law.  In June 2016, the
U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for certiorari.

The proposed Settlement Class would be defined as:

     All persons residing in New York who were sent a letter by
Defendants attempting to collect interest in excess of 25% per
annum regarding debts incurred for personal, family, or household
purposes, whose cardholder agreements: (i) purport to be governed
by the law of a state that, like Delaware's, provides no usury cap;
or (ii) select no law other than New York.  This class comprises
two subclasses [with one subclass for claims arising out of New
York usury law violations during a specified period and the other
subclass for claims arising out of FDCPA violations during a
specified period.]

The settlement provides for three main forms of relief:

   -- $555,000 in monetary relief
   -- $9,250,000 in balance reduction relief/credits
   -- Ongoing compliance of defendants' policies and practices with
applicable law regarding collection of interest on settlement class
member accounts

We continue to urge the OCC to confront true lender and Madden
risks directly.  This could (and should) be accomplished through
adoption of a rule: (1) providing that loans funded by a bank in
its own name as creditor are fully subject to Section 85 and other
provisions of the National Bank Act for their entire term; and (2)
emphasizing that banks that make loans are expected to manage and
supervise the lending process in accordance with OCC guidance and
will be subject to regulatory consequences if and to the extent
that loan programs are unsafe or unsound or fail to comply with
applicable law.  (The rule should apply in the same way to federal
savings banks and their governing statute, the Home Owners' Loan
Act.)  In other words, it is the origination of the loan by a
supervised bank (and the attendant legal consequences if the loans
are improperly originated), and not whether the bank retains the
predominant economic interest in the loan, that should govern the
regulatory treatment of the loan under federal law. [GN]


MIMEDX GROUP: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Counsel in Gordon
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH GORDON, Individually and On Behalf of All
others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MIMEDX GROUP, INC., PARKER
H. PETIT, and MICHAEL J. SENKEN, Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 01831
(ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York appointed Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System ("Arkansas Teachers") as the Lead Plaintiffs and
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as the Lead Counsel.

The case arises out of alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by the Defendants.  Gordon brought the class
action on behalf of all persons, other than the Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired MiMedx securities between March 7,
2013, and Feb. 21, 2018.

MiMedx is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and markets
biomaterials for soft tissue repair and other medical applications.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding MiMedx's
business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, Plaintiff Gordon alleges on behalf of the Class that
because of its inadequate internal controls concerning Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") regulations and ethics policies,
MiMedx failed to disclose financial ties to doctors and a
"channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately recognize
unrealized revenue.  Consequently, MiMedx's public statements filed
between March 7, 013, and Jan. 8, 2018, describing, inter alia, its
purported commitment to the promotion of ethical conduct by its
officers and its internal controls were allegedly materially false
and misleading.

On Feb. 20, 2018, MiMedx issued a press release announcing that it
would delay the release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2017
financial results and that the audit committee had engaged
independent legal and accounting advisors to conduct an internal
investigation into current and prior-period matters relating to
allegations regarding certain sales and distribution practices at
the Company.  On that day, MiMedx's stock price fell by 39.53%.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages due to the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the subsequent decline in the market value of
MiMedx's securities upon the issuance of the Feb. 20, 2018 press
release.

On Feb. 23, 2018, Norman MacPhee filed suit in the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of those that purchased or acquired
MiMedx common stock between March 7, 2013, and Feb. 19, 2018 --
MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et al., 18-cv-00830-ELR (N.D. Ga.).
On the next day, Feb. 24, 2018, Block & Leviton LLP, a law firm
representing MacPhee, issued a notice in the PRNewswire, as
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").
Two days later, on Feb. 26, 2018, another suit was filed in the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of those that purchased or
acquired MiMedx common stock between March 7, 2013, and Feb. 20,
2018 -- Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et al., 18-cv-00859-ELR (N.D.
Ga.).

Two days later, on Feb. 28, 2018, Plaintiff Gordon, through his
counsel Pomerantz, filed the instant Class Action Complaint against
the Defendants.

On April 25, 2018, the following parties filed motions to serve as
the Lead Plaintiffs and to appoint their respective counsels as the
lead counsel: Kevin Brice and James Fitzpatrick; the Carpenters
Pension Fund of Illinoi; the Arkansas Teachers; the Municipal
Employees Retirement System of Michigan; and Wayne Feuerherm.  Each
moves for appointment of its own counsel as the lead counsel.  The
Defendants have not taken a position on the issue of appointment of
the Lead Plaintiff or counsel in the case.

On April 25, 2018, MiMedx Investor Group filed a notice of filing
motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in the Northern of
District of Georgia and informed the Court that it filed a Motion
for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of
Selection of Counsel in the first-filed related action, MacPhee v.
MiMedx Group, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00830-ELR (N.D. Ga.).  It further
refered the Court and the parties to the contents of its motion as
filed in the Northern District of Georgia.

On Jan. 16, 2019, the Northern District of Georgia consolidated the
two cases filed in that District and directed the Clerk's office to
close Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et al., 18-cv-00859-ELR (N.D.
Ga.) and add all parties to MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc. et al.,
18-cv-00830-ELR (N.D. Ga.).

Judge Ramos finds that as a result of its timely filing, its large
financial stake, the typicality of its claims, and the adequacy of
its representation, Arkansas Teachers is entitled to a presumption
that it is the "most adequate Plaintiff."  That presumption stands
unrebutted, because no other class member has come forth with proof
that Arkansas Teachers will not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class or is subject to "unique defenses" that
render it incapable of adequately representing the class.  The
Judge therefore appoints Arkansas Teachers as the Lead Plaintiff.

Arkansas Teachers has moved for approval of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
as the lead counsel.  No party or movant has objected to the
proposed selection.  After reviewing Arkansas Teachers' submission
detailing Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer's experience, the Judge, like
many other courts, concludes that the firm is qualified to serve as
lead counsel of the class.  Accordingly, he approves Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer as the lead counsel.

For the aformentationed reasons, Judge Ramos granted Arkansas
Teachers' motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval
of the lead counsel.  He appointed Arkansas Teachers as the Lead
Plaintiff, and Kaplan Fox & kilsheimer as the lead counsel.  He
denied the remaining motions for appointment of the Lead Plaintiffs
and approval of the lead counsels.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 9, 12, 15,
18, 21.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/cM7W2D from Leagle.com.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Frederic Scott Fox, Sr. -- ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP.

John Murphy, Movant, pro se.

Kevin Brice & James Fitzpatrick, Movants, represented by Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, Movant, represented by David
Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Municipal Employees Retirement System of Michigan, Movant,
represented by Patrick Thomas Egan -- pegan@bermantabacco.com --
Berman DeValerio.

Wayne Feuerherm, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

MiMedx Investor Group, Movant, represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.


MINNESOTA: Inmates Can Access Hepatitis C Drugs Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Stahl, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Minnesota
prisoners with chronic hepatitis C infections must be provided with
highly effective but costly antiviral drugs following a
class-action lawsuit settlement.

A group of five inmates infected with the virus sued the Department
of Corrections in 2015, accusing the agency of withholding the new
drugs from them despite the medications having a 95 percent cure
rate.

"The settlement will provide a cure to all prisoners at every stage
of progression," said Andrew Mohring, an attorney for the
prisoners. "It puts Minnesota in the forefront for treatment and
care of its prisoners who have chronic hepatitis C."

The prisoners were not awarded any money as part of the settlement.
However, the DOC must reimburse their attorneys $325,000 in fees
and another $41,000 in costs. The medications, known as "direct
acting antiviral" (DAA) drugs, range in price from $26,400 to more
than $100,000 per patient. In court filings, the DOC has said that
providing the drugs to all infected inmates could "result in a
fundamental alteration to the DOC or its programming" because of
the expense.

Under the terms of the settlement, which won preliminary approval
on March 18, the DOC must screen all prisoners for hepatitis C.
Antiviral drugs must be provided if the inmate has an advanced
stage of the disease or has hepatitis along with other
complications, such as another viral infection, diabetes or a liver
transplant.

An inmate denied treatment can request a re-evaluation every six
months. Any inmate with the virus will get treatment after 16
months' imprisonment.

"Hepatitis is a slow progressing condition that can cause liver
disease," DOC spokesman Sarah Fitzgerald said in a statement.
"While the department has been providing medically appropriate care
to offenders who have chronic Hepatitis, we will change our
practice -- even if they have not developed liver disease."

The litigation joins a series of similar lawsuits across the
country that ask whether prison inmates have a right to the most
effective drugs despite the toll on the corrections budget. The
lawsuit alleges that, although some inmates were getting the new
drugs, the DOC's medical guidelines conflict with the medical
standard of care endorsed by "practitioners, major medical
associations, and care providers" that requires testing and
immediate treatment of all patients with chronic hepatitis C, with
limited exceptions.

The DAAs, first approved by federal regulators in 2013, have fewer
side effects than older treatments and only require taking a pill
once or twice daily for up to 12 weeks.

Private and government health insurers have increasingly agreed to
cover the drugs for patients suffering from all levels of hepatitis
C, a contagious disease that attacks the liver. Hepatitis C
typically spreads by blood through needles or sexual contact.

Left untreated, hepatitis C can cause severe liver damage and
cancer. About 75 percent to 85 percent of people who have hepatitis
C will develop a chronic infection, according to the Centers for
Disease Control. Some of the inmates in the lawsuit said they were
infected with hepatitis C while incarcerated.

A previous court filing from the prisoners estimated that there
3,500 inmates with a hepatitis C infection, though in a statement
the DOC said 100 prisoners were treated a year, a number that could
double.

In previous court filings, the DOC said it had already been
treating some inmates with advanced stages of the disease with the
costly antiviral drugs, spending $1.6 million during a nine-month
period from 2016 to 2017. Still, providing the drugs to all inmates
with the virus "would eclipse some correctional systems' budgets by
a factor of three," wrote Assistant Attorney General Kathryn
Fodness.

In an order, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz found that the DOC
was essentially telling its inmates that they wouldn't be treated
until they suffered liver damage. [GN]


MURPHY OIL: Judge Approves Sale Tax Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida federal judge conditionally approved
a settlement on March 18 between Murphy Oil USA and a group of
customers to end a class action over the company's overcharging of
sales tax on discounted goods. [GN]


NAT'L ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Class Action May Shake Up Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aly J. Yale, writing for Forbes, reports that a recently filed
class-action antitrust suit against the National Association of
Realtors, among other major real estate players, could spell a
serious shake-up for the industry. If the claim's plaintiffs win
out? It may change the face of buying and selling real estate as we
know it.

In Moerhl v National Association Realtors (NAR), home sellers from
across the nation are claiming that NAR's compensation policies --
which require all member brokers demand blanket, non-negotiable
buyer-side commission fees when listing a home on a Multiple
Listing Service -- is a violation of antitrust law. Realogy
Holdings, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams are
also named in the suit.

Though Minnesota home seller Christopher Moehrl originated the
claim, sellers who listed their properties on 21 different Multiple
Listing Services across the country are also plaintiffs on the
antitrust suit. These MLSs cover Baltimore, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas,
Las Vegas and many of the nation's largest housing markets.

The suit's attorneys are currently soliciting eligible class action
members—those who have sold a home on a named MLS in the last
five years—at HBSSlaw.com.

"Did you sell your home within the last five years?" the page asks.
"You likely overpaid by thousands of dollars in real-estate broker
commission. You could be entitled to reimbursement for
price-fixing."

The Gist of the Suit

According to Adam Swanson, an experienced real estate attorney at
McCarter & English, Moerhl and Co. are claiming the current
NAR-MLS-agent payment arrangement "prevents buyer's agents from
negotiating their own commission, which would likely be less."

The claim specifically cites a 2002 study in the International Real
Estate Review journal that says that if buyer's agents negotiated
their own compensation, listing commissions for sellers would be
closer to 3%, rather than the 5 to 6% seen in most markets.

"In this way, plaintiff claims that he was harmed by having to pay
a buyer's agent and, therefore a higher listing commission than if
he only had to pay his agent," Swanson said.

Swanson says the suit is also claiming that the payment arrangement
encourages agents to steer buyers toward higher cost (and higher
commission) listings, as well as listings exclusive to MLS, both of
which are "anti-competitive."

According to Michael Walsh, CEO at Exclusively Buyers, a real
estate firm that works only with homebuyers, "This is no garden
variety lawsuit."

"Potential damages are estimated at $54 billion," Walsh said. "The
plaintiffs allege collusion, hidden payments and anti-competitive
practices designed to maintain real estate commissions at
artificially high levels."

Robert Hahn, the founder at real estate consulting firm 7DS
Associates, has called the case a potential "nuclear bomb on the
industry."

If the plaintiffs win out, it could mean a change to how Multiple
Listing Services and real estate agents work -- and get paid.
Currently, in most transactions, the home's seller pays a 5 to 6%
commission fee, which is split between their agent—the listing
agent—and the agent representing the buyer. Walsh calls the
arrangement "absurd."

"This lawsuit could -- hopefully, will -- change the way real
estate brokerages operate in the future," he said. "Right now,
buyers don't negotiate the fee for their agent. The seller pays.
The seller is actually paying for the agent who will be negotiating
against their financial interests. This is exactly why buyers are
often skeptical as to whether their agent is working for them or
the seller or just enjoying a nice payday for doing nothing."

Where the Case is Heading

The chances of settlement are slim, according to experts, so this
one is likely heading to court. The firms handling the plaintiff
side -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro and Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll -- are known for their drawn-out legal proceedings
and lucrative wins. Hagens Berman secured $1.6 billion in a case
against Toyota in 2013 and another $206 billion from the tobacco
industry in 1998. Cohen Milstein won an antitrust lawsuit against
Apple just five years ago for $560 million.

As Swanson explained, "These are not the type of firms that put a
suit in place to collect a few thousand dollars and go away."

There's also the nature of the suit to consider. According to
Swanson, the plaintiffs are after more than just money on this
one.

"This case is not likely about an angry Plaintiff who is unhappy
that he paid a higher commission on a property sale," he said.
"There is a bigger goal behind this lawsuit and that is to open the
competitive field an allow new players to get into the market."

But according to NAR, the suit has no legs.

"The complaint is baseless and contains an abundance of false
claims," said Mantill Williams, VP of communications at NAR. "The
U.S. Courts have routinely found that Multiple Listing Services are
pro-competitive and benefit consumers by creating great
efficiencies in the homebuying and selling process. NAR looks
forward to obtaining a similar precedent regarding this filing."

Those precedents NAR is referring to? They likely include a case
from 2018, which saw a federal judge dismiss antitrust claims by a
real estate attorney (and non-MLS member) against Michigan MLS
Realcomp.

Despite similarities, Hahn says this new case does have its
merits.

"Their facts are hard to dispute," he wrote. "NAR does have those
policies. The MLS does have the unilateral offer of compensation.
The brokers and franchises do require their agents to become
REALTORS and join the local MLS. The MLS is an essential utility to
be in business. None of that is really all that disputable. So the
issue will be whether subtle details about how cooperation and
compensation really works will be enough to make a difference
legally."

Big Repercussions

Industrywide, Hahn says the repercussions could be sweeping.

"If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs here, REALTOR
Associations evaporate, the MLS likely dies off, and the entire
infrastructure of residential real estate in the United States has
to be remade," he wrote when the suit was filed. "It could be
Ragnarok, the final end of the world battle of Norse mythology."

According to Swanson, though, the impact will largely depend on
locale.

"There would be a small impact on some markets, like New York City
where there are multiple services available to list properties. In
other markets, the MLS is king for residential properties and it is
nearly impossible to buy/sell real property without listing it on
MLS," he said. "Without the MLS agreement to compensate the buyer's
agent there may be far fewer buyers represented by realtors because
a buyer's agent may otherwise have no assurance of compensation or
security."

This could open the door for more consumer-to-consumer sales,
Swanson said, with services like Zillow and Redfin filling the gap.
Newer, yet-to-emerge services may "replace the role of the buyer's
broker altogether," he said.

Whatever happens, Frederick Warburg Peters, CEO of Warburg Realty
in New York and fellow Forbes.com contributor, expects confusion to
be the main result. But mostly? Buyers and sellers will get what
they pay for.

"I do not believe that it is likely to have too much financial
effect on any of the parties involved in the long run," Peters
said. "Sellers will continue to pay seller's agents, sometimes at
reduced fees through such companies as Redfin or Purplebricks, but
more often at a higher commission model. The same will become true
for buyers. Top agents will continue to earn higher fees, and
buyers looking for a discount will be serviced by a new sector of
low-fee buyer's agents."

Those discount providers will offer fewer services for less money,
he says. "Some will choose it; some will not. Most of the time, it
won't save either side money."

Representatives for Keller Williams and RE/MAX, also named in the
suit, declined to comment for this story. [GN]


NESTLE USA: Sanford Law Named Class Counsel in Barrett Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SKY BARRETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; and NESTLE
PREPARED FOODS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-167-DPM (E.D.
Ark.), Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, has issued an
order addressing issues in the notice and settlement.

The Judge appreciates the parties' response to the Court's recent
Order, as well as the counsels' billing records through the end of
January 2019.  He understands now why notice by text message wasn't
proposed.  He also appreciates the parties' revisions of all the
proposed documents to address the Court's questions and concerns.
On the Notice, No 17-1 at 22-23, one follow-up, and one tweak.

The heading caption at the top of the box (in dark gray) should
read "YOUR OPTIONS AND LEGAL RIGHTS."  The first box (in light
gray) on the left margin should be restored to the original text
proposed.  It should read "FILL OUT THE CLAIM FORM".

In the middle box of the Notice, No 17-1 at 23, "and/or" is used
twice.  The Judge finds that this mischievous expression can cause
confusion.  He suggests a re-write: "you may state your objections
to the Court, or file the Opt-Out Form, or do both.  To do so, you
must mail a letter to counsel for the Parties stating why you
object to the Settlement, or mail the Opt-Out Form to the Claims
Administrator, or do both, by _____, 2019."  This is a suggestion
because the Court may not have accurately captured the parties'
understanding.  And the Judge authorizes the counsel to revise this
part of the Notice to eliminate" and/or" while faithfully capturing
the parties' proposed agreement.

Judge Marshall certified the following group as a collective action
for settlement purposes, and as a Settlement Class: All current or
former hourly paid production employees who work or worked at the
Nestle processing factory located in Jonesboro, Arkansas, at any
time between Jan. 1, 2016 and July 1, 2018.

He appointed Barrett as the Class Representative; Joshua West and
Joshua Sanford of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as the class counsel;
and JND Legal Administration as the Claims Administrator.

The Judge finds that the proposed settlement of the collective
action and the class action is fair and reasonable.  He is likely
to be able to give his final approval in due course.  The deal
reflects a good faith compromise of the disputed bonuses.  Given
the lawyer time already spent through January 2019, and expected to
be spent thereafter, the target amount of attorney's fees is a
reasonable estimate, which the Judge will revisit with more
information at the fairness hearing.

He scheduled the fairness hearing for 1:30 p.m. on July 8, 2019.
He approved the form and content (as revised by the Order) of the
Notice of Proposed Settlement, Claim Form, and Opt-Out Form as
proposed and revised by the parties.

Here's the schedule:

     a. May 1, 2019 - Deadline for claims administrator to complete
Notice mailing

     b. May 31, 2019 - Deadline for any objector's lawyer to file
an appearance in the case

     c. June 7, 2019 - Motion for final approval of settlement due

     d. June 7, 2019 - Objections or Opt-Outs due

     e. July 8, 2019 - Fairness Hearing

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XOFAGt from Leagle.com.

Sky Barrett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford, Sanford Law
Firm & Joshua Lee West, Sanford Law Firm.

Nestle USA Inc & Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Defendants,
represented by Eric R. Magnus -- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & O. John Norris, III --
John.Norris@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.


NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Workers Drop Lawsuit Over Mass Layoff Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
FreightWaves reports that former employees of bankrupt
less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier New England Motor Freight (NEMF)
have dropped their lawsuit charging the company violated federal
law by failing to give adequate notice of mass layoffs, the
attorney representing a class of terminated NEMF workers confirmed
on March 18.

The suit was dropped after Elizabeth, New Jersey-based NEMF
reportedly agreed to grant enhanced severance benefits to about
2,500 former workers. Workers will receive at least 14.5 days of
severance, and could be granted severance beyond that period
depending on the number of vacation days accrued. The initial
package called for two weeks of severance. Workers will be provided
health benefits for a near two-month period ending
April 13. The new package adds $2.7 million to the original
severance total. The information was first reported in Transport
Topics.

The class-action suit against NEMF was filed just days after the
carrier announced on February 11 that it would file for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection and wind-down its operations. The suit
alleged that NEMF violated a 1988 statute requiring employers with
100 or more employees to give 60 calendar days notice of plant
closings and mass layoffs. NEMF employed 3,540 people.

Charles A. Ercole, the Philadelphia-based attorney representing the
employee class, said at the time the suit was filed that
approximately 350 drivers and other workers had signed up across
nearly all of the 15 states and 35 terminals where the carrier
operated. Ercole had said he was seeking class status for all
affected NEMF employees. The suit had demanded eight weeks of pay
and benefits. [GN]


NEW HAMPSHIRE BALL: Luna Seeks to Certify Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JOSE A. LUNA, an individual, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. NEW
HAMPSHIRE BALL BEARINGS, INC.; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:18-cv-10755-AB-JC (C.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 13,
2018), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order on April 26,
2019, to certify these subclasses:

   Meal Period Subclass:

   "all individuals who have been employed, or are currently
   employed, by Defendant New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. as a
   non-exempt, hourly employee from November 13, 2014 up to the
   present, who worked a shift of five hours or longer";

   Rest Period Subclass:

   "all individuals who have been employed, or are currently
   employed, by Defendant New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. as a
   non-exempt, hourly employee from November 13, 2014 up to the
   present, who worked a shift of over 3.5 hours"; and

   Pay Stub Subclass:

   "all individuals who have been employed, or are currently
   employed, by Defendant New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. as a
   non-exempt, hourly employee from November 13, 2014 up to the
   present, who received an itemized wage statement."[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

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

NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Corporate Tax Refund Interest, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nani, writing for Law360, reports that an email services
company is arguing that New York state and city have failed to pay
interest on prepaid corporate tax refunds, according to a proposed
class action. [GN]


NEW YORK: Settles Workers' Race, Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that New York City has reached a deal with the union
representing its administrative workers to end a big-money class
action claiming the city underpaid more than 1,500 nonwhite female
employees. [GN]


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Removes Lopez Labor Case to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norred & Associates, Inc. removes case, EVA LOPEZ, MOES 1 through
1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
and aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
a Georgia corporation; an individual and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, the Defendants, from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on March 28, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00558 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Norred failed to pay all earned wages
and overtime wages; failed to permit paid 10 minute rest periods
and 30 minute meal periods; and failed to timely pay all earned
wages and compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Norred is a corporate security firm that provides security guards
and employment-related investigative services to companies across
multiple industries and throughout the country. Norred has security
guards in approximately six California locations and approximately
300 locations nationwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Paul Denis, Esq.
          Ethan Rasi, Esq.
          DENIS & RASI, PC.
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (714) 242-4557
          Facsimile: (213) 443-9601
          E-mail: pdenis@denisrasilaw.com
          erasi@denisrasilaw.com

Attorneys for Norred & Associates, Inc.:

          Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Anthony Sbardellati, Esq.
          Kimberly T. Bernstein, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 909-7775
          Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
          E-mail: skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com
                  asbardellati@constangy.com
                  kbernstein@constangy.com

NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Class in Buffkin Prisoners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LLOYD BUFFKIN, KIM CALDWELL, and ROBERT PARHAM, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIK HOOKS, ABHAY AGARWAL, KENNETH LASSITER,
PAULA SMITH, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV502 (M.D. N.C.), Judge William L.
Osteen, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Norther Carolina (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs are state prisoners who receive medical care from
the North Carolina Department of Public Safety or DPS.  Thy've been
diagnosed with and requested treatment for the hepatitis C virus
("HCV"), a highly communicable disease that scars the liver and
presents other health risks.  They allege that they are currently
not receiving HCV treatment.  The individual Defendants are all
employed by the North Carolina state prison system.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging:
(1) that the Defendants' policy of screening only those prisoners
with certain risk factors, rather than screening all prisoners
under an opt-out system, is deliberately indifferent to the risk
that prisoners with HCV will evade detection and will not receive
the necessary treatment; and (2) that the Defendants' policy of
providing direct-acting antiviral ("DAA") drug treatment only to
certain prisoners based on FibroSure test scores and
contraindications is deliberately indifferent to the risk that
individuals who do not meet the policy criteria may still suffer
serious health consequences from HCV.  The Plaintiffs further
allege that the Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") by discriminatorily withholding medical treatment from
them while providing treatment to prisoners with other health
issues.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Memorandum Opinion
and Recommendation filed on Nov. 30, 2018 by the Magistrate Judge
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b).  In the
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class be granted and that the class
be defined as all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who
have or will have chronic hepatitis C virus and have not been
treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs.  The Magistrate Judge
further recommends that Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham be named
the class representatives, that the Plaintiffs' counsel be
appointed the class counsel, and that the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction be granted.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court issue a
preliminary injunction that orders the Defendants to: (1) provide
universal opt-out HCV screening to all persons who are or will be
in DPS custody; (2) cease denying DAA treatment for the
contraindications, other than patient refusal, set out in Step 4a
of DPS Policy #CP-7; and (3) treat the Plaintiffs and all members
of their class with DAAs according to the current standard of
medical care set out in the AASLD/IDSA Guidance, regardless of an
individual's fibrosis level.

The Recommendation was served on the parties to the action on Nov.
30, 2018.  The Defendants timely filed objections, and the
Plaintiffs replied.  The Defendants object to the following three
findings in the Recommendation: (1) that the Plaintiffs have
standing, (2) that the Plaintiffs are adequate class
representatives, and (3) that the Plaintiffs can demonstrate a high
likelihood of success on the merits, as required for this court to
issue a preliminary injunction.

Judge Osteen finds that the Magistrate Judge's analysis regarding
the Plaintiffs' class certification motion should be adopted and
that motion will be granted.  He further finds that, while the
named Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs
have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to certain
aspects of their class-wide preliminary injunction request.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will
be granted in part and denied in part as set forth.

The Judge adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation in
accordance with the foregoing analysis.  He granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class, and the class is defined as all current
and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic
hepatitis C virus and have not been treated with direct-acting
antiviral drugs.

He appointed Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham as the class
representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Injunction.  The Plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction ordering the Defendants to provide DAA
treatment to the named Plaintiffs is granted; the Plaintiffs'
request for an injunction ordering tge Defendants to cease denying
DAA treatment based on contraindications, other than patient
refusal, and to cease denying DAA treatment based solely on a
prisoner's FibroSure score, is granted in that Policy #CP-7 is
enjoined in its entirety; and the Plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to institute universal
opt-out screening and to treat all class members with DAAs
regardless of fibrosis level is denied.

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

LLOYD BUFFKIN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, KIM CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons & ROBERT PARHAM, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by CHRISTOPHER A. BROOK -- cbrook@acluofnc.org --
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, CRISTINA M.
BECKER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, DANIEL K.
SIEGEL -- dsiegel@ncpls.org -- N. C. PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
EMILY E. SEAWELL -- eseawell@acluofnc.org -- ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA
& MICHELE R. LUECKING-SUNMAN -- mlueckingsunman@ncpls.org -- NORTH
CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

ERIK HOOKS, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary
of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, ABHAY AGARWAL,
individually and in his official capacity as Acting Medical
Director, Department of Adult Correction, North Carolina Department
of Public Safety, KENNETH LASSITER, individually and in his
official capacity as Director of Prisons, Department of Adult
Correction, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, PAULA
SMITH, former medical director, Department of Adult Correction,
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, individually & NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants, represented by
AMAR MAJMUNDAR, N. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CORRINE L. LUSIC, N.
C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOSEPH FINARELLI, N. C. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ANN W. MATTHEWS, N.C. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORLANDO L. RODRIGUEZ, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.


NVR INC: Smiths Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit PAUL SMITH and DEBORAH SMITH, the
Plaintiffs, vs. NVR, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an Order
certifying the case as a class action.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:

          Aaron W. Rapier, Esq.
          Aaron Rapier, Esq.
          Dario Dzananovic, Esq.
          RAPIER LAW FIRM
          1770 Park St., Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (815) 782-5478
          Facsimile: (815) 327-3449
          E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Corey Ann Finn, Esq.
          Wade Yeoman, Esq.
          231 South Fifth Street, 3rd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (520) 694-0565
          E-mail: corey@fyattorneys.com
                  wade@fyattorneys.com

NY TRANSIT: Lacks Accommodations for Pregnant Workers, Young Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Crystal A. Young, on behalf of herself and other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. New York City
Transit Authority, the Defendant, Case No. 651835/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
March 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant has failed to grant
reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff's pregnancy and engages in a
policy and pattern of providing insufficient or no accommodations
to pregnant employees in violation of the New York City Human
Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code, and the New York
State Human Rights Law, Executive Law.

Young seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, lost wages,
restoration of previously accrued sick leave pay, monetary damages
for pain and suffering, punitive damages, her reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in pursuing this relief, and all other
appropriate legal and equitable relief.

Young resides in Kings County, State of New York. She has worked
for NYCTA for approximately 18 years, since about May 2001. She has
been a Conductor since about August 2008. Plaintiff continues to be
an employee in good standing. The Plaintiff maintained her position
and seniority rights as a Conductor with NYCTA.  This is her first
pregnancy.

NYCTA is a public benefit corporation created under Public
Authorities Law. NYCTA is commonly referred to as an affiliate of
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, with which it shares a
board, and whose logo it uses. Among other things, NYCTA operates
New York City's subway system.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq.
          CARY KANE LLP
          1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 868-6300

OREGON: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in Jenkins Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD ANTHONY JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVE
SHELTON, Director of Health Service, Oregon Department of
Corrections; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-35314 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's summary judgment and dismissal order in Jenkins'
action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.

The Court holds that the district court properly granted summary
judgment on Jenkins's deliberate indifference claims against the
Defendants because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether these Defendants were deliberately
indifferent in the treatment of his medical problems and pain.
Because the district court granted summary judgment on the merits
of Jenkins' deliberate indifference claims as to these Defendants,
the district court did not err in failing to consider his motion
for class certification attached to his Declaration in Opposition
to Summary Judgment.

It further holds that the district court properly dismissed
Defendant Little for lack of personal jurisdiction because Jenkins
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that Little has
"continuous and systematic" contacts with Oregon that "approximate
physical presence.  The district court also did not abuse its
discretion by considering Dr. Koltes' declaration in ruling on the
motion for summary judgment because the declaration was signed
under penalty of perjury, and Dr. Koltes had personal knowledge of
the facts in her declaration.

The Court do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly
raised and argued in the opening brief.  It rejects as unsupported
by the record Jenkins' contentions that the district court denied
him due process or failed to consider his filings and evidence.  It
denied Jenkins' motion for a certificate of appealability as
unnecessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/NkzdP3 from Leagle.com.


PALMCO ADMINISTRATION: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, RONALD MUSTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PALMCO ADMINISTRATION LLC
d/b/a INDRA ENERGY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01788
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019), is a consumer class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising out of Defendant's
unlawful mass telemarketing practices to solicit consumers to
purchase its goods and services, including natural gas and
electricity.

According to the complaint, Indra violates the TCPA by placing
unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers' cellular telephones
using an automatic telephone dialing system without first obtaining
their prior express consent -- oral or written -- as required by
the TCPA.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the conduct of Indra in
negligently, knowingly, or willfully placing unsolicited
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's and other class members'
cellular telephones without their prior express written consent in
violation of the TCPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (646) 767-2271
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773 496 8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561 826 5477
          Facsimile: 561 961 5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

PARKING REIT: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all shareholders of The Parking REIT, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PARK) ("Parking REIT") and MVP Monthly Income Realty
Trust, Inc. ("MVP REIT I") between August 11, 2017 and December 15,
2017.

On December 15, 2017, the merger of Parking REIT (then known as MVP
REIT II, Inc.) and MVP REIT I (the "MVP Merger") was consummated.
The complaint is captioned SIPDA Revocable Trust v. The Parking
REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:19-cv-00428-APG-NJK), and alleges
that defendants solicited stockholders' votes in support of the
merger through proxy statements that omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading.
The complaint further alleges that stockholders were damaged as a
result of the concealment of this material information. To get more
information go to:

         https://www.zlk.com/mna/parking-reit-mvp-monthly

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 13, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN]


PBG DELIVERY: Court Approves FLSA Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ADAM MOSTEL, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. PBG DELIVERY DUDES LLC, et al., theDefendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-81495-BER (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Reinhart
entered an order:

   1. finding that it represents a fair and reasonable resolution
      of the parties' bona fide Fair Labor Standards Act suit.

   2. granting joint motion to approve parties' settlement
      agreement and dismissing case with prejudice;

   3. approving parties' FLSA Settlement Agreement;

   4. denying as moot any and all pending motions and directing the

      Clerk of Court to close case.[CC]

PELLA CORP: Judge Approves $35MM Windows Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
homeowners whose Pella windows may have leaked will soon be in line
for refunds for their repair costs, while attorneys will receive
millions more in fees, under a deal approved by a Chicago federal
judge to close at last a long, tortured class action lawsuit.

On March 15, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman granted
final approval to the settlement in the 13-year-old legal action
against door and window-maker Pella Corporation.

In all, the settlement would amount to more than $34 million. Of
that total, about $25.7 million is scheduled to be paid to about
10,000 people who submitted eligible claims for either full or
25-percent refunds for work done to repair damage allegedly caused
by leaky Pella windows.

The settlement also set aside $9 million to pay lawyers. Of that,
85 percent of the total -- about $7.6 million -- would be paid to
the lawyers who have represented the class action plaintiffs since
about 2014.

Those include attorney Robert A. Clifford, of the Clifford Law
Offices, of Chicago, and attorneys from the Lang Law Office, of
Crystal Lake; Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, of Tampa,
Fla.; the Rhine Law Firm, of Wilmington, N.C.; and the Moor Law
Office, of Chicago.

An additional $1.25 million will be paid to lawyers who represented
key objectors in the case. Those include noted class action
objector attorney and reform advocate Ted Frank, who will be paid
$966,750 for his work in the case.

DIFFICULT JOURNEY

The lawsuit dates to 2006, when plaintiffs first filed suit,
claiming Pella's ProLine Series of windows allowed water to leak
into their houses, damaging window frames and eventually the
structure of the houses themselves.

The lawsuit was initially brought by Leonard Saltzman, a dentist,
whose son-in-law, lawyer Peter Weiss, served as lead counsel for
the plaintiffs. At the time, Saltzman's daughter and Weiss' wide,
Jamie E. Weiss, was also a partner at Weiss' firm.

Other plaintiffs were later added to the action.

In 2013, another federal district judge, James Zagel, approved a
settlement agreement, ostensibly worth $90 million overall, but
also worth $11 million to Weiss and others from his firm, Complex
Litigation Group, of suburban Hinsdale.

That settlement drew objections, including a man identified as
Michael Schulz, who was initially represented by attorney
Christopher Bandas and, later, by Frank, who has regularly argued
objections to class action settlements alleged to be lopsided in
favor of lawyers at the expense of the members of the plaintiffs
the lawyers claim to represent.

The objection ultimately landed before the U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago, which savaged the deal for awarding
plaintiffs' lawyers $11 million up front in fees, while securing no
guarantee class members would receive any real benefit.

The Seventh Circuit judges threw Weiss and his firm off the case,
along with lead plaintiff Saltzman, and brought in the group of
lawyers led by Clifford.

In early 2018, the parties returned with a new settlement, very
similar to the deal ultimately approved by Judge Coleman.

COMPETING FEE REQUESTS

That was followed by a flurry of fee requests from the various
lawyers working on the case.

Clifford's group requested the full $9 million for themselves.

Frank asked the court to award him $1.5 million for his work in
persuading the Seventh Circuit to slice the previous deal.

Attorney John Pentz, who represented a different objector, also
requested $1.5 million, claiming his work had also been cited by
the Seventh Circuit in its decision against the initial
settlement.

Further, the Complex Litigation Group also asked the court to award
them $3.4 million, saying they deserved to be compensated for their
work in the first few years of the case's courtroom journey.

Judge Coleman, however, refused to give CLG any credit, or any
share of the available $9 million pot of attorney fees, noting
their alleged poor conduct in negotiating the original, vacated
settlement was largely responsible for the case's plagued past.

"It would be inequitable for this Court to deprive deserving
counsel of compensation for time spent working on behalf of the
class in order to reward counsel who directly harmed the interests
of the class through conduct that they must have realized was not
proper," Coleman wrote.

For Frank's fees, the judge noted his work had proven instrumental
in thwarting the initial settlement and allowing the Seventh
Circuit to substitute counsel to replace CLG.

"Here, there can be no dispute that the objectors added value to
the settlement of this case and prevented an inequitable outcome,"
the judge wrote.

The judge also rejected objections from Clifford's group, which had
asked the judge to cut Frank out of the pool of fees, because Frank
had been recruited to represent objector Schulz by Bandas.

Bandas, of Corpus Christi, Texas, had handed Schulz's
representation off to Frank, under an agreement granting Bandas a
share of whatever fees Frank may ultimately receive.

But in late 2016, Bandas was sued by the Chicago plaintiffs' law
firm of Edelson P.C., who accused the Texas lawyer of masterminding
a scheme to use the class action settlement objection process to
essentially extort money from other lawyers trying to close their
deals.

Ultimately, the judge in the Edelson lawsuit granted Bandas'
request in January 2019 to end the action. In that motion, Bandas
admitted to "unethical, improper and misleading conduct."

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer slapped a permanent
injunction on Bandas, prohibiting him from practicing law in
Illinois or representing any objectors to class action settlements
anywhere.

A few weeks later, Clifford asked Judge Coleman in the Pella case
to extend that ruling to Frank, as well, because he had partnered
with Bandas initially.

Coleman, however, refused.

"There is nothing before this Court to suggest that Bandas'
misconduct, which concerned the unauthorized practice of law, is
attributable to Frank, and this Court can see no reason why Frank,
a well-known and well-respected class action lawyer, should be
subject to punishment based solely on his representation of a
common client," Coleman wrote.

However, given the size of the available pot of money to distribute
among the various attorneys, the judge trimmed Frank's fee request
to $966,750.

The judge called Pentz's $1.5 million fee request "patently
unreasonable," and awarded him $280,000.

And for Clifford's group, she noted the group's work since 2014 to
bring about a new settlement after the objections at the Seventh
Circuit.

"Unlike in other cases, . . . class counsel had to perform
substantial work after remand in order to realize any value from
those objections," Judge Coleman wrote. "Without discovery,
amendments and briefing the objections would have been meaningless
and would not have improved the prospective outcome for the
class."

Pella has been represented by attorneys Douglas L. Prochnow --
douglas.prochnow@FaegreBD.com -- John A. Roberts --
john.roberts@FaegreBD.com -- and others with the firm of Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, with offices in Chicago and Minneapolis. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Judge Tosses L. Gomes's FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Takesha Thomas, writing for Florida Record, reports that a federal
judge has denied a request for class action certification in a
lawsuit filed by a Florida man claiming a collections company
violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

In his suit, Leonardo Gomes claimed that Portfolio Recovery
Associates violated Florida and federal statutes when the
collections company sent him a letter in an effort to recover funds
he owed on a credit card. In May 2018, Gomes filed a class action
complaint in district court alleging three counts against Portfolio
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the
Florida Consumer Collections Protection Act (FCCPA).

He alleged Portfolio violated the FDCPA by "making false,
deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the
collection of a debt; violated a section of the FDCPA by using
unfair or unconscionable means to collect, or attempt to collect, a
debt; and violated the FCCPA, Florida Statute which forbids a debt
collector from asserting the existence of a legal right when it
knows the right does not exist."

However, in a Feb. 28 court filing, U.S. District Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga denied Gomes' motion for class certification and
appointment of a class representative and class counsel in the
matter.

The judge said Gomes' case would present too many "individualized
causation and damages questions," which would bog down the case and
make a class action no better than a variety of individual lawsuits
from others with similar claims.

Gomes had requested the class action include anyone located in
Florida in the past one-two years who had received a letter from
Portfolio had "based on the template regarding a Capital One credit
card debt where the charge off date preceded the date of the letter
by more than five years."

According to court documents, Gomes failed to pay on a Capital One
Bank personal credit card resulting in a debt. His last payment was
made in 2010. In May 2017, Portfolio sent a letter to Gomes
regarding a balance due of $1,557 to Capital One. The statute of
limitations for initiating an action on a debt in the state of
Florida is five years, court papers say.

Gomes argued that in the collection letter Portfolio used language
that "gave or could give the least sophisticated consumer the
misleading impression the debt was legally enforceable." Believing
that the state's statute of limitation was seven years, Gomes
contends that he believed that "judicial enforcement action might
be taken on the debt."

According to court records, the collection letter offered Gomes the
option for repaying the "full balance of $1,557.02 in a single
payment, six monthly payments, or 12 monthly payments, in exchange
for which the debt would be considered 'paid in full.'"

The case is LEONARDO GOMES, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-21872-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman
(S.D. Fla.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4h9c3hj from Leagle.com.

Leonardo Gomes, Plaintiff, represented by David N. McDevitt ,
Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice & Alexander Daniel
Weisberg , Weisberg & Meyers LLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Sara
F. Holladay-Tobias , McGuire Woods, Brittney Lauren Difato ,
McGuireWoods LLP & David L. Hartsell , McGuire Woods, pro hac
vice.


PRESS BUILDERS: Core Scaffolding Seeks Payment of Unpaid Invoices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Core Scaffolding Systems Inc., Plaintiff v. PRESS BUILDERS, INC.,
METRO NYC SERVICES, INC., MIDHAT SERBAGI, ABRAHAM NOY, and JOHN and
JANE DOES 1-10 and others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No.
507027/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 29, 2019) alleges
that the Defendants Press and/or Metro breached a subcontract by
failing to pay Core for work Core performed and material supplied
under the Subcontract.

On September 20, 2015, Pilku Construction Services Inc., as
subcontractor, entered into a subcontract with an entity named ZDG
LLC, as general contractor or construction manager by which Pilku
provided a side walk shed and scaffolding for improvements to the
premises at 310 West 40th Street, New York, N.Y.

On December 21, 2016, said Subcontract was assigned to or assumed
by defendants Metro and Press, in place of or in lieu of ZDG LLC.
On December 29, 2017, said Subcontract was assigned to or assumed
by plaintiff Core, in place of or in lieu of Pilku. Core properly
pulled all relevant Department of Building permits for such work
and services at the Premises.

Subsequently, Core issued invoices and payment applications to
Defendants that the Defendants failed to pay. As of June 9, 2018,
Press and/or Metro failed to pay Core in accordance with the said
Subcontract and invoices a sum of $99,378.49, says the complaint.

Core is in business as a supplier of scaffolding and side walk
bridging for purposes of construction of, and improvments to,
buildings, and renovation and repairs of existing buildings.

Press Builders, Inc. is a New York corporate entity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
     King & King, LLP
     Sanborn Map Building
     629 Fifth Avenue
     Pelham, NY 10803
     Phone: (914)380-5970


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Plumb Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Plumb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Professional Account Services Inc.,
and Betty Sanders, the Defendants, Case 3:19-cv-00085-SLG (D.
Alaska, March 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plainitff was involved in a car
accident in December 2014. As a result of the accident, the
Plaintiff was treated at Mat-su Regional Medical Center in Palmer,
Alaska and incurred certain medical bills. The Debts were for
personal medical treatment.  The Debts were assigned or otherwise
transferred to PAS for collection. On July 19, 2018, in an effort
to collect the debt, Sanders, on behalf of PAS, sent a facsimile to
Plaintiff through Plaintiff's counsel.  In the facsimile, Sanders
represents that she is contacting the Plaintiff on behalf of MSRMC.
Sanders attempts to obtain information about Plaintiff on Behalf of
MSRMC. In reality, however, Sanders was acting on behalf of PAS.
Sanders' statement that she acting on behalf of MSRMC was a false
representation made to attempt to collect the Debts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          William Dennie Cook, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM DENNIE COOK, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1
          Eagle River, AL 99577-0001
          Telephone: (907) 694 2000
          Facsimile: (907) 694 2024

PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Webb Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WEBB, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; R.M.
GALICIA, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08683-FLW-TJB (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 Freda L. Wolfson
and referred to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Progressive Management Systems is a bilingual, employee owned
company. The Company is engaged as a credit collection agency.
[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


RED LOBSTER: Faces Mullen Jr. ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00305-LPL (W.D. Pa., March 19, 2019)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa PupoLenihan.

Red Lobster Hospitality LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


REED SMITH: 2d Cir. Affirms Injunction of State-Court Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID E. KAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, MICHAEL S. ALLEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, CHI-PIN HSU, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, FRED M. ROSS, GARY
W. MUENSTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. REED SMITH LLP,
Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Docket Nos. 17-4067-cv(L), 17-4144 (XAP)
(2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the district court's order enjoining Reed Smith's action
for tortious interference and unjust enrichment in New York state
court against Wohl & Fruchter LLP.

Appellant-Cross-Appellee Reed Smith appeals an order from the
district court (Naomi R. Buchwald, J.) enjoining its action for
tortious interference and unjust enrichment in New York state court
against Wohl & Fruchter, which dispute arose from the two firms'
concurrent representation of the Plaintiff class in the now-settled
litigation Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., No.
12-Civ.-9350 (S.D.N.Y.).  

Wohl & Fruchter served as co-class counsel in Kaplan v. S.A.C.
Capital Advisors, L.P., No. 12-cv-9350, a securities class action
filed in December 2012 in the Southern District of New York.  By
June 2016, the class action was headed for trial, and Wohl &
Fruchter sought and engaged trial counsel to assist in its
representation of the class.  Wohl & Fruchter recommended and the
class' lead plaintiffs originally engaged Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP as the trial counsel.  In September, however, less
than four months before trial was scheduled to begin, Quinn Emanuel
withdrew due to an alleged conflict of interest.

In Quinn Emanuel's stead, Wohl & Fruchter recommended and the Lead
Plaintiffs engaged Reed Smith on Sept. 19, 2016.  Wohl & Fruchter
notified the defense counsel of Reed Smith's engagement that day,
and at a hearing on Sept. 21, 2016, the defense counsel alerted the
court that Reed Smith might be conflicted.  The next day, the class
action defendants contacted the class counsel (specifically, Wohl &
Fruchter) about restarting settlement negotiations.  On Sept. 23,
2016, after obtaining the Lead Plaintiffs' authorization to
terminate Reed Smith's engagement, the class counsel notified Reed
Smith that the firm was terminated.  Wohl & Fruchter did not
involve Reed Smith in settlement negotiations.

The parties to the securities class action reached a settlement in
late November 2016, and the district court preliminarily approved
the settlement on Dec. 16, 2016.  The district court's preliminary
approval order called for any counsel that believed it was entitled
to fees or expenses from the litigation to make an application to
the court.  Despite having notice of the order, Reed Smith did not
make such an application.

The district court formally approved the settlement in May of 2017
and approved a fee and expense award to Wohl & Fruchter and an
expense award to Quinn Emanuel.  The settlement approval order also
instructed that except as approved thereby or by other Order of the
Court, no person will be entitled to attorneys' fees for the
reimbursement of litigation expenses in connection with the
representation of the Elan Class Plaintiffs or the Classes in this
Action.  The district court retained exclusive jurisdiction to
decide any further applications for attorneys' fees or requests for
reimbursement of litigation expenses in connection with the
representation of the Elan Class Plaintiffs or the Classes in this
Action, and over all parties to the Action in connection
therewith.

About one month after the district court approved the settlement,
Reed Smith filed a complaint against Wohl & Fruchter in the New
York Supreme Court that alleged claims arising from the firms'
co-representation of the class.  Specifically, the complaint
alleged that Wohl & Fruchter had tortiously interfered with Reed
Smith's engagement contract with the Lead Plaintiffs and that Wohl
& Fruchter had been unjustly enriched by its unlawful behavior in
doing so. The complaint sought damages of $6.75 million, the amount
Reed Smith allegedly would have been entitled to under the
engagement agreement had it remained in force.

On July 28, 2017, Wohl & Fruchter filed a motion in the District
Court for the Southern District of New York requesting that the
district court permanently enjoin the state-court proceedings and
dismiss Reed Smith's state claims on the merits.  The district
court granted the motion to the extent it sought an injunction
barring Reed Smith from pursuing the state-court proceeding but
declined to make any ruling on the merits of Reed Smith's tortious
interference and unjust enrichment claims.

The Court finds that the district court, construing its ancillary
jurisdiction as supplemental jurisdiction, properly exercised
jurisdiction over Wohl & Fruchter's motion to stay the state-court
proceedings because the motion implicates the district court's
ability to effectuate its decrees.  In its motion to stay, Wohl &
Fruchter claims that Reed Smith is attempting to circumvent the
district court's Fee Order by bringing its claims in state court.
In other words, Wohl & Fruchter's motion raises an issue regarding
the continued integrity of the district court's decision on
attorneys' fees.  Thus, in deciding the motion to stay, the
district court exercised its power to effectuate its decrees, and
therefore the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the
motion to stay.

Next, it finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in exercising its jurisdiction over the motion to stay.  Reed Smith
next argues that even if the district court had jurisdiction over
Wohl & Fruchter's motion, it should have abstained from exercising
its jurisdiction.  The Court disagrees.  A district court should
abstain from deciding cases over which it has jurisdiction only in
the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to
repair to the state court would clearly serve an important
countervailing interest.

It also finds that the injunction was proper under the
Anti-Injunction Act.  The district court enjoined Reed Smith's
state-court action by concluding that an injunction was necessary
in aid of the district court's jurisdiction and in order to prevent
relitigation of issues the federal court had already decided.  The
Court concludes that the relitigation exception applies, and
without needing to consider the in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception,
it finds that the district court therefore properly enjoined the
state-court proceedings.

Finally, Wohl & Fruchter argues that the district court erred in
declining to decide the merits of Reed Smith's state-court claims,
arguing that the Court should apply claim and issue preclusion to
deny Reed Smith's claims.  The Court sees no abuse of discretion in
the district court's refusal to adjudicate the merits of a claim
that has not been asserted before it.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirmed the district court's
injunction of Reed Smith's state-court action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jxXIwN from Leagle.com.

GARY J. MENNITT -- gary.mennitt@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, (Andrew
J. Levander -- andrew.levander@dechert.com -- on the brief), New
York, NY, for Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

ANTHONY PADUANO -- ap@pwlawyers.com -- Paduano & Weintraub LLP,
(Leonard Weintraub -- lw@pwlawyers.com -- Ari J. Silverman --
ajs@pwlawyers.com -- on the brief), New York, NY, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Marc I. Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Michelle S. Carino,
Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY (on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Ethan D. Wohl -- ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- Krista T. Rosen --
krosen@wohlfruchter.com -- Sara J. Wigmore --
swigmore@wohlfruchter.com -- Wohl & Fruchter LLP, New York, NY (on
the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.


REGENCY HEALTHCARE: Zou Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
XIU FANG ZOU on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REGENCY HEALTHCARE INC. and "Jane"
Mei, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01792 (E.D.N.Y., March 28,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed widespread
violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and
practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff,
compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, spread of hours
pay, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, as well as failing to provide their employees, including
Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed FLSA Collective:

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

REGIONS BANK: Removes Estate of Tolliver Case to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Bank removed the case, ESTATE OF JAMES HENRY TOLLIVER, JR.,
the Plaintiff, v. REGIONS BANK & TANGELA TOLLIVER LEVINSON, the
Defendants, Case No. CV-2019-900504 from the Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on March 28, 2019. The Northern
District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00497-RDP
to the proceeding.

The Estate asserts that Regions breached its contract with Tolliver
and violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Regions Bank:

          Jennifer A. Stanley, Esq.
          Robert H. Fowlkes, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          Suite 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: jstanley@maynardcooper.com
                  bfowlkes@maynardcooper.com

REPUBLIC FIRST BANCORP: Shareholders Vote Invalid, Traher Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG TRAHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC FIRST BANCORP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01202-GAM (E.D. Pa., March 20, 2019) seeks a
determination that the shareholder vote that purportedly doubled
the number of issuable authorized shares of common stock of the
Company was invalid.  Traher contends that the Defendant violated
the Company's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's shareholders were asked
to approve an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation which
would double the Company's issuable authorized common stock, from
50,000,000 shares to 100,000,000 shares.  Pursuant to the Articles
of Incorporation, the Authorized Shares Amendment required the
approval of 60% of the Company's outstanding shares to pass. Simply
by not voting a shareholder was effectively casting a vote against
the Authorized Shares Amendment. Shareholders who owned their stock
through brokerage accounts were explicitly told that if they did
not submit voting instructions to their broker, the broker would
not have discretionary authority to vote the shares on the
Authorized Shares Amendment and that their shares would effectively
constitute a vote against the Authorized Share Amendment.

Shareholders owning 8,881,894 shares of the Company elected to
oppose the Authorized Shares Amendment by withholding voting
instructions from their brokers.  At the shareholder meeting where
the Authorized Share Amendment was considered, the will of these
investors was thwarted. Rather than having their shares counted as
effective no votes against the amendment, brokers were improperly
allowed to vote the uninstructed shares, and they did so in favor
of approval.  Without the support of uninstructed broker votes, the
Authorized Shares Amendment would have failed by more than
5,000,000 votes. Instead, the Company improperly deemed the
Authorized Shares Amendment approved, and the Company then issued
millions of new shares under that false authority.

Republic First Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Republic First Bank that provides a range of credit and depository
banking products and services to individuals and businesses
primarily in Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey. Republic
First Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600

               - and -

          Stephen J. Purcell, Esq.
          Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
          Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 725-1000

               - and -

          Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          11 Times Square, 640 8th Ave., 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 688-0782


RITE AID: Illegally Takes Donations from Consumers, Martinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KATHERINE MARTINEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RITE AID CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00569-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., March 28,
2019), alleges that Rite Aid exploits consumers, especially senior
citizens, through its utilization of a misleading opt-in method.
This has allowed Rite Aid to take recurring donations from
consumers, despite the consumer never providing knowing consent to
the donations, the lawsuit says.  Rite Aid has run this campaign
for years despite receiving volumes of complaints from
consumers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

S & P MINI MARKET: Medina Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Deli Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO MEDINA MELO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. S & P MINI MARKET CORP.
(D/B/A S&P MINI MARKET) and AMANTINO VEGA ROSARIO, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02788 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Medina was employed as a deli worker/sandwich preparer at
Defendants' deli. He worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Medina appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Medina the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff Medina wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Medina to all other similarly situated employees,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli/market, located at
270 East 165th street, Bronx, NY 10456 under the name "S&P Mini
Market".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

SAN DIEGO, CA: Paradis' Role in DWP Litigation Sparks Controversy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Smith and Kim Christensen, writing for The San Diego
Union-Tribune, report that the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power's reputation hit a low six years ago when the agency's new
billing system sent out wildly inaccurate bills, overcharging
hundreds of thousands of customers.

The chaos prompted widespread outrage and promises by the DWP to
fix the problems and reimburse ratepayers $67 million in
overcharges.

Now, the billing fiasco is sparking fresh controversy, this time
centered on City Atty. Mike Feuer's office and the role of an
outside lawyer it hired to handle litigation stemming from the
overcharges.

Attorney Paul Paradis worked for the city as special counsel in its
lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting giant that
implemented the billing system. At the same time, Paradis
represented a DWP customer who would become the lead plaintiff in a
class-action lawsuit against the city, according to testimony in
the case.

Paradis also secured no-bid contracts from the DWP worth more than
$30 million to help fix the utility's billing problems.

PricewaterhouseCoopers alleges in court records that Paradis'
actions represent a conflict of interest and were part of a larger
scheme: The firm claims that Paradis and the city worked together
to select the plaintiff and the attorney who handled the
class-action lawsuit over the billing snafus in an effort to get a
more favorable settlement for the DWP.

"What has been exposed through discovery is a deceptive scheme of
stunning scope," PricewaterhouseCoopers attorney Daniel Thomasch
wrote in a brief filed March 1 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

At a court hearing in the city's ongoing lawsuit against
PricewaterhouseCoopers, a judge ordered Paradis to sit for a
deposition so he could be questioned under oath by the consulting
firm's lawyers.

Days later, Paradis withdrew as one of the attorneys in the city's
case against PricewaterhouseCoopers. His lawyer, David Scheper,
decried what he called "false allegations" made by the consulting
firm's attorneys.

"Mr. Paradis stepped down as special counsel for the city . . . to
dedicate time and energy in his consulting practice on
cybersecurity work he's doing for the DWP, which is critical to the
city's interests," Scheper told The Times in an email.

On March 12, however, the DWP board voted to cancel Paradis'
$30-million consulting contract "to eliminate any potential
conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest," the utility
said in a statement.

Scheper didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Paul Kiesel, a Beverly Hills attorney hired by the city as special
counsel and working with Paradis on the PricewaterhouseCoopers
lawsuit, also stepped down, saying he did not want to become a
distraction to the litigation. He called PricewaterhouseCooper's
allegations "baseless" and an attempt to draw attention away from
the city's claims against the firm.

Feuer's office represents the DWP in litigation related to the
billing errors.

The two outside lawyers -- Kiesel and Paradis -- had been working
under a contingency agreement that would have paid them nearly 20%
of any settlement or damages award in the city's lawsuit against
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

A representative for Feuer's office also denied the consulting
firm's allegations but said an ethics review is underway of DWP
contracts and issues related to the settlement.

"I take any allegation of improper conduct by any attorney under
our authority -- including outside counsel -- extremely seriously,"
Feuer said in a statement, adding that he will take decisive action
if the review finds wrongdoing.

The DWP's billing debacle occurred as the agency was rolling out a
replacement for its antiquated system in 2013. Angry customers who
called the department to complain found themselves on hold for half
an hour or more.

Among those overcharged was Antwon Jones, a Van Nuys resident who
received a $1,374 electric bill from the utility -- far more than
what he had been paying for service.

On April 1, 2015, Jones filed a class-action lawsuit against the
city. He was one of several ratepayers who sued over the billing
errors. A settlement with Jones was announced a few months later
and was blessed by a judge in 2017. It required the utility to
fully compensate overcharged customers.

Around the time Jones filed his lawsuit, the city sued
PricewaterhouseCoopers, accusing the consulting firm of
misrepresenting its ability to implement the billing system.

It was while seeking records to defend that lawsuit that
PricewaterhouseCoopers lawyers allege they caught wind of the
scheme involving Paradis, whom they accuse of concealing his work
for the city from his client Jones.

Jones testified in a deposition in February that he was contacted
by Paradis, a New York lawyer, in December 2014 after he filed an
online complaint with what he thought was a consumer website about
his inflated electric bill.

"I want to start a class action lawsuit ASAP. They can't get away
with this," he wrote in his online complaint, in which he also
expressed interest in speaking with a lawyer.

Within a week of Paradis' email reply, Jones said, he retained the
attorney to represent him in potential legal proceedings against
the DWP.

By January 2015, Paradis was working as a special counsel for
Feuer's office, according to his city contract. He was hired to
work on possible litigation against PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers attorney Thomasch alleged in his March 1
brief that city attorneys and Paradis discussed having Jones sue
the firm.

The city attorney's office confirmed in a court filing that such
discussions had occurred and that top city attorneys requested the
preparation of a draft complaint titled Jones vs.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. But city attorneys denied there was a
conflict of interest, saying that Jones had retained Paradis to
represent him in a potential lawsuit against the consulting firm.

"These facts demonstrate that Mr. Jones and the city shared a
common interest, namely bringing a lawsuit against PwC, to recover
monies owed to both," the filing states. "Because Mr. Jones and the
city shared the desire to recover monies from the true alleged
wrongdoer, Mr. Jones and the city were not at that time ‘adverse
parties.'"

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle, who approved the
class-action ratepayer settlement and is presiding over the city's
case against PricewaterhouseCoopers, ordered the release of a draft
Jones vs. PricewaterhouseCoopers complaint sought by the consulting
firm.

Berle said he was taking the action because PricewaterhouseCoopers
"has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
of fraud by the city and its counsel, fraud on Mr. Jones, possible
fraud on the public, and possible fraud on the court," according to
a court transcript.

Jones, who is not accused of any wrongdoing, said in his deposition
he sought out a lawyer to sue the DWP. At one point, Jones said he
asked Paradis to investigate whether he had claims against
PricewaterhouseCoopers, but ultimately proceeded with his plan to
sue only the city.

He also said that he was never informed that Paradis worked for the
city.

In late March 2015, Paradis sent an email to Jones, introducing him
to Jack Landskroner, an Ohio consumer rights attorney.

Landskroner filed Jones vs. City of Los Angeles less than a week
later. But Paradis never formally withdrew as his lawyer, Jones
said, testifying that he thought both Landskroner and Paradis were
his attorneys up through the lawsuit's final settlement in July
2017.

Paradis' attorney Scheper didn't respond to a Times' email asking
for the time period that Paradis represented Jones.

Paradis participated in mediations in the Jones lawsuit, according
to a city attorney's spokesman, who told The Times that Paradis was
there to "provide the city's attorneys with technical input" on the
billing system.

PricewaterhouseCoopers contends that Landskroner and the city's
special counsels, Paradis and Kiesel, worked together to clear the
way for a settlement that was reached without a full public airing
of the issues.

At the time the settlement was announced, consumer advocates
criticized the agreement for giving the DWP too much influence over
deciding how much customers had been overcharged and how to fix the
billing problems.

The DWP, required under the settlement to improve its billing
system, gave one of Paradis' companies, Aventador Utility
Solutions, a no-bid, $30-million contract in 2017 to do remediation
work. His company was paid more than $20 million before the DWP
board voted on March 12 to cancel the agreement, a DWP spokesman
said.

Paradis' law firm had previously secured a similar contract with
the utility worth about $6 million.

For his part, Landskroner reaped a huge payday from attorney fees
in the case.

"Landskroner, without taking or defending a single deposition,
garnered the majority of $19 million in total fees divided among
counsel — a significant portion of which appears attributable to
work apparently performed before he was even introduced to Jones, "
Thomasch wrote in his March 1 brief.

At a hearing, Berle asked Landskroner if any referral fees had been
paid to Paradis. Landskroner deferred to his lawyer, Mark Drooks,
who cited his client's 5th Amendment protections against
self-incrimination and declined to answer the judge's question.

Referral fees are common in California, allowing lawyers to receive
a portion of fees earned in a case that they passed on to other
attorneys to handle the work.

In his email to The Times, Paradis' lawyer, Scheper, denied that
his client got any of the fees from the Jones case.

Landskroner declined to comment through his attorney.

At the hearing, a visibly agitated Berle ordered the city to stop
all payments to Paradis and Landskroner. He set another hearing to
determine whether an independent audit is needed.

Berle also directed both attorneys to be deposed by
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"Everybody understood that Mr. Paradis was the hub," Thomasch told
the court. "Every spoke comes into him, and it has been that way
from the fall of 2014 to today."

UPDATES:

March 16, 2019: This article was updated to include Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle's ruling on the release of a draft
court complaint and his comments at that hearing. [GN]


SHELTER CLEAN: Underpays Drivers, Zapata Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
LUIS ZAPATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHELTER CLEAN SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09738 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 22, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Zapata was employed by the Defendants as driver.

ShelterCLEAN, Inc. provides transit shelter and street furniture
maintenance, management, and administration services to
transportation departments, cities, and regional agencies in the
United States. ShelterCLEAN, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based
in Sun Valley, California. As of January 12, 2012, ShelterClean,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Triangle Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Mahoney, Esq.
          Daniel Conforti, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  dconforti@mahoney-law.net


SICHUAN PEPPER: Wei et al. Seek Overtime and Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Sichuan Pepper for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA). The case
is captioned ZHENHAI WEI, FANGQIONG ZHONG, JUNJIE ZHU, and FANHE
MENG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. SICHUAN PEPPER INC d/b/a Sichuan Pepper;
MICHAEL SHIEH, and "JANE" YE, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00525
(D. Conn., April 9, 2019). Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have
willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the
FLSA and CMWA by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay
its employees minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA, that they are
entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and cost.

Sichuan Pepper is a Chinese restaurant located at 435 Hartford
Turnpike, Vernon, Connecticut. It is owned and managed by Michael
Shieh and "Jane" Ye. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
     CONOVER LAW OFFICES
     345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: (212) 588-9080
     E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com


        - and  -

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


SNOW & SAUERTEIG: Mafera Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snow & Sauerteig LLP.
The case is styled as Stephen Mafera individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Snow & Sauerteig LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00142 (N.D. Ind., April 3, 2019).

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

Snow & Sauerteig LLP is a law firm specializing in creditors'
rights and collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPARE, C.S.: Sarah Rich Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
SARAH RICH, the Plaintiff, vs. SPARE, C.S., INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02347 (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2019), seeks to
redress the Defendant's abuse of the federal minimum wage standards
by failing to pay their employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.

Rich was employed by the Defendant as a Marketing Lead/Graphic
Designer from January 2016 through December 2016.  Specifically,
she was employed on part-time project work in 2017 and 2018.  She
was initially hired under written contract at minimum wage of
$10.00 per hour under California law.  On March 29, 2016, she
received a written contract entitled Pre-Funding/Founding Team
Agreement identifying her position as a Graphic Designer and a
market rate compensation of $52,000. She signed this agreement on
April 3, 2016. The Plaintiff was initially scheduled to be paid on
an hourly basis and pursuant to the contract dated April 3, 2017,
was to be paid market rate compensation in the amount of $52,000.
The Plaintiff and each hourly employee of Defendant typically
worked 40 hours per week. Pursuant to the FLSA regulations, the
hours worked, and compensation earned, must be determined on a work
week basis, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
          ANDERSON ZEIGLER, P.C.
          50 Old Courthouse Square, Fifth Floor
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 545-4910
          Facsimile: (707) 544-0260
          E-mail: gpaul@andersonzeigler.com

STAMPS.COM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STMP)
between May 3, 2017 and February 21, 2019, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Stamps.com
shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Stamps.com securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Stamps.com
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's financial results depended on the
manipulation of a USPS program that cost USPS an estimated $235
million per year; and (2) as a result, the Company's business was
unsustainable and its financial results were highly misleading.

On February 21, 2019, after the market closed, Stamps.com held a
conference call to discuss its financial results from the 4th
quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018. On the call, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Kenneth McBride
stated that the Company was discontinuing its shipping partnership
with USPS despite the fact that USPS-related business accounts for
87 percent of the Company's revenue. The Company further announced
that 2019 revenue was expected to decline 5.4%.

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to a close price of
$83.65 on February 21, 2019, a decline of over 57% from the
previous close price of $198.08.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 29, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Stamps.com securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y2vk27yz

         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: www.bernlieb.com
         E-mail: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


STAMPS.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class
action lawsuit filed against Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: STMP) and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's financial
results depended on the manipulation of a USPS program that cost
USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and (2) as a result, the
Company's business was unsustainable and its financial results were
highly misleading.

On February 21, 2019, after the market closed, Stamps.com held a
conference call to discuss its financial results from the 4th
quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018. On the call, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer stated that the Company was
discontinuing its shipping partnership with USPS despite the fact
that USPS-related business accounts for 87 percent of the Company's
revenue.

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to a close price of
$83.65 on February 21, 2019, a decline of over 57% from the
previous close price of $198.08.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Stamps.com securities
between May 3, 2017 and February 21, 2019, and have questions about
your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan DeMaria
at (888) 868-2385, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting
https://tinyurl.com/y6o2zdnr Additionally, those interested in
serving as lead Plaintiff must apply to do so before the April 29,
2019, lead plaintiff deadline.

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660 phone
                    (888) 868-2385
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


STAMPS.COM INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: STMP) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Stamps.com between May 3, 2017 and February 21,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements to
investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC").  Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's financial results depended on the manipulation of a USPS
program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and (2)
as a result, the Company's business was unsustainable and its
financial results were highly misleading.

On February 21, 2019, after the market closed, Stamps.com held a
conference call to discuss its financial results from the 4th
quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018.  On the call, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Kenneth McBride
stated that the Company was discontinuing its shipping partnership
with USPS despite the fact that USPS-related business accounts for
87 percent of the Company's revenue.  The Company further announced
that 2019 revenue was expected to decline 5.4%.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 29, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please;

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        Website: www.gme-law.com  
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


STAMPS.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Actions Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Stamps.com Inc. (NASDAQ: STMP)
Class Period: May 3, 2017 - February 21, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/stamps-com-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: Stamps.com Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's financial results depended on the manipulation of a USPS
program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and (ii)
as a result, the Company's business was unsustainable and its
financial results were highly misleading.

To learn more about the Stamps.com Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


STAMPS.COM INC: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Stamps.com Inc.
("Stamps.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STMP) between May 3, 2017
and February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stamps.com shareholders may, no later than April 29, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Stamps.com and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's financial results depended on the
manipulation of a USPS program that cost USPS an estimated $235
million per year; and (2) as a result, the Company's business was
unsustainable and its financial results were highly misleading.

On February 21, 2019, Stamps.com announced that its key partnership
with the U.S. Postal Service ended. On an earnings call,
Stamps.com's chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Thomas
McBride stated that, "We will no longer be exclusive to the USPS
and that's non-negotiable." USPS-related business accounts for 87
percent of the Company's revenue. The Company further announced
that 2019 revenue was expected to decline 5.4%. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $114.43, or nearly 58%, to close at
$83.65 on February 22, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 29,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this please;

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


STATE FARM: Faces ERISA Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
Workcompcentral reports that State Farm Insurance Co. may be a good
neighbor to policyholders, but it hasn't been there for hundreds of
sales agents who were misclassified as independent contractors,
according to a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois. The lawsuit
contends that State Farm companies violated the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and deprived the agents of
employment benefits. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, where State Farm is headquartered, the
complaint does not mention workers' compensation benefits. [GN]


STATE FARM: Goodwin Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
John Raffetto, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that on March 12, 2019, the Southern District of Florida dismissed
a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case for a
second time because of repeated pleading defects.  In Settle v.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Judge Ursula Ungaro granted State
Farm's dismissal request because plaintiff's efforts to fix defects
in her original complaint were inadequate.  Although Judge Ungaro's
order totals only two pages, it has much to teach TCPA defendants
who often face generic and unclear complaints.

In Settle, plaintiff sued State Farm under a provision of the TCPA
that prohibits certain calls to telephone numbers registered on the
National Do Not Call list.  In her original complaint, plaintiff
made numerous allegations ranging from the purported facts of the
calls she challenged, to jurisdictional allegations, to general
statements about the TCPA.  When plaintiff explained her causes of
action, she simply incorporated and re-alleged all of those
allegations without specifying what facts supported which claims.
Judge Ungaro found that this was a "shotgun pleading" that had to
be dismissed and amended.

Seeking to address the Court's concerns, plaintiff simply deleted
the paragraphs of her complaint that incorporated and re-alleged
prior allegations.  Judge Ungaro rejected that approach.  She
explained that plaintiff's efforts left "the Court and Defendant in
the dark just as much as if Plaintiff had incorporated every
factual allegation into every count."  Judge Ungaro went further,
noting that "[t]his sort of sloppy pleading cannot be tolerated,"
and explained that the Court had the right to dismiss the case with
prejudice.  Although Judge Ungaro ultimately decided to dismiss the
case without prejudice, she did not grant plaintiff the right to
amend, forcing plaintiff to refile if she wants to pursue the
case.

TCPA defendants are well acquainted with the often generic and
unclear complaints that are ubiquitous in TCPA litigation.
Whatever the cause of such sloppy pleadings may be, Judge Ungaro's
decision in Settle makes clear that the same pleading rules that
require precise pleading in other cases apply with equal force in
the TCPA context.  Defendants facing similarly loose TCPA
complaints should consider State Farm's approach where binding
caselaw permits. [GN]


STEINHOFF: Ex-Chair Open to Negotiations Over $4-Bil. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that former Steinhoff chairman and top shareholder
Christo Wiese said he is open to negotiations over a $4 billion
claim against the South African retailer, days after it revealed
the scale of a devastating accounting fraud.

Steinhoff said on March 15 that an independent report had found it
overstated profits -- which were signed off by Deloitte -- over
several years in a $7.4 billion fraud involving a small group of
top executives and outsiders.

It did not name the individuals but said those implicated were no
longer employed by Steinhoff, which first disclosed the hole in its
accounts in December 2017, knocking 90 percent off the value of its
shares and triggering investor lawsuits.

With a stake of about 20 percent which he acquired in 2014 when he
sold his clothing retailer Pepkor to Steinhoff in exchange for
shares, Wiese was particularly hard hit by the crash in its stock
price.

"I would expect Steinhoff to give me back my money, and I will give
them back their worthless shares," Wiese told Reuters.

"But everybody knows the company does not have that kind of money,
so our approach has been that the only way forward is for all the
stakeholders to sit around the table and reconstruct the company,"
Wiese added.

Wiese's claim, which he made public last year, is more or less
equivalent to the market value of Pepkor but seven times more than
the market value of Steinhoff.

Steinhoff, which declined to comment, owns 70 percent of Pepkor.

Steinhoff, which is also listed in Frankfurt and is registered in
the Netherlands, is also facing a class action lawsuit from Dutch
shareholder group, VEB.

VEB is seeking unspecified compensation from Steinhoff and its
auditor at the time, Deloitte, for damages suffered from misleading
information on the financial health of the company.

"As far as VEB is concerned, this report in no manner, shape or
form influences our action. It does nothing to frustrate it, it
does nothing to make it more tenuous or anything," spokesman Armand
Kersten said.

VEB, which says it has recouped 2 billion euros for investors in
various companies over the years, suspended the class action
litigation in October until April 3 to allow the company to focus
on cleaning up its balance sheet.

Deloitte, whose refusal to sign off on the 2017 earnings report
sparked the investigation, has denied any wrongdoing.

"INSANE" ALLEGATIONS
Wiese, who is one of South Africa's best-known business figures,
dismissed any suggestion of wrongdoing.

"People that are making these allegations are insane, or I'm
insane. What sane person will put 60 billion rand into a company
that he knows is riddled with fraud?," Wiese asked.

Wiese was one of the early executives of Pepkor, which was
co-founded by his parents in the 1960s in Upington on the southern
edges of the Kalahari desert.

He is best known for transforming grocery retailer Shoprite from
six shops in the 1970s to hundreds across Africa.

The 77-year-old was also instrumental in reinventing Steinhoff,
helping to expand it from discount furniture to a sprawling global
retail conglomerate selling everything from mattresses and
televisions to shoes and clothing.

Pepkor's chief executive, Leon Lourens, welcomed the findings of
the summarized investigation report, which said his company
financial statements were clean.

Shares in Steinhoff, which 15 months ago was valued at 224 billion
rand, were up more than 5 percent at 1.94 rand, valuing it at
around 8 billion rand ($554 million). [GN]


SURPLUS DIABETICS: Sandusky Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action case, SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. SURPLUS DIABETICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60823-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 28, 2019), challenges the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The TCPA, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005,
prohibits a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax
advertisements without the recipient's prior express invitation or
permission. The Defendant have sent facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and the Class in
violation of the TCPA, including, but not limited to, the facsimile
transmission of four unsolicited advertisements, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, individually, and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847/368-1500
          Facsimile: 847/368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

SYNEOS HEALTH: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class
action lawsuit filed against Syneos Health, Inc. ("Syneos Health"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SYNH) and certain of its officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders
are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court, District
of New Jersey, stems from Syneos Health's disclosure that on
February 21, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission notified
the Company that it "has commenced an investigation into the
Company's revenue accounting policies, internal controls and
related matters, and requested that the Company retain certain
documents for the periods beginning with January 1, 2017."

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Syneos Health
securities between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019, and have
questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant
to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan
DeMaria at (888) 868-2385, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by
visiting http://shareholder.law/syneos.Additionally, those
interested in serving as lead Plaintiff must apply do so before the
April 30, 2019, lead plaintiff deadline.

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660 phone
                    (888) 868-2385
         Website: http://shareholder.law/immunomedics
                  https://blockesq.com
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


SYNEOS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH) securities
between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until April 30, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Syneos Health's internal control over financial reporting
was inadequate; (2) concerns regarding Syneos Health's internal
control over financial reporting would result in heightened
regulatory scrutiny and an SEC investigation into the company's
revenue accounting policies, internal controls and related matters;
and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Syneos Health's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Syneos securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


TEMPOE LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rule Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH RULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEMPOE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00368-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 19, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

TEMPOE, LLC provides no credit required shopping solutions that
offers various payment options. It offers a leasing program that
enables consumers to make payments, renew the lease, return the
item, or purchase the item in early buyouts. The company's program
enables customers to make purchases in the areas of furniture,
appliances, electronics, jewelry, mobile phones, and automotive in
the United States and Puerto Rico. TEMPOE, LLC is based in
Manchester, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Benedict, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
          7710 Hazard Center Drive, Ste E104
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (760) 822-1911
          E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


TIGER LINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Khan Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIGER LINES, LLC; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STC-CV-UOE-2019-3678 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., March 20, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

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

Tiger Lines, LLC provides transportation services. The Company
transfers municipal solid waste, recyclables, green waste, wet and
dry food processing residual. Tiger Lines operates in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
           ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
           1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
           Los Angeles, CA 90035
           Telephone:  (310) 277-0614
           Facsimile:  (310) 277-0635
           E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas Files Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Time To Eat Diner, Inc. and Henry Rybak for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Article X, Section 24 of the
Florida Constitution and Section 448.110 Florida Statutes. The case
is captioned LAURA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME TO EAT DINER, INC., a
Florida for-profit corporation, and HENRY RYBAK, and individual,
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80485-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 9,
2019).

Plaintiff asserts that Time To Eat Diner, Inc. failed to pay the
required minimum wage under Florida law. Accordingly, Thomas seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation under the FLSA. She
also seeks to recover minimum wages under the Florida Constitution
and Section 448.110 Florida Statutes.

Time To Eat Diner, Inc. conducts business in Palm Beach County,
Florida, with its principal place of business in Tequesta. It
serves food and drinks to the general public. Owner Henry Rybak
manages and supervises the day-to-day operations of the diner.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Bober, Esq.
     Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
     BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
     1930 Tyler Street
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Telephone: (954) 922-2298
     Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
     E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com
             samara@boberlaw.com


TIMM MEDICAL: Geismann Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RADHA GEISMANN, M.D., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00676-HEA (Mo. Cir.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action on behalf of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent by or on behalf of
      Defendants any telephone facsimile transmissions of material

      making known the commercial existence of, or making
      qualitative statements regarding any property, goods, or
      services (3) with respect to whom Defendants cannot provide
      evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the
      sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants does not have

      an established business relationship or (5) which were sent
      an advertisement by fax which did not display a proper opt
      out notice";

   2. granting statutory injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
      from sending advertising materials via fax to members of the

      class;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys Class Counsel; and

   5. allowing Plaintiff additional time, for completion of
      discovery related to class certification issues, to file an
      Amended Class Certification Motion and Memorandum of Law; and

      for such other and further relief as the Court.

In the alternative, if the Court determines that this class
certification motion be dismissed without prejudice as being
premature, the Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order
that Defendant not be allowed to make an offer of judgment or a
settlement offer until the Court sets a scheduling order and the
Plaintiff is allowed time to conduct discovery and file a future
class certification motion pursuant to the Court's scheduling order
and that the future class certification motion will relate back to
the filing of the original class certification motion.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          E-Mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-Mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

TMX FINANCE: Can Compel Arbitration in J. Hanson's TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY W. HANSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TMX FINANCE, LLC dba TITLE
MAX OF NEVADA, INC.; TMX FINANCE OF NEAVADA, INC.; and TITLEMAX OF
NEVADA, INC. dba TITLEMAX and/or TITLEMAX OF NEVADA, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00616-RFB-CWH (D. Nev.), Judge Richard F.
Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(i) granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration; (ii)
denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Stay the Proceeding and
Strike All Class Allegations; and (iii) denied the Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority.

Hanson sues the Defendant for negligent and knowing or willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). He
completed an application to obtain a short-term loan with the
Defendant on Nov. 2, 2017.  The Defendant approved the application
on the same day, resulting in a loan agreement between the parties.
The agreement defines dispute as having "a broad meaning,"
including all claims and disagreements related to the application,
the agreement, or the Plaintiff's dealings with Defendant.

The agreement also contains an opt-out provision, which afforded
the Plaintiff 60 days to opt out of the arbitration clause.  To opt
out, the agreement required the Plaintiff to send to the Defendant
a writing that included the Plaintiff's name, address, loan number,
and loan date.  The agreement also required that the writing
include a statement that the Plaintiff "opted out" of the
arbitration clause.  The optout notice could not be sent
electronically; the opt-out provision required the Plaintiff to
send the writing to the Defendant's mailing address identified in
the agreement.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant on Dec. 1, 2017 in state court,
alleging claims under Chapter 604A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
The Defendant did not move to compel arbitration.  It instead
settled the state-court matter on Feb. 15, 2018 through a
settlement agreement,

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant in the action on April 6, 2018,
alleging the Defendant placed calls and sent text messages to the
Plaintiff's cell phone without consent in violation of the TCPA.
The calls or text messages related to a debt that was resolved via
the settlement agreement in the state-court action.

The Defendant now moves to compel arbitration.  The Plaintiff
opposed the motion, and the Defendant replied.  The Defendant
alternatively moves to stay the matter pending arbitration and to
strike all class allegations in the Complaint.  The Plaintiff
opposed, and the Defendant replied.  The Court previously ruled on
the Motion to Stay in part, staying the matter pending resolution
of the Motion to Compel Arbitration and deferring the request to
strike all class allegations.  The Defendant most recently seeks
leave to file supplemental authority to support the Motion to
Compel Arbitration.

Judge Boulware finds that the Plaintiff fails to point to any
Nevada law allowing unambiguous terms -- like those in the at-issue
opt-out provision -- to be interpreted in a manner under which a
party may escape the requirements set forth by the terms.  The
Plaintiff also fails to point to any explicit Nevada law hat
extends the doctrine of substantial compliance to any contract or
to, at minimum, an analogous contract.  Further, the Judge notes
that Nevada maintains a"strong public policy that favors
arbitration, and arbitration clauses are generally enforceable.
Thus, he finds that Nevada law requires the terms of the parties'
agreement to be interpreted as written due to the unambiguous
nature of the opt-out provision.

The plain terms of the opt-out provision of the agreement required
the Plaintiff to send a writing containing certain information to
the Defendant at a certain address.  The Plaintiff acknowledges
that he failed to do so before bringing the suit.  The Plaintiff
therefore failed to opt out of the arbitration clause under the
terms of the agreement.  Because the agreement mandates arbitration
unless the Plaintiff opts out of the arbitration clause, the Judge
granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed
the action without prejudice.  

He denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Stay the Proceeding and
Strike All Class Allegations; and denied the Defendant's Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Authority.  The Clerk of the Court is
instructed to close this matter accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mTG2Jv from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey W. Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger --
info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC, Matthew I.
Knepper, Knepper & Clark, LLC & Miles N. Clark, Knepper & Clark
LLC.

Titlemax Of Nevada, Inc., doing business as Titlemax of Nevada,
Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca --
TASCABALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Lindsay C. Demaree --
DEMAREELBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP.


TOOTSIE ROLL: Court Dismisses P. Stemm's Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAIGE STEMM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18 C 2289 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, (i) granted in part and denied without prejudice Tootsie
Roll's motion to dismiss Stemm's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii) denied as moot its motion to
strike Stemm's class claims for unjust enrichment under Rule
12(f).

Stemm filed the suit on behalf of herself and a putative class,
alleging that Tootsie Roll packaged and sold its Junior Mints candy
product in opaque boxes that hid the large amount of empty space
contained in them.  Stemm believes that the practice violates the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("ICFA").  Stemm also brings a class action claim for unjust
enrichment.

Stemm bought a box of Junior Mints from a Walgreens store in
Belleville, Illinois for approximately $1 in March 2018.  The
Product was packaged in an opaque, cardboard box, and Stemm could
not see its contents.  When Stemm opened the box, she saw that only
about 56% of the container was filled with candy.  The Defendant
uniformly packages the Product in this manner.

According to Stemm, the size of the Product's packaging misled her
and other members of the class to believe they were purchasing more
of the Product than they actually received.  She further alleges
that the empty space within the Product's packaging (commonly
referred to as the "slack-fill") is non-functional, because it does
not protect the candies, is not required for enclosing the candies,
did not substantially result from product settling into the box,
and fails to meet federal requirements regulating non-functional
slack-fill.

Tootsie Roll has moved to dismiss Stemm's complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike her class claims for unjust enrichment
under Rule 12(f).

As to Count I (ICFA), taking the allegations to be true and making
all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, Judge Lee
cannot conclude that the information on the boxes, in and of
itself, precludes Stemm's claims as a matter of law.  The Judge
also finds that because it is an affirmative defense, the issue of
preemption is more appropriately addressed by means of a Rule 12(c)
motion for judgment on the pleadings, rather than a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, he will not evaluate Tootsie
Roll's contention at this stage of the proceedings.
  Finally, he finds that because Stemm has not plausibly alleged
actual damages under the ICFA, he dismisses Count I without
prejudice.

As to Count II (Unjust Enrichment), the Judge finds that Stemm does
not challenge Tootsie Roll's argument that unjust enrichment falls
with Stemm's ICFA claim, and, instead, asserts that her unjust
enrichment claim survives because her ICFA claim survives.  Because
Stemm does not dispute that her ICFA claim and unjust enrichment
claim rise and fall together, the Judge dismisses Count II without
prejudice.

For the reasons he stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order,
Judge Lee granted Tootsie Roll's motion to dismiss, and the
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.  To the extent that
Tootsie Roll's motion also challenged Plaintiff Stemm's ability to
seek injunctive relief and the putative class' claim for unjust
enrichment, the motion is stricken without prejudice, and the
Defendant may reassert those arguments in the event that the
Plaintiff is able to cure the deficiencies outlined consistent with
the Plaintiff's and the counsel's obligations under Rule 11.  

The Judge granted the Plaintiff 15 days in which to file an amended
complaint.  If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
within that time frame, he will assume that the Plaintiff no longer
wishes to pursue thes litigation and will terminate the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/hiZQvQ from Leagle.com.

Paige Stemm, Plaintiff, represented by Naomi B. Spector, KamberLaw
LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. York, KamberLaw LLC & Michael James
Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLC.

Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Eli Haskin -- bhaskin@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg Goldgehn, David M.
Jolley -- djolley@cov.com -- Covington & Buling LLP, pro hac vice &
Nathan H. Lichtenstein -- nlichtenstein@agdglaw.com -- Aronberg,
Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa.


TOUCHTUNES MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Refuses to Increase Attorneys Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Journal, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to increase
attorneys fees in a class action settlement that the district court
described as "pretty close to . . . worthless."

Two class representatives initially brought suit against TouchTunes
Music Corp. over its refusal to provide refunds of songs that
customers purchase on one of its machines. However the terms don't
note that venue owners are given a remote control for the machines
and are able to skip songs at their discretion. Both plaintiffs
claimed that different bartenders in Montana did just that after
they'd already purchased the songs.

The claims against the New York-based company were ultimately
whittled down to one deceptive acts or practices claim under the
state's general business law, related to the failure to disclose
the ability of bars and venues to skip songs.

The parties announced a settlement agreement in October 2017, with
TouchTunes agreeing to provide each class member one credit to play
a song. A song credit was found to be worth approximately 40 cents
for the total potential class divided between 166,000 who had
definitely had songs skipped, and another 285,000 who potentially
had a song skipped. The settlement was later found by the court to
be worth about $75,000.

Additionally TouchTunes acquiesced to a $2,000 incentive fee for
the lone remaining class representative, Michelle Cline, as well as
up to $100,000 in counsel fees and expenses. No fee or incentive
award would be charged against the benefits to the class.
At the final May 2018 hearing, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of
the Southern District of New York took issue with settlement terms
that were "pretty close to … worthless" for what he called a
"nuisance case." The lodestar fee application made by class
counsel, Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey Norton, wasn't supported by
billing records, including a $10,000 consulting fee reimbursement
that couldn't be properly explained.

Kaplan went on to award Norton 20 cents for each song credit that
was actually redeemed by members of the class before the June 2018
claim deadline. As of the final hearing, only 2,200 of the 285,000
members of the possibly skipped class had made a claim. The
incentive award was nixed, and only $400 was approved for the cost
of filing the suit.

On appeal, the panel -- composed of U.S. Circuit Judges Robert
Stack, Reena Raggi and Susan Carney -- declined to accept class
counsel's argument that the district court abused its discretion,
finding the lack of documentation towards billing and elements of
the Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005 supported Kaplan's
decisions.

Likewise, the district court did not display personal bias when it
opined on the negligible value of the suit and settlement. The
panel found that Kaplan's "assessment finds support in the
record."

Norton did not respond to a request for comment.

TouchTunes's legal team on appeal was led by Morrison & Foerster
partner Joseph Palmore, who also did not respond to a request for
comment.

The case is MICHELLE CLINE, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and KELLY ENGSTROM,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TOUCHTUNES MUSIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, No.
18-1756 (2d Cir.). [GN]


TRAVEL NURSE: K. Call Can File 1st Amended Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN CALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL NURSE ACROSS AMERICA, LLC,
an Arkansas Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-03027-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento, granted the Plaintiff
leave to File a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Having read and considered the Stipulation for Leave to File a
First Amended Class Action Complaint submitted by the parties, the
Judge granted their Stipulation.

Due to the potential impending expiration of the statute of
limitations on the added claims on or about March 20, 2019, the
First Amended Complaint, in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the
Stipulation for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint,
is deemed filed as of the March 14, 2019 date the Parties
stipulated to permit the filing of the First Amended Complaint.

The Defendant's Answer to the First Amended Class Action will be
filed within 30 Court days of the filing of the First Amended Class
Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PCtbn4 from Leagle.com.

Karen Call, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Geraci, Cohelan Khoury
and Singer & Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan
Khoury & Singer.

Travel Nurse Across America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith &
Prophete LLP, Kimberly T. Bernstein -- kbernstein@constangy.com --
Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete LLP, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum --
skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete
& Sayaka Karitani -- skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks
Smith & Prophete, LLP.


TRUEACCORD CORP: Leslie FDCPA Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LEANNE LESLIE, an individual, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRUEACCORD CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. GD-19-01350, was removed from the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on March 28, 2019.
The District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00341-DSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
David S. Cercone.

TrueAccord provides automated platform for debt recovery.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 366-4276
          Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
          E-mail: efrank.esq@comcast.net

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          Facsimile: (904) 683-7353
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com

U.S. EXPRESS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S.
Xpress Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: USX) securities pursuant to and/or
traceable to U.S. Xpress' Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or
about June 14, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that: (1) a shortage of trucks was negatively impacting
U.S. Xpress' dedicated division; (2)(a) certain shipping patterns
had been performing differently than expected and, as a result, (b)
utilization and driver retention and hiring were being negatively
affected, and as a result, (c) U.S. Xpress' dedicated accounts,
including one large account, were being negatively impacted; and as
a result, (d) U.S. Xpress' OTR division was providing continued
support to the dedicated division; (3)(a) U.S. Xpress failed to
stay informed regarding two large liability events; and as a result
(b) U.S. Xpress' insurance claim expense was understated; and (4)
U.S. Xpress' cost per mile for driver wages and independent
contractors was exceeding the company's internal expectations.

If you purchased U.S. Xpress securities pursuant to and/or
traceable to the IPO and suffered a loss, have information, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.  For additional information concerning the U.S. Xpress
lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/usx/.  [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Privacy Remanded to Ill. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois federal judge on March 18 sent a previously dismissed
putative privacy class action from United Airlines Inc. employees
back to state court.

David Johnson, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, filed this action alleging a violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., against
Defendants United Airlines, Inc. and United Continental Holdings,
Inc.  The Court considered dueling Motions for Relief from Judgment
by Johnson and United.  The Court granted Johnson's motion and
denied United's motion.

Johnson seeks relief from the Court's Order granting United's
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order is void because the
Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was precluded from
rendering judgment.

In its July 31, 2018 Order, the Court provided the parties with
alternative rulings. "Not only does preemption support dismissal in
the underlying matter, but so too does the issue of Article III
standing." Johnson contends that the latter holding -- that Johnson
does not have Article III standing -- precludes the Court from
entering any judgment on preemption grounds. United has not
identified a mistake of law warranting the extraordinary relief
from the Court's ruling that Johnson did not suffer an
injury-in-fact and consequently lacks standing to proceed. The
question then becomes whether opining on the issue of preemption
was an impermissible judgment on the merits.

United's motion to dismiss sought to dismiss Johnson's complaint in
its entirety under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Court held that "the RLA preempts the action and
mandates use of the arbitration provisions set forth under the CBA
and in doing so strips this Court of subject matter jurisdiction."
A dismissal based on preemption grounds is considered a dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and on the merits.  Therefore, such a
ruling, even when couched as an alternative ruling, treads in to
the waters of "hypothetical jurisdiction."  Since the Court did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter due to a lack of
Article III standing, the judgment is void with respect to the
dismissal of the complaint on preemption grounds.

Upon a finding of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, remand is
the appropriate resolution. "If at any time before final judgment
it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);
see also Smith, 23 F.3d at 1138-39. Having made such a
determination, the Court has no discretion, but to remand to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Blaney, 209 F.3d at 1031.

The case is DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, No. 17 C 08858 (N.D.
Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y3khog9o from Leagle.com.

David Johnson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by David Louis Gerbie , Mcguire
Law, P.c., Jad Sheikali , McGuire Law, P.C., Myles P. McGuire ,
McGuire Law, P.C. & Paul T. Geske , McGuire Law, P.C.

United Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation & United Continental
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by
Gerald L. Pauling , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ada W. Dolph , Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Thomas E. Ahlering , Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, announced to investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against United Microelectronics
Corp. ("UMC" or the "Company") (NYSE: UMC)  and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired UMC securities during the period between October 28, 2015
and November 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/umc.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (1) UMC
conspired with Fujian to steal trade secrets from Micron relating
to its research and development of DRAM; (2) UMC hired former
Micron employees for the purpose of stealing such information from
Micron; (3) the foregoing conduct placed UMC and certain of its
employees at an increased risk of criminal and regulatory
investigation by the U.S. government; and (4) as a result, UMC's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
indicted UMC, Fujian, and Chen Zhengkun a.k.a. Stephen Chen
("Chen"), a former Micron employee hired by UMC, for conspiracy to
commit economic espionage, conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets, and economic espionage (receiving and possessing stolen
trade secrets).  The indictment stated that the companies conspired
to steal trade secrets from Micron relating to its research and
development of memory storage devices.  According to the
indictment, the conspiracy to commit economic espionage began in or
around January 2016, the conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets began in or about October 2015, and the economic espionage
(receiving and possessing stolen trade secrets) began in or about
February 2016.

According to the DOJ's indictment, Chen, a Taiwanese national,
resigned as the President of Micron's subsidiary, Micron Memory
Taiwan Co., Ltd. ("MMT"), in July 2015. Thereafter, Chen began
working for UMC as its Senior Vice President and Fabrication
Director in Taiwan in September 2015.  According to the indictment,
Chen, as well as agents of UMC, later hired additional former
employees of Micron who stole Micron trade secrets and, at the
direction of UMC employees, used such trade secrets to enhance
UMC's DRAM technologies. As news of UMC's indictment reached the
market, UMC's ADS price fell by $0.19 per share, or nearly 10%,
over the following two trading sessions to close at $1.71 per share
on November 5, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/umc or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in United
Microelectronics you have until May 13, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
         212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


UNITED STAFFING: Faces Ramirez Suit in Sacramento
-------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
United Staffing Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as MIGUEL
RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. BCV-19-100745 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 19, 2019).
The case is assigned to Judge David R. Lampe.

United Staffing Associates, LLC was founded in 2002. The Company's
line of business includes providing help supply and personnel
supply services.

The Plaintiff is represented by Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Suit over Ultra Vires Collection Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against various U.S. governmental institutions
alleges violation of civil rights, seeking money damages and relief
from pecuniary prosecution of ultra vires collection actions of the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs
of their unalienable rights to security of their privacy, private
property, common law and natural law freedom secured by the U.S.
Constitution for American Citizens as a human being. The Defendants
did not follow the requisite statutory guidelines that would
produce the necessary documentation to confer jurisdiction upon the
Tax Court for issues of a tax liability or other tax law violation
which the Plaintiffs would be liable for.

The case is captioned, EURICH Z. GRIFFIN; BARBARA W. GRIFFIN; ROSE
ANN FLOR; MCKINLEY LEWIS; SHERYL TINOCO; THOMAS PHILLIPS III; JOHN
W. BARRY; KARRINE N. MONTAQUE; MOSES NELSON; PATRESE BLACKWOOD;
JOEL ADEYEMI OMOTOSHO; JULIO RUIZ; PATRICIA HINDS; ELBA M. VIERA
LOPEZ; CARL MCBEAN; ROSEMARIE M. LASTIMADO-DRADI; ELVAH BLISS
MIRANDA; DANIEL B. MIRANDA; MARCIAMINAJUANEQUITA R.T. DUMLAO;
ROSALIE O LIBANAG; RODRIGO LIBANAG; HANNAH K. HEART; BRIGIDA E.
CHOCK; MICHAEL T. CHOCK; LEONCIO BAUTISTA; SCOTT F. HAWYER; BEVERLY
BRAUMULLER-HAWVER; PAUL K. MEYER; ANNETTE TORRUELLAS; SHERYL
TINOCO; RADAMES RODRIGUEZ; JEANETTE DELGADO; AARON AQUERON;
BENEDICTA SISON; BETTY ANANYO; RAFAEL RAMOS; ADA RAMOS; HECTOR
MENDEZ; MIRIAM MENDEZ; JOSE VELEZ; MAGDALENA NIEVES; JUANITO
ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY; FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, JOHN KOSKINEN; ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, DAVID J. KAUTER; FORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID A. HUBBERT; FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS; PRESENT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
WILLIAM BARR; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TRIAL ATTORNEY BRADLEY A.
SARNEL; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TRIAL ATTORNEY SARAH T. MAYHEW;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TRIAL ATTORNEY LAQUITA TAYLOR-PHILLIPS;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TRIAL ATTORNEY KATHERINE R. POWERS;
I.R.S. ACCOUNTING OPERATIONS MANAGER BENJAMIN F. RAY; I.R.S. FILED
AGENT SARAH DAVIDSON; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER JOHN SHATRAW; I.R.S.
REVENUE OFFICER JAMES GREENWAY; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER COLIN P.
KELLY; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER KENNETH OL JUSTICE; I.R.S. REVENUE
OFFICER R.A. MITCHEL W. COX; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER ELBA Y.
PORRATA-DORIA; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER BART BRELLENTHIN; I.R.S.
REVENUE OFFICER K. COLT; I.R.S. RENVENUE OFFICER DEBORAH JAMES;
I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER CYNTHIA D. SPRY; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER
JAMES BECK; I.R.S. REVENUE OFFICER JOHN B. MURPHY; I.R.S.
SUPERVISORY FIELD AGENT DAVID SMITH; I.R.S. ADVISORY FIELD AGENT
DAVID SMITH; I.R.S. ADVISORY GROUP AGENT LASONIA KIMES; I.R.S.
ADVISORY GROUP MANAGER L. DUNN; I.R.S. ADVISORY MANAGER LISA
MORRISON; I.R.S DIRECTOR OF SPECIALTY COLLECTIONS MANAGER FOR
COLLECTIONS SHERRI HOLCOMB; I.R.S. OPERATIONS MANAGER TONYA
WILLIAMS-WALLACE; I.R.S. GENERAL ATTORNEY JAMES P. CALIGURE; I.R.S.
ASSOCIATE AREA COUNSEL MONICA E. KOCH; I.R.S. TERRITORY MANAGER
PAUL G. ALVARADO; ALCOHOL TOBACCO & FIREARMS CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OFFICER DAVID FERS; ALCOHOL TOBACCO &
FIREARMS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OFFICER MARK MACPHERSON;
ALCOHOL TOBACCO & FIREARMS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OFFICER
KELLY MAEDA; ALCOHOL TOBACCO & FIREARMS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DIVISION OFFICER JOSEPH ZEIGLER; ALCOHOL TOBACCO & FIREARMS
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OFFICER RYAN SPENCER; DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR ALCOHOL TOBACCO & FIREARMS
AGENT DAVID FERS; ADMINISTRATION OFFICER CHRISTOPHER J. GUST; I.R.S
RICS/IVO PROGRAM MANAGER CHRISTINE L. DAVIS; I.R.S. DISCLOSURE
SPECIALIST SUMMER A SUTHERLAND; U.S. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ROBERTA
NAPOLITANO; U.S. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ELIZABETH A. KANE; and JOHN
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00762-CRC (D.
Colo., March 19, 2019) [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


UNITED STATES: May Detain Criminal Immigrations Without Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gonzales, writing for National Public Radio, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court, narrowly divided along ideological lines,
ruled that the government may detain -- without a hearing -- legal
immigrants long after they have served the sentences for crimes
they committed.

The 5-4 decision, which reverses a ruling by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, is widely viewed as a victory for the
Trump administration and its hardline immigration policies. It,
like the Obama administration, had argued that the government has
the authority to pick up and detain immigrants for deportation at
any time, and is not required to act only immediately after a
prison or jail sentence has been served.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito, said
immigration law mandates the detention of "deportable criminal
aliens" even if it is years later.

Alito wrote that it is "especially hard to swallow" the notion that
"the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail."

"As we have held time and again, an official's duties are better
carried out late than never," he wrote.

Writing for the court's dissenting liberal wing, Justice Stephen
Breyer warned that the ruling gives the government too much power.
The law is clear, he wrote, that the government cannot hold an
immigrant without a bail hearing unless the individual is detained
when released from criminal custody.

To underscore his dissent, Breyer read aloud part of his opinion.

"In deciphering the intent of the Congress that wrote this statute,
we must decide -- in the face of what is, at worst, linguistic
ambiguity -- whether Congress intended that persons who have long
since paid their debt to society would be deprived of their liberty
for months or years without the possibility of bail," Breyer
wrote.

"We cannot decide that question without bearing in mind basic
American legal values: the Government's duty not to deprive any
'person' of 'liberty' without 'due process of law,' " he added.

The high court's ruling comes in response to two unrelated
class-action cases.

In one case, Mony Preap, a legal permanent resident from Cambodia
was arrested and convicted of marijuana possession in 2006. But he
wasn't detained by federal authorities until 2013 following another
sentence for battery -- a non-deportable offense. Preap remains in
the U.S. after successfully challenging his deportation case.

In the companion case before the court, Bassam Yusuf Khoury,
described in court papers as "a native of Palestine," served a
30-day sentence on a drug charge in 2011. Two years later, federal
authorities detained and tried to deport him. He was held for six
months before a judge ordered his release. Khoury also won his
deportation case and still resides in the U.S.

The American Civil Liberties Union represented both plaintiffs. The
ACLU's Deputy Legal Director Cecilia Wang said Tuesday's ruling
follows another decision last year that limited the rights of
immigrants to bond hearings.

"For two years in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the
most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes,
allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply
because they are defending themselves against a deportation
charge," said Wang in a statement. "We will continue to fight the
gross overuse of detention in the immigration system."

The case is NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v.
PREAP ET AL., No. 16–1363 (U.S.).

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's March 19 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3q2yxkt at no charge. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Miller Thomson Discusses SSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Dwight D. Dee, Esq. -- ddee@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that persons who have lived
and worked for extended periods of time in both Canada and the
United States can often be eligible to receive benefits under both
Canadian and U.S. government pension programs.   As an
administrative practice, however, the U.S. Social Security
Administration has reduced U.S. payments to such persons on the
basis that they also receive benefits under the Canadian pension
system.   A class action has recently been filed in the state of
Indiana against the U.S. Social Security Administration claiming
that a reduction of U.S. retirement and disability payments is
unlawful (the "Class Action").  Unlike in Canada and Quebec, the
U.S. Social Security Administration reduces the amount of U.S.
payments for eligible individuals who also receive Canadian
pensions though a reduction technique called the "Windfall
Elimination Provision" (the "WEP").  The heart of the issue is
whether the reduction of U.S. pension and disability benefits to
individuals who also receive the same benefits in Canada is
lawful.

The Plaintiffs in the Class Action are claiming that the
application of the WEP to U.S. benefits payments is unlawful and
presents a violation of the plain meaning of the U.S. Social
Security Act, U.S. Social Security Act Regulations and the Social
Security Agreement (1983-1984) between United States and Canada
(the "Social Security Agreement").  Generally, the Plaintiffs argue
that the wording in the U.S. Social Security Act specifies that
employment or self-employment benefits are not to be subject to the
WEP for citizens or residents of countries with which the United
States entered into social security agreements. The services of
persons who worked in both countries and contributed to both
countries' social systems are recognized as equivalent to
employment paid work in either country and should be exempt from
the application of the WEP.  Further, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are based on
earnings and residence and are of general application, therefore
they should be excluded from the application of the WEP. An
additional basis of the Plaintiffs' claim is that the Social
Security Agreement has an equal treatment clause that is violated
by the United States applying deductions to retirement benefit
payments, whereas Canada and Quebec do not apply the same deduction
to those receiving both Canadian and U.S. retirement benefits.

The Plaintiffs seek retroactive payment of the amounts deducted
through the application of the WEP as well as a cessation of the
application of the WEP going forward.  As of late February 2019,
the U.S. federal court has certified a class of all persons
affected by this practice and has motions before it for summary
judgment which will decide the merits of the claim at the trial
court level. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Dismissal of Julian Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Dietz of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case, ALEXANDER JULIAN,
III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM,
d/b/a THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS, Defendant, Case
No. COA18-477 (N.C. App.).

Julian brought the class action lawsuit against the University of
North Carolina Health Care System after a visit to one of the
system's hospitals.  The hospital charges for operating room time
in half-hour increments.  Julian alleges that this billing practice
permits the hospital to overcharge patients -- Julian, for example,
was in the operating room for approximately two hours and four
minutes but the hospital billed him for two and a half hours of
operating room time.  This, Julian claims, is a breach of the
contract between the hospital and its patients.

In 2016, Julian filed the action against the Defendant, alleging
claims for breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The complaint also requested a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief.

The hospital moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1),
(2), and (6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.  After
a hearing, the trial court granted the hospital's motion to dismiss
the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on
which relief could be granted.  Julian timely appealed.

Julian asserts that N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 131E-273 -- a statute
he believes is incorporated by law into his contract with the
hospital -- bars healthcare providers from charging for a component
of any health care procedure that was not performed or supplied.
Julian contends that the hospital violated this statute by charging
him for time when he was not actually in the operating room.

Judge Dietz holds that even assuming that this statute is part of
the contract and means what Julian claims (the hospital disputes
both these points), the "component" of a healthcare procedure at
issue here is a half-hour block of operating room time.  The
hospital supplied that component to Julian, although he did not use
it in full.  This is no different from charging a patient for a bag
of solution used in an intravenous fluid drip even though the
patient does not use every drop of fluid in the bag.  The plain
language of N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 131E-273 permits a hospital to
bill for these types of components of a procedure even if they are
only partially used.

Julian's express contract claim fails for a similar reason: the
terms of the contract state that operating room time is billed in
"half hour increments" even if only a portion of that final half
hour block is used. This means the hospital billed Julian precisely
as the contract required.  Accordingly, Julian's claims fail as a
matter of law and the trial court properly dismissed them under
Rule 12(b)(6).

In sum, because Julian's contract claims failed to state a claim on
which relief could be granted as a matter of law, the trial court
properly dismissed them under Rule 12(b)(6).  And, because Julian's
remaining claims all necessarily depend on the breach of contract
claims (and Julian does not contend otherwise on appeal), the trial
court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety.  Judge
Dietz therefore affirmed the trial court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GhJPWe from Leagle.com.

Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by Matthew D. Quinn -- mdq@lewis-roberts.com
-- and James A. Roberts, III -- jar@lewis-roberts.com -- for
plaintiff-appellant.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General
Derek L. Hunter, for defendant-appellee.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Accuses of Covering Up Tyndall Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Arslanian, writing for USC Annenberg Media, reports that three
more women came forward anonymously on March 20 in a new lawsuit
against USC, alleging the university actively and deliberately
concealed the sexual misconduct of former campus gynecologist Dr.
George Tyndall. The mishandled complaints date back to at least
1988 according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The March 25 complaint is not a part of the class action lawsuit
that has been brought against USC. Todd Becker, one of the lawyers
on the case, said a class action lawsuit often has less impact.

"A class action case is very appropriate for a car part malfunction
and like a hundred thousand people have the same injury," Becker
said. "We don't believe, in this type of situation, where everybody
has their own individual factual circumstances, adequately lend
themselves to a class action case."

In October 2018, USC agreed on compensations of at least $2,500 to
all students who had met with Tyndall and up to $250,000 for
students who shared further details of misconduct during their
visits.

The suit seeks unspecified compensation, but the plaintiffs
ultimately want to see changes made at the university, he said.

"Equally important we want to see is a change in the culture," he
said. "We want to see a change in the culture at USC and not only
USC but other schools in the nation." [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Blocks Students Linked to Admissions Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Newburger, writing for CNBC, reports that the University of
Southern California has blocked students who were linked to the
admissions scandal from registering for classes and getting their
transcripts.

Among the students enrolled in USC are the daughters of "Full
House" actress Lori Loughlin and her husband, designer Mossimo
Giannulli, whom federal prosecutors charged with paying $500,000 in
bribes to get their daughters Olivia Jade and Isabella Giannulli
into the school.

Charges in the $25 million scheme were announced against 50 people.
The allegations included parents bribing college athletic coaches
and administrators, having other people take admission tests for
their kids and hiring people to correct incorrect answers on
standardized tests.

"USC has placed holds on the accounts of students who may be
associated with the alleged admissions scheme; this prevents the
students from registering for classes or acquiring transcripts
while their cases are under review," the school announced on
Twitter on March 18.

"Following the review, we will take the proper action related to
their status, up to revoking admission or expulsion," the school
added.

According to the indictment, Loughlin allegedly told a cooperating
witness that she would have her daughter pose for a photograph on a
rowing machine in order to boost her daughter's college
application, which falsely claimed she was on a crew team.

Loughlin's daughter Olivia Jade, a social media personality with
1.4 million Instagram followers, was reportedly on a yacht owned by
a top USC official when the indictment was released. Two days
later, two of her advertising partners -- Sephora and TRESemme --
announced they were no longer working with her.

Loughlin was released on $1 million bond. A day later, Hallmark
Channel announced it had fired her from the show "When Calls the
Heart."

An attorney for Loughlin, Perry Viscounty, did not immediately
reply to a CNBC request for comment.

College students on March 14 filed a $5 million class-action
lawsuit against the eight universities named in the scheme: USC,
Stanford, UCLA, the University of San Diego, the University of
Texas, Wake Forest, Georgetown and Yale.

Federal prosecutors have said the schools were victims of the
scam.

USC said it has fired two employees associated with the allegations
and has placed on leave a faculty member who was named as a parent
in the indictment.

"We are in the process of identifying donations that may have been
received in connection with the alleged scheme and will determine
how best to redirect those funds to a non-USC organization that
will benefit underserved students," the university said in a
statement. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Bribery Class Suit Presents Novel Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper and Emily Wilkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that the first class action filed over the college admissions
scandal presents a novel legal argument: that schools promised a
fair admissions process and applicants were injured when the
schools failed to monitor the process.

The suit, filed in the guise of a consumer fraud claim, "is really
creative," David Noll, a civil procedure scholar at Rutgers Law
School in Newark, N.J., told Bloomberg Law. "You have to admire
that," he said.

College students sued eight universities -- University of Southern
California, Stanford University, Yale University, Georgetown
University, and others -- on behalf of themselves and others who
applied but weren't admitted to the schools.

The complaint has changed slightly, but the students still look to
hold the schools accountable for failing to monitor the admissions
process to prevent coaches from admitting students in exchange for
bribes.

Although the argument is novel, that's not to say the students
won't succeed.

"I hesitate to say no court will buy it because the California
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act is an area of great
innovation," and the suit was filed in the Northern District of
California, which is known for being friendly to consumer class
actions, Noll said.

If the schools are found liable, they could be required to pay
millions of dollars to reimburse $50 to $100 application fees to
hundreds of thousands of prospective students.

'Institutions Are Victims, Too'
The case raises the question of how culpable the eight colleges are
for enrolling students who applied with falsified credentials and
rigged test scores.

There's no question the scandal hurt colleges' reputations as well,
said Peter McDonough, general counsel for the American Council on
Education.

"I am not prepared to believe that the institutions themselves knew
or should have known what was going on," he said. "The institutions
are the victims, too."

A student denied acceptance would have a difficult time proving in
court that the school harmed them, especially if the student
enrolled at another college, said David Hawkins, executive director
for educational content and policy with the National Association
for College Admission Counseling.

Bad Optics
The firms who filed the suit, Medler Law Firm APC and Zimmerman
Reed LLP, have already filed two subsequent versions of the
complaint to finesse their legal theory and avoid the bad optics
the suit first attracted.

The first version of the case was filed by two Stanford students
March 13—the day after the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts charged
50 people for their involvement in a long-running, nationwide
conspiracy to bribe their kids' way into top universities.

The students were ridiculed on social media for implying that they
had to settle for Stanford when they were denied admission to Yale,
and for alleging their Stanford degrees were worth less because
they were tainted by scandal.

The next day, their attorneys filed an amended complaint dropping
one of the Stanford students and adding four more students from
other schools. It also dropped the language about the value of a
Stanford degree.

The following day the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case and
refiled it on behalf of just two plaintiffs who go to Rutgers and
an unnamed community college.

The plaintiffs aren't arguing that they are worse off at the
schools they ended up attending or that the scandal is the direct
reason that they weren't accepted to any of the eight schools
implicated, contrary to the public perception of the suit.

Instead, they argue that the schools put out promotional materials
promising a fair admissions process and injured the applicants by
allowing the process to be tainted.

Simple Damages, Tough Theory
"What's attractive is the damages they are claiming is the
admissions fee, which is really simple to calculate," Noll said.
"If you're talking about everyone who applied to Yale or Stanford,
that's a really big number and a really big dollar amount at the
end of the day."

The plaintiffs don't have an exact number of students rejected from
the eight schools from 2012 to 2018 while the alleged cheating
occurred. But, as a starting point, they allege that Stanford
rejected 36,000 applicants in 2017 alone.

The difficulty is that the plaintiffs rely on an implied duty
imposed on the schools based on their representation of the quality
of the service the admissions offices would provide, Noll said.

"I've never seen a consumer fraud case that goes that far—that
says because of what you are representing to the buying public, you
have an obligation to follow certain corporate governance practices
to make sure that the service you're providing is really good," he
said.

Defense attorney Andrew J. Trask said it will be hard for the
students to prove a concrete injury because the argument that the
schools committed fraud is very indirect.

"It's a real bank-shot" because the scandal alleges people
defrauded colleges to get in, Trask of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in
San Francisco said. But here the students are suing the colleges on
the theory that they knew or should have known that the system was
rigged, he said.

Getting a class certified could also be difficult, he said. The
students will have to show all class members think their
application fee was worth less than they were led to believe.

First of Many?
It seems likely that this will be the first of many class actions
filed over the scandal, Noll said. "The defendants are very
attractive because they have deep pockets and everybody is kind of
grossed out that they allowed this to happen," he said.

In fact, another class action has already been filed in California
state court seeking $5 billion in damages against all conspirators
listed in the criminal indictment.

Noll and Trask both predict that complaints will start to trickle
into courts, but the more prestigious plaintiffs' law firms won't
file until they have done some economic modeling and legal research
to craft a viable theory of liability.

The lawyers who filed the pending "dibs" class action, as Trask
called it, haven't yet figured out exactly how to include the
defendants they need to get to someone with deep pockets "but at
the same time actually hang it on liability," he said.

"It's a case in which the folks who are actually liable for what's
been reported so far don't have any money, and the people who have
money don't have any liability," he said.

Even if colleges aren't found to be responsible for failing to
monitor their admissions processes, many will likely adjust their
practices to avoid being duped by similar scams, Hawkins said.

"This is a first for just about all of us," he said. "What has
surprised us in the admission community was this such a brazen,
naked bribery attempt, where we focus on the smaller ways that
people try to game the system." [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tulane Student Joins Admissions Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilborn P. Nobles III, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a student
at Tulane University has joined a federal lawsuit seeking
class-action status against several colleges named in the
admissions bribery scandal, Fox2Now reports.

Fox2Now reported Lauren Fidelak was a high school senior in
Louisiana who applied to the University of Southern California and
the University of California, Los Angeles, with a 4.0 grade point
average and a 34 on her ACT exam. The schools nonetheless rejected
her, leaving her so upset she had an emotional breakdown and needed
to be hospitalized in Boston, the station reported.

Fidelak and her mother are now among several students and parents
suing USC, UCLA, and other schools for alleged negligence, unfair
competition and violations of consumer law, according to an amended
lawsuit filed March 15 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The lawsuit, obtained on March 18 by
NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune, stated the plaintiffs are seeking
"at the very minimum" refunds for their admission application
fees.

"Had Plaintiffs known that the system was warped and rigged by
fraud, they would not have spent the money to apply to the school,"
the lawsuit stated. "They also did not receive what they paid for
-- a fair admissions consideration process."

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune reached out to the Minneapolis-based
Zimmerman Reed law firm for comment, but the plaintiffs' attorney
on March 18 said they have no comment at this time.

Fidelak, however, shared on social media that she was unknowingly
added onto the lawsuit. A post on Fidelak's Facebook page on March
15 stated that an attorney in California spoke with her mother. The
attorney apparently believed Fidelak's mother gave verbal consent
to include them in the lawsuit.

"My mother unintentionally gave consent to this attorney without
consulting me and now I have become a prominent the face of this
lawsuit. Furthermore, very personal and mostly falsified
information is being propagated across the major news sources,"
Fidelak stated.

Fidelak stressed she is not proceeding with this lawsuit because it
is "a terribly unnecessary and hypocritical action to take." In
addition to trying to get her name removed from the affidavit, she
also reiterated her support for Tulane.

"I do not want this to reflect poorly on me as a Tulane student,
and I love this university and all the opportunities it has given
me. I suppose my mother was still bitter about the college
application process when she first contacted this attorney, but I
cannot be sure."

The. U.S. Department of Justice on March 12 accused 50 people,
including 33 parents and several college coaches, of being involved
in a nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college
entrance exams and the admission of students to elite universities
as purported athletic recruits. Dozens of those implicated in the
scheme were arrested by federal agents in multiple states and
charged in federal court in Boston.

Prosecutors deemed William "Rick" Singer, 58, of California, the
ringleader of the bribery scandal. Singer, founder of the Edge
College & Career Network, was charged with racketeering conspiracy,
money laundering conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He pleaded
guilty to those charges on March 12.

Parents allegedly paid up to "six-figure fees" for Singer, his
business, or his Key Worldwide Foundation charity to arrange for
impostors to pose as the parent's students to take their college
entrance exams for them, the lawsuit stated. Parents also allegedly
paid Singer or his two organizations to create false sports
profiles for the parent's student. Singer would then offer "hefty
bribes" to university employees like coaches, who would then insert
into athletic admissions slots the unqualified students "who had
bribed their way into the university," the lawsuit added.

In released statements on March 12, the USC and UCLA stated the
universities are cooperating with law enforcement. UCLA stated its
men's soccer head coach was placed on leave and will have no
involvement with the soccer team while the school reviews the
allegations. The school is also reviewing admission applications to
determine if "disciplinary actions" are required for any of the
applicants.

UCLA and USC both stated the government identified the universities
as a "victim" in the scheme. USC Interim President Wanda Austin
said USC is taking appropriate employment actions, reviewing
admissions decisions, and identifying all funds received that may
be connected to the federal government's allegations.

"It is immensely disappointing that individuals would abuse their
position at the university in this way," Austin stated.

Test administrators are also among the people charged in the
sweeping criminal conspiracy. [GN]


VERDE ENERGY: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAY MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-1344 (JMV)(JBC)(D. N.J.), Judge John
Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (i) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and (ii)
denied the  Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's response
to its July 5, 2018 notice of supplemental authority.

The putative class action alleges deceptive and bad faith practices
that resulted in consumers paying more for electricity.  In New
Jersey, a utility company cannot profit from buying and selling
energy; it can only profit from delivery.  Following energy
deregulation in New Jersey, however, an independent energy supply
company ("ESCO") can profit by buying and selling energy to
customers.  ESCOs compete to supply energy services in deregulated
states, but local utility companies continue to actually deliver
the supply.  Local utility companies may also supply metering,
billing, and related administrative services to the consumer
regardless of whether an ESCO supplies the energy.

The Defendant is an ESCO that supplies power to residents in New
Jersey.  The Plaintiff decided to switch from his local utility,
PSE&G, to Discount Power, an ESCO, because of Discount Power's
representations that he would save money on his electricity bill.
A few months after making the switch, he was notified that his
electricity service was being assigned from Discount Power to the
Defendant.  Shortly after, the Plaintiff received a "Welcome
Letter" from the Defendant.  The Plaintiff does not allege that the
representation about past savings was false.

The Defendant's Terms of Service for Discount Energy Group Variable
Rate Customers was contained on the back of the Welcome Letter. In
the Terms of Service, it explained that the Plaintiff would receive
electricity from Verde at a variable generation rate.  Based on the
representations, the Plaintiff switched to the Defendant for
electricity in August 2012 and was placed on the Defendant's
variable rate plan.  The Plaintiff was a Verde customer from August
2012 to December 2017.

The Plaintiff asserts that a reasonable consumer would understand
that Verde's variable rates fluctuate in a manner correlated with
the underlying wholesale market rate, and that although prices
would go up when wholesale prices rose, they would also go down
when wholesale prices decreased.  He alleges that Verde customers
are actually charged rates that are untethered from the market
conditions.  In addition, he contends that Verde's rates were, at
times, more than eighty percent higher than PSE&G's rates.  PSE&G's
rates, the Plaintiff alleges, are reflective of market conditions
because they are based on publicly held auctions.

As a result, Verde used its variable rates as a pure profit center.
Of note, although Plaintiff asserts that PSE&G's rates are
reflective of market conditions, PSE&G's rates were usually at
least twice as high as the wholesale rate and often higher.  Also,
as noted, the Plaintiff appears to assert that PSE&G's rates were
provided on his invoices, meaning that he could perform an easy
comparison between what he was being charged and what PSE&G was
charging.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on Jan. 31,
2018 on behalf of all Verde variable rate electric plan customers
in New Jersey within the applicable statute of limitations. The
Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"); (2) breach of contract; (3)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
violation of the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice
Act ("TCCWNA"); and (5) unjust enrichment.  The Defendant filed the
instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on April 16,
2018.

Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiff only relies on the single
statement about cost saving from the Welcome Letter, that Verde
looks forward to saving him money on his monthly electric bill in
the months to come.  This type of general conclusory statement was
rejected by Judge Kugler in Melville.  And unlike the plaintiff in
Melville, Verde did not make any additional representations
regarding the Plaintiff's potential savings or savings vis-à-vis
the Plaintiff's local energy supplier.  As a result, Melville does
not support the Plaintiff's argument. The Plaintiff fails to
adequately plead a claim under the CFA.  Count One is dismissed.

Verde contends that the breach of contract claim should be
dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to plead that Verde breached
any actual obligations under the Terms of Service.  The Judge finds
that the Plaintiff does not plausibly plead a breach of the
Agreement.  The Plaintiff pleads that Verde failed to perform its
contractual obligation to charge rates based primarily upon whole
electricity costs and additional market conditions and that Verde's
rates were untethered from the market conditions upon which the
parties agreed the rate would be based.   As with the CFA claim, he
does not agree that the phrase "the rate may fluctuate monthly with
market conditions" contractually obligations Verde to base its
rates on wholesale conditions, market rates, or other ESCO's rates.
Additionally, the Agreement does not guarantee savings or
competitive pricing, even though the Plaintiff now attempts to read
competitive pricing into the contract.

As to Count III, outside of a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff fails to
provide any facts that permit the Court to infer that Verde acted
in bad faith when adjusting the Plaintiff's monthly rate.  In fact,
as pled, the Complaint appears to allege that the Plaintiffs
monthly invoices contained PSE&G's monthly rate, which would have
permitted him to make an easy comparison with Verde's rate.  The
information was not hidden from the Plaintiff.  As a result, the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.  Count Three is also dismissed.

The Defendant argues that the TCCWNA does not create an independent
cause of action.  Because the Plaintiff's CFA claim fails, the
Defendant maintains that his TCCWNA claim must also be dismissed.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's TCCWNA claim is premised on a
purported violation of the CFA.  Because the Judge concluded that
the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently state a CFA claim, his TCCWNA
claim cannot survive either.  Count Four, therefore, is dismissed.

With respect to unjust enrichment (Count Five), the Judge finds
that neither party disputes the fact that an express contract
exists, and it appears to govern the alleged wrongful conduct at
issue.  Because the subject matter of the dispute is covered by an
express contract, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails.
Count Five, therefore, is dismissed.

On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a notice of supplemental
authority distinguishing the Court's opinion in Coda.  The
Defendant submitted a response that discussed an unpublished
opinion from the Northern District of Illinois that was issued
before it filed its reply brief.  The Plaintiff seeks to strike the
Defendant's response, arguing that because it cited to an opinion
that was issued before its reply, the Defendant's response was an
impermissible sur-reply.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike.  He finds that
although Verde discussed a case that was decided before it filed
its reply brief, Verde did so to demonstrate that other courts were
resolving similar cases like the Court in Coda.  This was an
appropriate response to the Plaintiffs notice of supplemental
authority.  In any event, the Court did not consider the
Defendant's cited case, Sevugan v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, so
the Plaintiff's argument is moot.

For the reasons stated, Judge Vazquez granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the Complaint.  The dismissal is
without prejudice and the Plaintiff is granted leave to file an
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff has 30 days to file an Amended
Complaint, if he so chooses, consistent with the Opinion.  If the
Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint, the dismissal will be
with prejudice.  In addition, the Plaintiffs motion to strike is
denied.  An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5c8t84 from Leagle.com.

RAY MARSHALL, Plaintiff, represented by JASON TRAVIS BROWN, BROWN,
LLC.

VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant, represented by JILL RACHEL COHEN
-- jcohen@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT,
LLC.


VMSB, LLC: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, RAIMUNDO RUIZ, and other similarly-situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21181-XXXX (M.D. Fla., March 28,
2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked for Defendant
in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March
2016 without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff was a prep cook and his wage rate was $14.00 an hour.
The Plaintiff's overtime rate was $21.00 an hour. During his
relevant employment period with the Defendant, the Plaintiff had a
regular schedule, he always worked 5 days per week, usually from
Mondays to Fridays, and from 6:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (8.45 hours
every day), resulting in 42.25 working hours every week.  In
addition, Plaintiff worked overtime hours that were paid to him at
the established rate of time and one half his regular rate or
$21.00 for every overtime hour, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

WELLS FARGO: Removes Labor Case to Eastern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed the case, MONICA REYES-AGUILAR, an
individual on behalf of herself and other current and former
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO N.A.,
a bank formed under the National Bank Act; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 18CECG03736 (Filed Oct. 9, 2018), was removed from the Fresno
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on March 28, 2019. The Eastern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00220.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages
due upon termination, failed to provide payroll records, and failed
to provide personnel file.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Baldwin J. Lee, Esq.
          Alexander Nestor, Esq.
          Kevin L. Quan, Esq.
          ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE
          MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
          Telephone: (415) 837-1515
          Facsimile: (415) 837-1516
          E-mail: blee@allenmatkins.com
                  anestor@allenmatkins.com
                  kquan@allenmatkins.com

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Court Partly Certifies Class in Famular Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WALT FAMULAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similar situated, Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant,
No. 16 CV 944 (VB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Famular, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings the action against the Defendant for allegedly
misrepresenting the water and energy efficiency of three models in
Whirlpool's Maytag Centennial line of washing machines.  The
Plaintiff brings state law claims for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, and violations of New York's General Business
Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350.

The case arises from the purchase of Whirlpool's Maytag Centennial
line of residential washing machines, with model numbers
MVWC6ESWW1, MVWC6ESWW0, and MVWC7ESWW0 in New York from 2009 to the
present.  The allegedly mislabeled washing machines were marketed
as ENERGY STAR® compliant and displayed the ENERGY STAR® label.
The Plaintiff purchased an allegedly mislabeled washing machine in
2010.

The ENERGY STAR® program is administered by the United States
Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and is intended to identify and promote energy-efficient
products to reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and
reduce pollution through voluntary labeling of, or other forms of
communication about, products that meet the highest energy
conservation standards. To that end, to qualify for the ENERGY
STAR® program, residential washing machines must meet energy- and
water-efficiency criteria, using approximately 37% less energy and
50% less water than standard models.

In July 2010, the Department of Energy clarified its guidance on
how to calculate ENERGY STAR® qualifications for washing machines.
Thereafter, the Department of Energy tested the allegedly
mislabeled washing machines to ensure compliance with ENERGY STAR®
standards.  In 2012, the allegedly mislabeled washing machines were
disqualified from the ENERGY STAR® program because results showed
these models failed to meet ENERGY STAR® standards.

The crux of the Plaintiff's case is that the Plaintiff and the
proposed class members were injured when they (i) paid a premium
for the ENERGY STAR® qualification when, in reality, the washing
machines did not meet ENERGY STAR® standards, and (ii) purchased
washing machines that resulted in higher than anticipated utility
bills over their lifetime.

Now pending is the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Also pending are the Defendant's motions (i) to exclude the
opinions of the Plaintiff's experts, Dr. J. Michael Dennis and Dr.
Ramamirtham Sukumar; (ii) to strike certain opinions offered by the
Plaintiff's expert Dr. Colin Weir; and (iii) for reconsideration of
the Court's Jan. 19, 2017 Opinion and Order.

Judge Briccetti finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied all four
requirements of Rule 23(a), and the additional implied requirement
of ascertainability.  As to Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance factor,
among other things, the Judge finds that (i) common questions do
not predominate as to the Plaintiff's energy expense theory; (ii)
common questions predominate over individualized inquiries in
determining whether consumers found the labels materially
misleading; (iii) under conception of reliance, individual
questions predominate because each proposed class member's
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the Defendant's advertising
claims requires evaluation; (iv) whether the Defendant was unjustly
enriched at the proposed class members' expense by selling the
allegedly mislabeled washing machines can succeed or fail on common
evidence; and (v) the models are adequately tied to the Plaintiff's
theory of liability.  Finally, he finds that the Plaintiff has
satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority factor.

Lastly, the Dfendant moves for reconsideration of the Court's Jan.
19, 2017 Opinion and Order in light of the Supreme Court's decision
in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, which, the Defendant argues, is an
intervening change in the law that implemented a "blanket
no-tolling-of-class-claims-ever" rule, rendering the Plaintiff's
claims untimely.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claims arise under state law
and implicate diversity jurisdiction.  China Agritech does not
apply, and the Plaintiff's claims are timely.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Briccetti denied the motion for class
certification with respect to the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class and
the breach of warranty claim.  In addition, the Plaintiff may not
utilize the energy expense theory of injury or damages model.  The
motion for class certification is otherwise granted.  The Judge
denied without prejudice the motions to exclude or strike the
opinions of the Plaintiff's experts.  He also denied the motion for
reconsideration.  

The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions.  All counsel is
directed to appear for an in-person status conference on May 30,
2019, at 2:15 p.m.  By no later than May 23, 2019, the counsel is
directed to submit a joint letter addressing all case management
issues going forward, including a proposed schedule for discovery
on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/G1Vvvg from Leagle.com.

Walt Famular, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Neal Jamison Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Scott A. Bursor,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by David R. Kott,
McCarter & English, Galen Driscoll Bellamy -- bellamy@wtotrial.com
-- Wheeler, Trigg & O'Donnell, LLP, Zane Christian Riester,
McCarter & English, LLP, Allison McLaughlin, Wheeler, Trigg &
O'Donnell, LLP & Eric L. Robertson -- robertson@wtotrial.com --
Wheeler, Trigg & O'Donnell, LLP.


WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Sandoval Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Camilo Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Williams & Fudge, Inc. and
Student Loan Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 160487/2018 was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 3, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02971.

The complaint alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and the Plaintiff seeks statutory and
actual damages as well as attorney fees and other relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MITCHELL PASHKIN, ESQ.
     775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
     Huntington, NY 11743

The Defendants are represented by:

     Lori J. Quinn, Esq.
     Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
     105 Maxess Road, Suite 303
     Melville, NY 11747
     Email: LJQuinn2mdweg.com


WINGMEN V. LLC: Underpays Managers, McDonald Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
EVAN MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINGMEN V. LLC d.b.a. WILD WINGS; and DOES 1
-100, Defendants, Case No. 19SMCV00541 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 18, 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 McDonald was employed by the Defendants as manager.

Wingmen V, LLC, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings, owns and
operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers chicken wings,
burgers, drinks, salads, and desserts. Buffalo Wild Wings serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manny Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER, APC
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                  karon@frontierlawcenter.com


YOUNGEVITY INT'L: Canary TCPA Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN CANARY, Plaintiff, v. YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-03261-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted, with leave to
amend, both Youngevity's motions (1) to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and (2) to strike the class
allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f).

Canary initiated the putative class action suit seeking damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  Canary, a resident of Castroville, California, has a
cell phone number that has been on the National Do Not Call ("DNC")
Registry since approximately 2006.

Youngevity is a "network marketing business" that is incorporated
in Delaware and headquartered in Chula Vista, California.  David
Allen Capital, Inc. ("DAC") is a "division" of Youngevity through
which Youngevity markets small business loans.

On March 15, 2018, Canary received a telephone call from the number
1-800-712-0830.  He did not answer the call and the caller left a
prerecorded voicemail message.  The call appeared to have been made
using an automated telephone dialing system.  In the voicemail
message, the caller referred to himself as "Renee" with DAC.  The
purpose of the call was to advertise loans to small business owners
in amounts of $10,000 to $500,000.

Canary alleges that the voice of "Renee" is Wade Cordell, who has
been affiliated with Youngevity since his herbal supplement
company, Restart Your Life, was acquired by Youngevity in 2014.
Wade Cordell is either an employee of Youngevity or served as a
high-level sales agent telemarketer for Youngevity and DAC.
Cordell allegedly made the telephone call acting on behalf of
Youngevity.

The voicemail message asked Canary to call 1-800-712-0830 and to
leave contact information.  Calling 1-800-712-0830 directs the
caller to the website myvipfunding.com, which then directs the
viewer to complete an application form for David Allen Capital
funding.  Canary does not allege that he applied for any loan with
DAC or Youngevity.  Instead, Canary alleges that had he completed
the application form and subsequent application forms sent to him,
he would have been directed to a DAC sales agent who would have
attempted to sell him a small business loan or other service from
Youngevity's portfolio of personal and small business services.

Canary asserts causes of action against Youngevity for (1)
statutory violations of the TCPA for which Canary seeks statutory
damages for himself and the putative class ($500 for each and every
call that violated the TCPA), and (2) knowing and/or willful
violations of the TCPA for which Canary seeks treble damages for
himself and the putative class (up to $1,500 for each and every
call that violated the TCPA).

Youngevity moves (1) to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the allegations are insufficient to plead
that the telephone call at issue was placed by Youngevity and (2)
to strike the class allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f)
because they are overbroad and not co-extensive with Canary's own
claims.

Judge Davila finds that the Complaint fails to allege that
Youngevity directly made the call.  He says Tthese allegations are
insufficient to support a plausible inference that Youngevity made
the call.  At most, Canary's allegations raise a possibility or
suspicion that "Renee" was a pseudonym and that the speaker was
actually Cordell.  Even if the Complaint set forth sufficient facts
from which to infer that the voice on the call was Cordell's voice
(which it does not), the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to
support a plausible inference that Cordell or Youngevity dialed
Canary's telephone number.

Next, the Judge finds that the Complaint lack sufficient facts to
plead direct liability for DAC's actions.  Liberally construed,
Canary's allegations may be sufficient to plead that DAC is a
subsidiary or another affiliate of Youngevity.  These allegations,
however, are insufficient to hold Youngevity directly liable for
the March 15 call because Canary does not adequately allege that
DAC made the March 15 call, and as a general rule, a parent company
is not liable for its subsidiary's actions.

Even if the Complaint adequately alleges that Cordell made the
call, the Judge finds that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to
plead that Cordell is a Youngevity employee.  It is just as
"conceivable" based upon these same allegations that Cordell is a
DAC distributor for which there would be no direct liability for
Youngevity.  Therefore, the allegations do not nudge Canary's
direct liability theory across the line from conceivable to
plausible.

Canary advances three theories of vicarious liability: agency,
apparent authority, and ratification.  Youngevity contends that
Canary does not allege sufficient facts -- as opposed to
conclusions -- to satisfy any of these theories of vicarious
liability.

Judge Davila finds that the allegations are too general and
conclusory to plead that Youngevity authorized the March 15 call in
a written or oral communication.  The Court need not accept a
conclusory allegation, especially where Youngevity's Policies
expressly prohibit telemarketing methods that would violate state
or federal law.  He also finds that granting permission to perform
telemarketing does not mean that Youngevity exercised control over
the entity that made the March 15 call.  

Further, he finds that the alleged business practices are
insufficient to plausibly plead Youngevity' vicarious liability.
He finds that Canary's Complaint lacks sufficient facts to
plausibly allege that Cordell or DAC acted or purported to act as
an agent of Youngevity for the March 15 call, a deficiency that is
fatal to Canary's ratification theory.

In the Second Count, Canary alleges that the March 15 call was one
of numerous and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the
TCPA by Defendant.  The Second Count is subject to dismissal
because Canary has failed to adequately plead a violation of the
TCPA in the First Count and because it consists of nothing more
than bare-bones legal conclusions unsupported by facts.

Canary proposes to represent a class defined as all persons within
the United States who received a non-emergency telephone call from
Youngevity, a Youngevity sales agent, or a Youngevity
company/division to a cellular telephone through the use of an
autodialer and/or voice message that had been recorded ahead of
time, which was made for the purpose of soliciting the sale of
products or services.  Youngevity moves to strike the allegations
as overbroad.  Because Canary has not sufficiently alleged a
violation of the TCPA, the motion to strike will be granted.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Davila granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and to strike with leave to amend.  Canary may
file and serve an amended complaint no later than April 8, 2019.
The case management conference scheduled for April 11, 2019 is
continued to June 13, 2019.  The parties will file a case
management statement no later than June 3, 2019.

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

Bryan Canary, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, pro hac vice,
Anna C. Haac -- ahaac@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, pro
hac vice, Sabita J. Soneji -- ssoneji@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP & Tanya Susan Koshy -- tkoshy@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and
Zavareei LLP.

Youngevity International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
A. Naranjo -- mnaranjo@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Robert H.
Griffith -- rgriffith@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac
vice.


ZILLOW GROUP: Underpays Business Consultants, Correa Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE CORREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019010578572-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., March 18, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Correa was employed by the Defendants as business
consultant.

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrienne De Castro, Esq.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desail-law.com


ZULFIKAR VANAZARA: Naqvi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Faheem Raza Naqvi; and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Zulfikar Vanazara; Deedar Noor Ali; Navroz Qasim
Ali; and Sharif Rahim Ali, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01151
(S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Naqvi and
Members of the Plaintiff Class overtime wages. Naqvi and Members of
the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week
for the Defendants, yet they did not receive overtime wages as the
FLSA requires.

The Defendants own, operate and control several gasoline
stations/convenience stores.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff Faheem Raza Naqvi and Members of the
Plaintiff Class:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          AHMED LAW
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com

[*] Common Fund Orders in Australian Class Actions Permitted
------------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg,
Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for
JDSupra, report that litigation funding is a major driver of
Australian class actions. Challenges to common fund orders were
mounted in the Federal Court and Supreme Court of New South Wales
by defendants.

The Decision: After a joint hearing, but in separate judgments, the
Full Federal Court of Australia and the New South Wales Court of
Appeal held that the class action legislation provided courts with
power to make a common fund order. The Courts dismissed challenges
based on the order not being an appropriate exercise of judicial
power and giving rise to a contravention of Australian Constitution
s 51 (xxxi).

Looking Ahead: The confirmation of the availability of common fund
orders now means that attention must turn to ensuring that such
orders, consistent with the terms of the legislative provisions
relied upon, "ensure that justice is done in the proceedings" and
the fee paid to the funder is fair, reasonable and proportionate.

Background

The common fund is a court order that requires all group members to
contribute to the litigation funder's fee, regardless of whether
they have signed a funding agreement, in return for the funder
financing a class action. In Money Max Int Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE
Insurance Group Limited (2016) 245 FCR 191, the Full Federal Court
of Australia made common fund orders at the request of the
applicant.

In Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2019] FCAFC 34, class
action proceedings under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia
Act 1976 (Cth) were commenced in relation to allegations of the
misselling of policies of insurance. The judge at first instance
made a common fund order at the request of the applicant. The
respondent, Westpac, appealed against the order to the Full Federal
Court of Australia.

In Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 35, the plaintiff
commenced a class action pursuant to Part 10 of the Civil Procedure
Act 2005 (NSW) for loss allegedly caused by the installation of
faulty airbags in BMW vehicles. The plaintiff sought a common fund
order and the defendant opposed it. The judge at first instance
referred to the New South Wales Court of Appeal a separate question
as to whether the court had power to make a common fund order.

The "Super" Appeal

Pursuant to the agreement between the Chief Justice of the Federal
Court of Australia, the Chief Justice of New South Wales and the
President of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, it was agreed
that both matters would be heard at the same time in the same
courtroom due to the considerable overlap in issues. The historic
nature of the joint sitting of two Australian appellate courts saw
the hearing referred to as the "super" appeal.

Both Courts heard the oral argument of all counsel and received all
written submissions. Counsel were not obligated to answer questions
from the judges not sitting on the matter in which they appeared,
but nonetheless did so. No discussion or sharing of draft judgments
between the judges from the two Courts took place. Each Court
decided the matter before it according to the views of the judges
constituting the Court.

The questions raised for decision were:

    1. On the proper construction of s 23 or s 33ZF of the Federal
Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act
2005 (NSW) or s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), whether the
Court was empowered to make a common fund order (the "construction
argument");
    2. Whether the making of a common fund order was consistent
with the exercise of judicial power (the "judicial power
argument");
    3. Whether, to the extent that the making of a common fund
order is an exercise of judicial power authorised by the
legislative provisions set out in question one, such provisions are
a law with respect to the acquisition of property for the purposes
of s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution which does not provide
"just terms" (the "acquisition argument"); and
4. In the Federal proceedings where an order had been made,
provided there was power to make the order, whether the exercise of
the power by the primary judge miscarried (the "discretion
argument").

The questions were answered as follows:

    1. Section 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
(Cth) and s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) authorised
the making of a common fund order. The text of both provisions
permit the making of "any order the Court thinks appropriate or
necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceedings" and a
common fund order is permitted if the criteria in the legislation
is met.

    2. The making of a common fund order under s 33ZF and s 183 is
a valid exercise of judicial power.

    3. Neither of the provisions at issue could be characterised as
an acquisition of property. Rather they are concerned with the
terms on which contested legal rights and liabilities in a matter
are to be determined and enforced.

   4. The Federal Court rejected the argument that the primary
judge's discretion had miscarried.

Three Key Takeaways

The availability of common fund orders has been confirmed, subject
to an appeal to the High Court of Australia.

However, whether such orders will be made in a particular class
action, and on what terms, is a matter for the discretion of the
judge. The moving party will need to demonstrate, and the judge
affirmatively find, that the order sought is "appropriate or
necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceedings".

Attention will need to be given to determining the evidence—lay
and expert—that will be necessary to support and inform the terms
of a common fund order. [GN]


[*] Expert Testimony Plays Critical Role in Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
William DeVinney, Esq. -- wdevinney@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq, reports that expert
testimony plays a critical role in nearly all putative class
actions, including at the class certification stage where parties
rely on expert evidence to address the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
trial courts must look beyond the pleadings and conduct a searching
inquiry to resolve factual disputes about Rule 23's requirements.
But the Supreme Court has not explicitly held whether that
searching inquiry requires expert testimony to satisfy the Daubert
requirements before being considered in deciding a motion to
certify. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court noted
that "the District Court concluded that Daubert did not apply to
expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action
proceedings." 564 U.S. 338, 354 (2011). The Supreme Court expressed
skepticism about that holding but did not reject it outright: "We
doubt that is so." Id. As we wrote here, the Supreme Court again
addressed expert testimony at the class certification stage in
Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), but deferred the specific
question of whether that evidence must satisfy Daubert in order to
be considered. Id. at 35 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

The lack of explicit guidance from the Supreme Court has left lower
courts to determine whether, and how, to apply Daubert at the class
certification stage. The Second, Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits
all require that expert testimony be admissible under Daubert in
order to be considered. See In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig.,
783 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 2015); In re U.S. Foodservice Inc.
Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108, 129 (2d Cir. 2013); Messner v.
Northshore Univ. Health Sys., 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 2012);
Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2005). The
Eighth and Ninth Circuits, however, impose less stringent
requirements. The Eighth Circuit, in In re Zurn Pex Plumbing
Products Liability Litigation, held that class certification
rulings are "inherently preliminary" and thus that expert
testimony, to be considered at the class certification stage, need
not be admissible at trial under Daubert. 644 F.3d 604, 613 (8th
Cir. 2011). Rather, only a "focused Daubert analysis which
scrutinize[s] the reliability of the expert testimony in light of
the criteria for class certification and the current state of the
evidence" is needed. Id. at 614. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit held
that "a district court should evaluate admissibility under the
standard set forth in Daubert … [b]ut admissibility must not be
dispositive." Sali v. Corona Regional Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d 996, 1006
(2018). Rather, "the Daubert inquiry should go to the weight that
evidence is given at the class certification stage." Id.

The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania recently wrestled with the practical aspects of
applying Daubert at class certification in Cole's Wexford Hotel,
Inc. v. Highmark, Inc., No. 10-1609, 2019 WL 988655 (W.D. Pa. Mar.
1, 2019). The plaintiff alleged defendants violated the Sherman Act
by conspiring to monopolize the markets for health insurance and
health care. The plaintiff moved for class certification and
submitted expert testimony to show that it could prove class-wide
antitrust impact and damages. In response, the defense presented
expert evidence challenging the reliability and methodology
underlying the plaintiff's expert's testimony.

During the class certification hearing, the defendant denied it was
"challenging [the plaintiff's expert's] report and testimony under
Daubert" and also argued that a Daubert analysis was not required
for the court to decide the motion. 2019 WL 988655, at *2. Rather,
the defendant argued the court could resolve factual disputes
between the dueling experts without excluding the plaintiff's
expert under Daubert. The court, however, disagreed on both counts.
First, the court found that the defendant's challenge was, in
effect, a Daubert challenge because the defendant presented its
expert "to prove … that the proposed methodology set forth by
[the plaintiff's expert] is not reliable."  Id. at *5.

Second, the court held that it was required to resolve any Daubert
challenge before it ruled on class certification. The court refused
to "assume [the plaintiff's expert's] opinions are admissible
[under Daubert] in order to decide the motion to certify a class."
2019 WL 988655, at *6. Thus, the trial court held that it "must
undertake a rigorous analysis of the evidence, which includes a
threshold determination under Daubert about whether the evidence is
admissible at trial." Id.

But because the parties had not briefed the Daubert requirements
prior to or along with the class certification motion, the court
denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as premature. The
court informed the parties that it would issue a briefing schedule
and set a Daubert hearing. Id. at *7. The court acknowledged that
postponing the decision would delay the case and increase the
expense to the parties. Id. But the court found no alternative
because it "cannot resolve the motion to certify class without
first conducting a Daubert inquiry." Id.

The takeaway from Cole's Wexford is threefold. First, know the
Circuit law on challenging expert testimony at class certification.
Second, counsel and the court should discuss the court's
expectations for timely raising and resolving challenges to the
reliability or methodology of expert testimony relevant to class
certification. Third, a court may consider any challenge to the
reliability or methodology of expert evidence to be a Daubert
challenge, regardless of whether it was intended to be, and thus
counsel should be prepared to make the challenge under the Daubert
rubric. [GN]


[*] Manatt Attorneys Discuss Rule 23 Class Action Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph E. Laska, Esq. -- jlaska@manatt.com -- John M. LeBlanc, Esq.
-- jleblanc@manatt.com -- and Nicole Boisvert, Esq. --
nboisvert@manatt.com -- of Manatt, report that for the first time
in 15 years, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, which governs
class actions, has been amended. The changes went into effect
December 1, 2018 (2018 Amendments). The U.S. Supreme Court approved
the amendments in an effort to "address issues related to
settlement, and also to take into account [] issues that have
emerged since the rule was last amended in 2003."

The 2018 Amendments purport mainly to (1) update the requirements
for notice given to class members to account for technological
advances, (2) create new notice requirements for proposed class
settlements, (3) attempt to reduce vexatious objections to class
settlements and (4) clarify that appealing orders directing notice
of a proposed settlement are no longer permitted. In light of these
changes, the Northern District of California issued comprehensive
procedural guidance for class action settlements, paving the way
for other federal courts to follow.

I. Updated Notice Requirements Incorporating Technological
Advances

The 2018 Amendments to Rule 23 recognize the need for modernizing
class notice.

The 2018 Amendments did not change the existing requirement that
the court must direct to class members "the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances" or the requirement that
"individual notice" must be given to all class members identified
through a reasonable effort.

The 2018 Amendments simply recognize additional forms of notice
-- namely, electronic notice -- that are also appropriate to
consider. Specifically, the rule now authorizes notice by "United
States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means."

At the same time, the 2018 Advisory Committee cautions against
using electronic means as a default mode by suggesting that parties
and courts consider what means of notice is most appropriate under
the circumstances. In other words, while there is technically no
preference for "any one means of notice," parties and courts must
take into account "the means or combination of means most likely to
be effective in the case before the court."

II. New Notice Requirements for Proposed Class Settlements

The 2018 Amendments establish specific procedures for proposed
class settlements.

Before the recent amendments, Rule 23 required courts to approve a
class action settlement only upon the satisfaction of "a hearing
and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate." This
language left open for interpretation how individual courts would
make the determination, resulting in some courts weighing a dozen
or more factors before issuing a decision. Over time, courts
developed substantive and procedural rules governing this process,
though they often varied among jurisdictions. The 2018 Amendments
establish a more formalized process for presenting a proposed class
settlement to the court.

The Advisory Committee highlighted several factors to assist
district courts in making the determination whether to approve a
settlement:

   -- The adequacy of the representation by class representatives
and class counsel;
   -- Whether the settlement was negotiated fairly;
   -- The adequacy of the relief provided to the class; and
   -- Whether class members were treated equitably relative to one
another.

Though this is not an exhaustive list, the intention was to provide
courts with a core set of factors to create a more unified and
streamlined process for determining whether to approve
settlements.

III. Reducing Vexation Objections to Class Settlements

Proper, good faith objections to proposed settlement agreements
serve to protect the interests of class members, and therefore play
a valuable role in the class action process. But bad faith
objectors -- also known as "professional objectors" -- have filed
objections merely to extract a monetary settlement in exchange for
withdrawing their objections.

To address this problem, the 2018 Amendments now clarify the
necessary format and substance of the objections. The objection
must "state whether it applies only to the objector, to a specific
subset of the class, or to the entire class, and also state with
specificity the grounds for the objection." Further, any "payment
in connection with an objection" must be disclosed and approved by
the court. Together, these two new requirements are designed to
highlight good faith objections while dissuading vexatious
objections.

IV. Appeals of Orders Directing Notice of a Proposed Settlement No
Longer Permitted

The 2018 Amendments provide that no appeal may be taken from an
order to provide notice to a class of a proposed settlement. It
also gives the United States additional time -- specifically, 45
days -- to file a petition for permission to appeal from an order
granting or denying class certification (compared to the 14 days
allowable by any other party). The reason behind the
straightforward change is to make it clear "that an appeal under
this rule is not permitted until the district court decides whether
to certify the class."

V. Trendsetting: The Northern District of California Issues
Comprehensive Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements

It appears that the Northern District of California is the only
federal court to date that has issued its own comprehensive
guidance for class action settlements.3 In addition to conforming
to account for the 2018 Amendments, the Northern District provides
additional useful information to assist parties in negotiating, and
courts in approving, settlements. If parties fail to comply with
the guidance, the potential consequences include delay or denial of
settlement approval altogether.

Most notably, the Northern District's comprehensive guidance
requires parties to provide the court with a substantial amount of
information to gain preliminary approval for a class settlement. In
addition, during the final approval phase, counsel is required to
submit detailed information related to attorneys' fees. This
information, though aligned with the 2018 Amendments, is in some
instances considerably more comprehensive. It appears that no other
federal district court has issued its own comprehensive guidance,
so the Northern District may have paved the way for other federal
courts to follow. [GN]


[*] New Zealand Legal Experts Call for Class Action Law Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newstalk ZB reports that a major shake-up of class action law and
litigation funding in New Zealand is being debated.

Legal experts are calling for legislative changes around bringing
class action suits to court.

University of Auckland law expert Nikki Chamberlain has completed a
research paper into class actions in New Zealand. She told Mike
Hosking a legislative review could solve multiple issues which need
to be looked at.

"The lack of formal procedural rules means the involved parties are
incurring costs and delays. Class action processes would likely be
smoother with formal rules in place."

Chamberlain says compared to the likes of Australia and the US, our
current rules don't detail how they should function.

"Current problems include a lack of details on who should be the
representative plaintive and multiple trial management issues."

Class actions enable large groups of people to band together to
take on large, well-resourced entities like the government, banks
and insurers. [GN]


[*] Total Securities Class Action Settlement Value Rises to $5-Bil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The total settlement value of securities class actions rose sharply
to $5 billion in 2018, driven by five settlements of at least $100
million, according to a report released on March 25 by Cornerstone
Research.

The report, Securities Class Action Settlements -- 2018 Review and
Analysis, found that the total settlement amount approved by courts
dramatically surpassed 2017's near-historic low of $1.5 billion and
was 50 percent higher than the annual average for the prior nine
years. A single $3 billion settlement accounted for much of the
increase in 2018. There was also a notable uptick in settlements
valued between $10 million and $50 million.

At the same time, the number of settlements declined slightly to 78
from 81 settlements in 2017. The average settlement amount,
however, increased from $18.7 million to $64.9 million, and the
median amount (representing the typical case) rose from $5.1
million in 2017 to $11.3 million in 2018.

"It was unusual to see the significant increase in average and
median settlement amounts in 2018, as a number of factors typically
associated with higher settlements actually decreased," said Laura
E. Simmons, a report coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior
advisor. "Based on the observable data, our results suggest that
the increase is, at least in part, driven by economic factors
rather than case merits."

The increase in settlement dollars also was accompanied by an
increase in the ratio of settlement amounts to a proxy for
plaintiff-style damages, referred to in the report as "simplified
tiered damages." The median ratio increased to 6 percent in 2018,
compared to a median of 5.1 percent for the prior nine years.

"Publicly traded corporations have reason to be concerned over the
data," observed Stanford Law School Professor Joseph A. Grundfest,
a former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Increased payouts may pressure insurance carriers to raise the
rates they charge and the retentions they impose – which could be
challenging developments for corporations, boards, and
executives."

Key Trends

   -- The number of midsize settlements increased in 2018, with 32
cases settling from $10 million up to $50 million, representing an
approximate 60 percent increase over 2017.
   -- Small settlements (below $5 million) declined by nearly 40
percent, from 40 cases in 2017 to 25 in 2018.
   -- Average "simplified tiered damages" – a measure of
potential shareholder losses based on the dollar value of a
defendant's stock price movements on specific dates and an estimate
of the number of shares traded during the class period – rose 45
percent to $687 million. Median simplified tiered damages rose 88
percent to $250 million, compared to the 2017 low of $133 million.
   -- Consistent with the increases in settlement amounts,
defendant firms in settled cases in 2018 were 50 percent larger
than in 2017, and more than 20 percent larger than the prior five
years when measured by total assets prior to the settlement.
   -- The proportion of settled cases involving alleged GAAP
violations in 2018 was 45 percent, continuing a four-year decline
from a high of 67 percent in 2014.
   -- The proportion of settlements involving a public pension plan
as lead plaintiff continued to decline in 2018. Public pension
involvement was at its lowest level in the last 10 years.
  -- The percentage of 2018 settlements with a companion derivative
action rose to 55 percent, up from 47 percent in 2017.
   -- The level of corresponding actions brought by the Securities
and Exchange Commission has remained relatively stable, as 21
percent of the 78 cases settled in 2018 involved an accompanying
SEC action (the same rate as in 2017).
   -- The median settlement amount in 2018 for cases taking more
than two years to settle was almost five times the median
settlement amount for cases that settled within two years.

      About the Securities Class Action Settlements Report

Securities Class Action Settlements -- 2018 Review and Analysis
examines cases alleging fraudulent inflation in the price of a
corporation's common stock. The sample included only cases alleging
Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims brought by
purchasers of a corporation's common stock. This report's sample
includes 1,775 securities class actions filed after passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1995) and settled from
1996 through 2018. These settlements are identified based on a
review of case activity collected by Securities Class Action
Services LLC. For purposes of this report, the designated
settlement year corresponds to the year in which the hearing to
approve the settlement was held.

                   About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for 30 years. The firm has 700 staff and
offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, Silicon Valley and Washington.

See Cornerstone Research's website for more information about the
firm's capabilities in economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***